[Lore]

The world is not going to hold hands and come together and buy a coke while singing in perfect harmony. It will take political will and action on a grand scale. There will always be forces that will opt for what they can get today rather than think about tomorrow and this is what must be overcome.

That is my whole point. Climate change is an existential threat that everyone could come together on, however so long as either or both sides insist on making inflammatory and frequently derogatory remarks about the other sides views nobody will ever find the common ground to build upon to achieve whatever mitigation we can at this late date. And by insisting on using inflammatory language the 'leaders' who believe in climate change are destroying their only possible chance to do anything effective about the problem instead of trying to score political points off of their opponents.

There are a million and one things to play politics with, an existential threat to everyone is not one of them!

Before you can agree on a solution, you first need to get the right to admit there is a problem.

[drwater]

Lore said:

They should and we should. Why should they do it if we won't?

Because they are starting out already knowing that there is no CO2 sequestration capacity. We built our infrastructure when there was capacity and not knowing that we would be exceeding it. We have no excuse going forward in regards to new infrastructure and should be scaling back. However, the developing countries should completely skip building fossil fuel based infrastructure (at least anything in excess of their own nation's carbon sequestration rate).

[drwater]

Agent11 said:

Lol. "no right" and "China" in same sentence. China does care what it has a right to do or not in your eyes.
They're gonna do it anyway.

If we (and the Europeans) slap a carbon content tax on all their exported products until they adopt the international carbon fee, they will see the light in a hurry.

[Lore]

Lore said:

They should and we should. Why should they do it if we won't?

Because they are starting out already knowing that there is no CO2 sequestration capacity. We built our infrastructure when there was capacity and not knowing that we would be exceeding it. We have no excuse going forward in regards to new infrastructure and should be scaling back. However, the developing countries should completely skip building fossil fuel based infrastructure (at least anything in excess of their own nation's carbon sequestration rate).

That doesn't answer the question. As the world's biggest offender we should be taking the lead. Having them do as we say, not as we do, just doesn't cut it. It's our infrastructure that has for decades pumped most of the GHGs emissions into the atmosphere. We also have the wealth and technology leadership to change that.

Asking other countries to suck our gas and pound sand for themselves is a poor bargaining position.

[ralfy]

It's likely mainstream science organizations that rely on funding from businesses and governments that are part of industrial capitalism will come up with conservative views concerning the effects of global warming. In response to that, governments and businesses will support policies that call for minor decreases in emissions, etc.

[Tanada]

The world is not going to hold hands and come together and buy a coke while singing in perfect harmony. It will take political will and action on a grand scale. There will always be forces that will opt for what they can get today rather than think about tomorrow and this is what must be overcome.

That is my whole point. Climate change is an existential threat that everyone could come together on, however so long as either or both sides insist on making inflammatory and frequently derogatory remarks about the other sides views nobody will ever find the common ground to build upon to achieve whatever mitigation we can at this late date. And by insisting on using inflammatory language the 'leaders' who believe in climate change are destroying their only possible chance to do anything effective about the problem instead of trying to score political points off of their opponents.

There are a million and one things to play politics with, an existential threat to everyone is not one of them!

Before you can agree on a solution, you first need to get the right to admit there is a problem.

If the first words someone says to you are "Lore you are a racist sexist homophobic science denier" how likely are you to have a reasonable conversation with them?

I have had much greater success discussing the actual science without all the rhetoric. I often fail to convince, but I am certain I have made a few converts. The problem is even when I convert someone the next time they hear the terms climate change they also hear they have to buy into the whole doomtastic we are all gonna die and it is their fault mantra, which gives them reason to decide the science is just a smoke screen for politics.

[Lore]

The world is not going to hold hands and come together and buy a coke while singing in perfect harmony. It will take political will and action on a grand scale. There will always be forces that will opt for what they can get today rather than think about tomorrow and this is what must be overcome.

That is my whole point. Climate change is an existential threat that everyone could come together on, however so long as either or both sides insist on making inflammatory and frequently derogatory remarks about the other sides views nobody will ever find the common ground to build upon to achieve whatever mitigation we can at this late date. And by insisting on using inflammatory language the 'leaders' who believe in climate change are destroying their only possible chance to do anything effective about the problem instead of trying to score political points off of their opponents.

There are a million and one things to play politics with, an existential threat to everyone is not one of them!

Before you can agree on a solution, you first need to get the right to admit there is a problem.

If the first words someone says to you are "Lore you are a racist sexist homophobic science denier" how likely are you to have a reasonable conversation with them?

I have had much greater success discussing the actual science without all the rhetoric. I often fail to convince, but I am certain I have made a few converts. The problem is even when I convert someone the next time they hear the terms climate change they also hear they have to buy into the whole doomtastic we are all gonna die and it is their fault mantra, which gives them reason to decide the science is just a smoke screen for politics.

I believe the scientists have published no such rhetoric. So, if reason won't reach the right, what will?

Certainly not the reverse, like what Peggy Noonan gave on Sunday's Face The Nation. The right's answer to reason.

WSJ's Peggy Noonan Says Bernie Sanders Looked "Daffy" By Linking Climate Change And Terrorism
http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/11/1 ... -da/206851

[jjhman]

Apparently everyone here has forgotten that a major part of the politics of climate science is the simple fact that what we fondly call BAU depends on massive use of fossil fuels. The conservative mindset is so focused on growth and economics that anything, even and existential threat, is seen through the lens of how it affects the economy as perceived by the people who have been the most successful the way things are done now. Given that a serious change in energy use would disrupt the way things are done now, a fully commited conservative mind would reject the concept and conclude that climate change is a commie plot.

[Plantagenet]

The conservative mindset is so focused on growth and economics that anything, even and existential threat, is seen through the lens of how it affects the economy as perceived by the people who have been the most successful the way things are done now. Given that a serious change in energy use would disrupt the way things are done now, a fully commited conservative mind would reject the concept

Its not just the "conservative mindset" that is worried that a serious change in energy use will disrupt things. The "liberal mindset" as represented by the draft of the proposed UN Treaty in Paris itself is so worried that the UN Treaty will allow continued use of fossil fuels---and under the UN treaty fossil fuel use will go UP!

Thats right----under the proposed UN treaty as now drafted fossil fuel use would continue to INCREASE until 2035. Only then, after 20 years of increases in fossil fuel use and increases in CO2 emissions would the Paris treaty call for decreases in fossil fuel use. And those would be purely voluntary----the Paris treaty won't be binding in any way. SO chances are the decreases will never happen, just as they didn't happen under the voluntary Kyoto Accords.

The only way to stop global warming is to get past the "conservative" vs."liberal" trap and go all the way to RADICAL. We need RADICAL thinking here. We need to actually REDUCE CO2 emissions---not increase them as both liberals and conservatives are content to do.

Cheers!


Fossil Fuel use will INCREASE! under the proposed UN climate treaty

[ennui2]

Let me give you a right wing plan.

There can't BE a right wing plan because the right won't even acknowledge AGW. They also will never endorse a tax (like a carbon tax) of any kind. So you aren't describing a right-wing plan. You are describing your own personal platform which is disconnected from the GOP mainstream, who are more interested in complaining about the f*cking design of Starbucks coffee cups than anything else.

[ennui2]

We need to actually REDUCE CO2 emissions---not increase them as both liberals and conservatives are content to do.

Which is ironic, coming from someone who supported Sarah (Drill Baby Drill) Palin in 2008 and has never withdrawn it, and someone who lives in a petro-state that probably would not be able to function without oil revenue.

The funniest thing is that Planty's main hobby in life is outing Obama as a hypocrite while being blind to his own glaring hypocrisy.

Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

Let me give you a right wing plan.

There can't BE a right wing plan....

Ennui/mos is a bit of a simpleton. To him, whatever O and the Ds say must be right. If O says he will stop the seas from rising, then ennui/mos swallows the claim without question, without ever wondering why the seas are still rising and why scientists say that O's plans will result in an increase in the rate at which the seas rise. If something is labelled an "R" plan then ennui/mos can't even bear to discuss it----it isn't the right color.

We really need to get past the "D vs R" and "right vs. left" game the people like ennui think is so important, and start doing what is needed to actually solve problems.

The Chinese have a saying...."it doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as longs it catches mice."

ennui/mos is still focusing on the color of the cat.


It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as longs it catches mice.

[Lore]

We really need to get past the "D vs R" and "right vs. left" game the people like ennui think is so important, and start doing what is needed to actually solve problems.

Okay then, why don't you start and give up the yammering about Obama and Hillary?

For instance Copenhagen was a failure of our US system of government, not the President. The President was the only person in authority that couldn't make a deal on the spot because he has to go back to the Congress.

[PeterEV]

Planetagenet said:

"The only way to stop global warming is to get past the "conservative" vs."liberal" trap and go all the way to RADICAL. We need RADICAL thinking here. We need to actually REDUCE CO2 emissions---not increase them as both liberals and conservatives are content to do."

...and get away from labeling each other with words that a kindergarten teacher would have sent someone into "time out". The ideas and facts are the important things. Can they be vetted? Is there some truth behind what someone has equated? Is there cause behind the correlation?

Although "Radical" has implications of anarchy, etc., the main question should be what should we invest in that will decrease our use of FF fuels?

With Planetagenet living in "Central Alaska", his approach would be a lot different than someone living in a fairly windless but sunny clime such as North Carolina versus someone in a cloudy but windy area such as someone in the upper Great Plains.

I read where Britain will be shutting down its coal fired steam plants by 2025 but how are they going to keep the residential pipes from freezing? I am hoping that the Paris CC Conf will lead to such thinking and plan creations.

[Plantagenet]

Copenhagen was a failure of our US system of government, not the President.

The US system of government wasn't at Copenhagen---Obama was at Copenhagen. The treaty drafted at Bali wasn't ratified at Copenhagen because early on Obama and the Chinese got into a tiff, triggered by Obama barging into a private meeting called by the Chinese leader for non-western countries. Obama caused quite a sensation as he barged into the meeting, pushed his way up to the podium, waited for the Chinese leader to step aside, and then took over the meeting, community organizer style.

The Chinese took exception to this. In Chinese culture respect for elders, leader, hosts, etc. is important, and the Chinese saw Obama's attempt to take over their meeting as rude and insulting to them and their leader, especially as Obama did it in front of all the leaders of other non-western countries. Obama tried to make up for it---he realized he had done something stupid---and he invited the Chinese leader to a private meeting, but the Chinese sent a lower level functionary to the meeting instead of their leader---a classic Chinese insult to Obama. Things got worse from there.

Basically Obama's foolishness single handedly derailed the Copenhagen meeting. Because of Obama's foolish behavior the chance for ratifying a binding UN treaty to reduce CO2 emissions is now lost for at least another generation. Its taken another 6 years to draft a much different and much weaker treaty for consideration at the upcoming Paris conference. Lets hope Obama does't screw it up again.....

cheers!

[AgentR11]

If we (and the Europeans) slap a carbon content tax on all their exported products until they adopt the international carbon fee, they will see the light in a hurry.

Maybe 30 years ago... Not today. Not to mention all the complications that WTO, etc, would throw into such a one sided response. They'd essentially have carte-blanche to impose any dumb protective or counter tariff or tax they would care too.

Heck, that'd probably play into Xi's hand pretty well, he needs to, and desires to, ween his economy off of exports as a source of growth; but its really hard to (even for China) distort the existing market while staying within the various trade rules; but once you have a counterable, unilateral action to respond to, you can shape that response in whatever way serves your domestic priorities best.

Not dissimilar to sanctions against Russia, which have given Putin a free hand to smush the oligarchs he wanted to smush, weaken the trade he wanted to weaken, and boost the capabilities he wanted to boost. Complete free pass.

Sanctions or tarriffs should never be viewed as an "applied punishment", they are an alteration in trade flow. They disadvantage both sides, both the initiator and target of the sanction; and they all the target of the sanction to make the countering tarriff after the initiators tarriff is fully disclosed. And that counter tarriff will be the most annoying, painful response possible for the initiator to endure. (see Euro ag product ban, for an example)

Other than crippled economies that are dependent on imports for either energy or food calories; sanctions never work to produce the claimed desired outcome; and usually don't even significantly weaken the target.

Who is harmed by sanctions more, Russia which has excess food, excess energy, excess land; or Ukraine who will now be subject to counter sanctions banning all their food imports into Russia which accounts for a substantial percentage of their ability to pay to not freeze to death.

Sanctions to Russia means chocolate bars are more expensive.
Counter sanctions of equivalent magnitude means people in Ukraine may freeze to death.

That's the difference between a crippled economy, and a well functioning economy, between the initiators sanction, and the similar magnitude response. Russia didn't obey, they adjusted their import regs to balance ex-im / exchange rate; basically exchanging luxury chocolate bars for solid, modern industrial and agricultural jobs. And the effect is permanent. Even if European sanctions against Russia came down, they'd never be able to recover those markets, because they can no longer compete on price in their domestic markets.

China is the epitome of a well functioning economy. Your suggestion gives Xi the tool he needs to shift the Chinese economy forcefully without generating protest, and without generating substantial hardship. What it won't do is reduce China's CO2 output. So no, China's response won't be to do what you want them to do in response to your fee; they will do what balances the ex-im equation in the way that is the most painful to the US and Europe; most likely by a tarrif on imports from the EU/US, likely on higher margin ag products like wine, cheese, juice concentrates, beef... Or... imagine an import tariff of $200 per OS seat license? $200 per application package/license. $5/seat on movies. $1/song $3/album. Don't think they couldn't ding us just as hard as we can ding them. The nature of export/import trade guarantees that ANY functional economy can ding you back just as hard, and the responder has a huge advantage over the initiator.

[Lore]

edit

[AgentR11]

Let me give you a right wing plan.

There can't BE a right wing plan because the right won't even acknowledge AGW. They also will never endorse a tax (like a carbon tax) of any kind. So you aren't describing a right-wing plan. You are describing your own personal platform which is disconnected from the GOP mainstream, who are more interested in complaining about the f*cking design of Starbucks coffee cups than anything else.

Tada.. Thus, the Democrats define their opposition in such a way that progress can not be made unless their opposition capitulates and grovels on the ground.

Pure and simply proof, the US will not, EVER, do anything substantial with regard to climate change.

You are more interested in getting the R's to say, "you're right about AGW", than you are in crafting a response that could seriously reduce emissions. Agreement about AGW is NOT required in order to fight emisions. Agreement about AGW is however required, in order to expand the size of government.

Yes, Republicans WILL discuss taxes, as long as the total revenue of the government does not increase, and preferably decreases some. What Republicans will have nothing to do with, is a new tax that is used to fund mailing checks out to people for no good reason, Hanson's "fee and dividend" being the most obnoxious possible example.

Tell Republicans you're going to repeal the corporate income tax and replace it with a nondiscriminatory carbon tax, they'll jump all over you in celebration.

If you want Republicans to cooperate, you're going to have to make nice, and make them joyful to cooperate. ie, you're going to have to concede on something that will make you really ticked off. If you just want to fight the issue till the world burns, then carry on, you're doing fine.

[Tanada]

Let me give you a right wing plan.

There can't BE a right wing plan because the right won't even acknowledge AGW. They also will never endorse a tax (like a carbon tax) of any kind. So you aren't describing a right-wing plan. You are describing your own personal platform which is disconnected from the GOP mainstream, who are more interested in complaining about the f*cking design of Starbucks coffee cups than anything else.

Tada.. Thus, the Democrats define their opposition in such a way that progress can not be made unless their opposition capitulates and grovels on the ground.

Pure and simply proof, the US will not, EVER, do anything substantial with regard to climate change.

You are more interested in getting the R's to say, "you're right about AGW", than you are in crafting a response that could seriously reduce emissions. Agreement about AGW is NOT required in order to fight emisions. Agreement about AGW is however required, in order to expand the size of government.

Yes, Republicans WILL discuss taxes, as long as the total revenue of the government does not increase, and preferably decreases some. What Republicans will have nothing to do with, is a new tax that is used to fund mailing checks out to people for no good reason, Hanson's "fee and dividend" being the most obnoxious possible example.

Tell Republicans you're going to repeal the corporate income tax and replace it with a nondiscriminatory carbon tax, they'll jump all over you in celebration.

If you want Republicans to cooperate, you're going to have to make nice, and make them joyful to cooperate. ie, you're going to have to concede on something that will make you really ticked off. If you just want to fight the issue till the world burns, then carry on, you're doing fine.

Correct, and that was the point I was trying to communicate unsuccessfully to Lore earlier in this thread. What is more important calling your opponents names and preventing an agreement to deal with climate change, or doing your victory dance because on this occasion science says warming is happening and your constant flow of invective prevents the other side from accepting the science?

https://0ff0f830cbf9ba0c2349-851b178cb1 ... 199096.jpg

[Lore]

Correct, and that was the point I was trying to communicate unsuccessfully to Lore earlier in this thread. What is more important calling your opponents names and preventing an agreement to deal with climate change, or doing your victory dance because on this occasion science says warming is happening and your constant flow of invective prevents the other side from accepting the science?

And as I said the point is irrelevant. Politicians are suppose to work with facts on the ground. That is unless we are electing grade school kids. The scientists are not running victory laps and are not calling out names. They are presenting a dangerous set of facts. If your preaching willful ignorance because of hurt feelings in being called a name by the someone in the general public maybe its time to get people with a thicker skin able to do the right thing.