[ralfy]

The goal of governments is not to decrease economic growth but to ensure that it continues. That's because the tax revenues and investments made on public works come from the same growth. At the same time, the public wants middle class conveniences and will vote for governments that ensure such, with any "green" effort employed as a palliative to show that they are doing something concerning the environment.

This explains why reduction of activities amounts to small cuts in emission increases, and why carbon trading is encouraged as it allows for more financial speculation.

Of course, as everything is ultimately based on physics (which includes not just global warming and pollution but also peak oil as part of limits to growth), then economic growth won't last.

[KaiserJeep]

The true goal of governments is to make some apes more equal than the other apes, in the Orwellian sense. As such, governments represent an improvement over Kings and their virtually constant warfare. Governments depend upon votes, which require catering to the odd desires of the general populace, including their desire to be free from conflicts.

I mean really, did you honestly think that either HRC or Trump was gonna improve things for YOU?

[Plantagenet]

I mean really, did you honestly think that either HRC or Trump was gonna improve things for YOU?

Of course not. Thats why I didn't vote for either of them.

I expected the worst from Trump, but he hasn't been as bad as I feared and IMHO he isn't as bad as the Ds and the MSM makes him out to be. For instance, if the tax calculator at the WSJ is correct, the Trump tax cut which the Ds and the MSM claim is a stealth tax increase, in my case turns out to actually be a very nice tax cut and is going to save me about $5K on my taxes next year.

Anyway, in another year the Ds will take over the house of representatives and we'll be back to divided government again.

[dohboi]

"... he hasn't been as bad as I feared..." Give him a bit more time...he seems to be gearing up to start a war based on appointments of folks like Bolton. On the other hand, if he really does make peace with North Korea, diffuse tensions with Russia, get us out of Syria...they make take the O man's Peace Prize away and give it to the T man!

Meanwhile, back on topic-ish...

The linked SkS article concludes that as extant measurements of climate change are uncertain, fighting climate change simply comes down to cutting carbon pollution as fast as possible. Unfortunately, the business world believes that if something is not worth measuring then it is not worth doing.

Title: "Climate scientists debate a flaw in the Paris climate agreement"

https://www.skepticalscience.com/flaw-p ... hurer.html

Extract: "The debate lies in exactly how the Paris climate target is defined and measured, which has not been precisely established. Millar’s team used the UK Met Office and Hadley Centre global surface temperature dataset called HadCRUT4, which begins in 1850 and estimates global surface temperatures have warmed about 0.9°C since that time. The team thus calculated the remaining carbon budget that will lead to an additional 0.6°C warming.

But HadCRUT4 has some significant flaws. First, it only covers 84% of Earth’s surface. There are large gaps in its coverage, mainly in the Arctic, Antarctica, and Africa, where temperature monitoring stations are relatively scarce. And the Arctic is the fastest-warming part of the planet, which means that HadCRUT4 somewhat underestimates global warming.

A second issue is that over the oceans, HadCRUT4 uses sea surface temperatures, which haven’t warmed quite as fast as air temperatures directly above the ocean surface. There’s also a third issue – what’s the start date from which we want to stay below 1.5 or 2°C warming? The starting point in HadCRUT4 is 1850, but another recent study led by Schurer found that starting even earlier would add up to 0.2°C to the warming we’ve already caused, and thus shrink the remaining carbon budget.

Taken all together, these three issues could mean that we’ve already warmed 0.2–0.3°C more than estimated in the Millar study, which would mean a significantly smaller carbon budget. Each additional 0.1°C warming shrinks the remaining 2°C carbon budget by about 20%, so in that sense even one-tenth of a degree is important in answering this question about our chances of meeting the Paris targets.
…
It’s simple: cut carbon pollution as much and as fast as possible"

(Thanks to aslr at asif for link and text)

[vtsnowedin]

Dohboi wrote:

It’s simple: cut carbon pollution as much and as fast as possible"

We will be hard pressed to cut carbon pollution at all on a world wide basis. Any cuts in consumption we make in the West will be counterbalanced by increases in China , India and the rest of the third world.
What we could do here in the USA is have the states increase the gas/diesel tax by fifty cents a gallon or more and use the money to repair their infrastructure paying cash instead of floating bonds. Phased in gradually at a nickel or dime increase every six months people would have the time to change their vehicles and driving habits without undue hardship.
I say have the States do it to avoid sending the money to Washington and then have politics skim off a huge chunk of the money.
This would be in effect a carbon tax as every 100 gallons is converted to a metric ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. For example a vehicle getting 22mpg and driven 12,000 miles per year burns 545 gallons a year and would pay $272.50 in carbon tax while a big SUV getting 17MPG would pay $352.
A very strong incentive to buy smaller more efficient cars and to drive less total miles and boost EV sales.
I think this would work much better then the current EPA CAFE (if they still call them that) standards that the Obama administration put in place and Trump is considering repealing.

[dohboi]

"What we could do here in the USA is have the states increase the gas/diesel tax by fifty cents a gallon or more..."

Good idea, but do you think many other conservatives would be willing to get on board for that?

[ROCKMAN]

vt - "What we could do here in the USA is have the states increase the gas/diesel tax by fifty cents a gallon or more." Same question I asked before: who is this "we", white man? Seriously: did I miss the "Million Man March" in D.C. demanding that motor fuel taxes be increased? Have you conducted a pole an discovered that a majority of "we" Americans are in favor of such an increase? Yes, it's easy to frame any subject in abstract terms. Terms such as "we" when you don't identify or quantify the term.

dohboi - And to your comment: in theory if every conservative Congress critter up for re-election in the next cycle supported such an increase do you think all their liberal opponents would agree with that position? Or at least a majority of those liberals? Or do you think the liberals would avoid such a discussion complete in hopes of picking up voters that were pissed off about such an increase?

BTW have you researched how much the federal govt increased motor fuel taxes when liberals controlled both the Congress and the White House?

[vtsnowedin]

"What we could do here in the USA is have the states increase the gas/diesel tax by fifty cents a gallon or more..."

Good idea, but do you think many other conservatives would be willing to get on board for that?

Depends on the marketing. As a way to balance the budget, stoke the economy, put people to work, and get the environmentalist off our back, a great communicator could make the case.
Not likely I know with the present crowd in D.C. but one can always hope for a better crop after the next election. Or more likely the one after that.

[dohboi]

"balance the budget, stoke the economy, put people to work, and get the environmentalist off our back"

Yeah, as you say, these don't seem to be big priorities with the current crop of Repubs in DC now.

Thanks for your response though, (and for not deflecting to the tired 'but what about...' response evidenced by certain others ).

Meanwhile, a bit more back on topic:

India's Paris Agreement pledge was to reduce its carbon intensity. Thus its carbon emissions are continuing to increase rapidly because its economic is growing rapidly:

Why India’s CO2 emissions grew strongly in 2017

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post- ... ly-in-2017

India’s CO2 emissions grew by an estimated 4.6% in 2017, despite a turbulent year for its economy.

Measured per person, India’s emissions are still very low – at only 1.8 tonnes of CO2 per capita – which is much lower than the world average of 4.2 tonnes. But those emissions have been growing steadily, with an average growth rate over the past decade of 6%.

With India being the world’s fourth largest emitter of CO2, it is important to understand what the country’s emissions are currently and where they might be headed. Given India’s early stage of economic development, low per-capita emissions and its large population, there is significant scope for its emissions to increase.

India’s pledge under the Paris Agreement is to reduce the carbon intensity (see below) of its economy by 33-35% by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. Given projections of very strong economic growth over this period, emissions are expected to grow significantly

.

(Thanks as often to aslr at asif for link and text)

[Newfie]

vt - "What we could do here in the USA is have the states increase the gas/diesel tax by fifty cents a gallon or more." Same question I asked before: who is this "we", white man? Seriously: did I miss the "Million Man March" in D.C. demanding that motor fuel taxes be increased? Have you conducted a pole an discovered that a majority of "we" Americans are in favor of such an increase? Yes, it's easy to frame any subject in abstract terms. Terms such as "we" when you don't identify or quantify the term.

dohboi - And to your comment: in theory if every conservative Congress critter up for re-election in the next cycle supported such an increase do you think all their liberal opponents would agree with that position? Or at least a majority of those liberals? Or do you think the liberals would avoid such a discussion complete in hopes of picking up voters that were pissed off about such an increase?

BTW have you researched how much the federal govt increased motor fuel taxes when liberals controlled both the Congress and the White House?

And therein lies the rub, to do anything substantial on this topic one needs to convience the majority of voters to set aside their personal short term interests and promote planning that will benefit future generations.

Such action is not in our genes. Sure ther is the odd person who can do this, but not our population as a whole.

[M_B_S]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... be6b5aa804

The oceans’ circulation hasn’t been this sluggish in 1,000 years. That’s bad news.

As for the future, Rahmstorf predicts the circulation will only weaken further as climate change advances. It may not be slow and steady: There is great fear that there may be a “tipping point” where the circulation comes to an abrupt halt.

This is one of the most infamous scenarios for abrupt climate change, as it is known: Studies from the planet’s history suggest that such a sudden change in the North Atlantic has occurred many times in Earth’s past, perhaps as recently as about 13,000 years ago. But it’s not clear how close the tipping point might be.

“I think in the long run … Greenland will start melting even faster, so I think the long-term prospect for that ocean circulation system is that it will weaken further,” Rahmstorf said. “And I think that’s going to affect all of us, basically, in a negative way.”...
******************
We told you so >10 years ago.

Yoda study DOD

[careinke]

"What we could do here in the USA is have the states increase the gas/diesel tax by fifty cents a gallon or more..."

Good idea, but do you think many other conservatives would be willing to get on board for that?

I do. The real question is whether the Libs will buy off on it. I offer Washington State and the recent failure of a carbon tax Initiative to support my argument.

[Subjectivist]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/11/the-oceans-circulation-hasnt-been-this-sluggish-in-1000-years-thats-bad-news/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c3be6b5aa804

The oceans’ circulation hasn’t been this sluggish in 1,000 years. That’s bad news.

As for the future, Rahmstorf predicts the circulation will only weaken further as climate change advances. It may not be slow and steady: There is great fear that there may be a “tipping point” where the circulation comes to an abrupt halt.

This is one of the most infamous scenarios for abrupt climate change, as it is known: Studies from the planet’s history suggest that such a sudden change in the North Atlantic has occurred many times in Earth’s past, perhaps as recently as about 13,000 years ago. But it’s not clear how close the tipping point might be.

“I think in the long run … Greenland will start melting even faster, so I think the long-term prospect for that ocean circulation system is that it will weaken further,” Rahmstorf said. “And I think that’s going to affect all of us, basically, in a negative way.”...
******************
We told you so >10 years ago.

Yoda study DOD

Those slow times were from cycling out of major glaciation. Ven if all of Greenland melted apidly it wouldn't hold a candle to the end of the laurentide ice sheet that dropped sea level about 130 meters below current levels. All of Greenland is 7 meters, less than 5 percent of the volume of water that caused the slow down 13,000 ybp.

[vtsnowedin]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/11/the-oceans-circulation-hasnt-been-this-sluggish-in-1000-years-thats-bad-news/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c3be6b5aa804

The oceans’ circulation hasn’t been this sluggish in 1,000 years. That’s bad news.

As for the future, Rahmstorf predicts the circulation will only weaken further as climate change advances. It may not be slow and steady: There is great fear that there may be a “tipping point” where the circulation comes to an abrupt halt.

This is one of the most infamous scenarios for abrupt climate change, as it is known: Studies from the planet’s history suggest that such a sudden change in the North Atlantic has occurred many times in Earth’s past, perhaps as recently as about 13,000 years ago. But it’s not clear how close the tipping point might be.

“I think in the long run … Greenland will start melting even faster, so I think the long-term prospect for that ocean circulation system is that it will weaken further,” Rahmstorf said. “And I think that’s going to affect all of us, basically, in a negative way.”...
******************
We told you so >10 years ago.

Yoda study DOD

Those slow times were from cycling out of major glaciation. Ven if all of Greenland melted apidly it wouldn't hold a candle to the end of the laurentide ice sheet that dropped sea level about 130 meters below current levels. All of Greenland is 7 meters, less than 5 percent of the volume of water that caused the slow down 13,000 ybp.

That doesn't make any sense at all.
If the circulation stopped by some unimaginable means the heat radiating out from the poles during their dark winter would not be replaced by circulating water from the tropics and all polar melting would cease.
Also hot water not leaving the tropics would just get hotter and hotter until it evaporated and created tremendous rain storms across the equatorial belt. You would have super cold poles and super hot tropics and heat flows from hot to cold so circulation would promptly be reestablished.

[M_B_S]

The Facts are on the table we must take action on fossil fuel industry!




Oil Coal Gas is not the solution it is the problem:

Burn it and you and I will burn on this planet too very soon.

Remember the summer 2018 ff....

WARNING WARNING WARNING