Senate Rules Out Majority Vote for Cap and Trade
A strong bipartisan majority in the United States Senate took a firm stand in favor of requiring 60 votes to pass any kind of cap and trade legislation:
[Senator Mike] Johanns and his allies were critical of the idea of passing major legislation outside of normal Senate procedure, which requires 60 votes end debate on a bill; the budget process requires only simple majority votes, taking away the filibuster option and making it possible to pass a cap-and-trade measure without any Republican support (Democrats hold 58 of the Senate’s 100 seats).
Democrats who voted with Johanns were: Max Baucus (Mont.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Russ Feingold (Wis.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Jim Webb (Va.).
This is good for Republicans, since it helps them achieve their goal of destroying the planet. And it’s good for Democrats, since it helps them achieve their goal of pretending to try to avoid the destruction of the planet while ensuring that, in practice, the planet is destroyed. And Senators Johanns was born in 1950, so he’ll almost surely be dead by 2050 (along with countless residents of flood-prone areas of the developing world) so it’s basically all good.
126 Responses to “Senate Rules Out Majority Vote for Cap and Trade”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Russ Freakin Feingold??!! WTF??!!
Living under the American political system sure can be depressing.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Matt, could you overlay the states represented by those Senators with a map of the states that supply coal?
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Assholes.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
This is good for Republicans, since it helps them achieve their goal of destroying the planet.
To be fair to Republicans, their goal is not to destroy the planet. Their goal is, rather more modestly, to simply make in uninhabitable for human life at our current standard of living. Once we’re all reduced to refugees at the mercy of the elements and vast swathes of the earth are either underwater or so hot that or barren that they cannot support non-nomadic human settlement, then the Republican goal will have been achieved, and the destruction of the planet itself simply isn’t necessary.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
This is good news for David Broder.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Russ Freakin Feingold??!! WTF??!!
Feingold can go all purity-troll without much warning — I’m guessing he doesn’t like the reconciliation process at all, never mind using it as a stalking horse for ‘ordinary’ legislation. Byrd ditto, and that’s without even considering the coal in WVa.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
We go through this endless thing. Once again, let the EPA issue a ruling that delegates executive responsibility to the tort system.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Good news for poor Americans, who might yet avoid being saddled with an enormous regressive tax in the form of the steeply higher energy costs cap & trade would impose on them. Good news too, for those blue collar workers making good money drilling for oil and natural gas, or mining coal in PA, LA, WV, MT, etc.
The planet will be fine, even if it bucks the recent cooling trend and warms up a degree or two over the next century. Life on earth thrived in the past when the climate was warmer and the atmosphere had more CO2 than it does today.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Holy shit! Krugman just came out against nationalization! Follow the link to read the whole interview.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
The planet will be fine, even if it bucks the recent cooling trend and warms up a degree or two over the next century. Life on earth thrived in the past when the climate was warmer and the atmosphere had more CO2 than it does today.
Um yes but not since the early Tertiary, turdbrain. Your statement demonstrates rank, obstinate ignorance. Avail yourself of some information, dipsh*t.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I love the way Matt assumes that those opposed to this “want to destroy the planet”. Never mind that many people have deep skepticism about this being a crisis; never mind that the plans Matt would love to see enacted would price energy use out of reach for a ton of people and drive nearly all manufacturing out of the US.
No, we simply want to destroy the planet.
And then people like Matt wonder why it’s so hard to have discourse…
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
This is good for Republicans, since it helps them achieve their goal of destroying the planet.
Dear me. Someone’s an unhappy camper this morning.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
If you give enough of the proceeds back on a flat basis, cap & trade need not be regressive.
And ponies for everyone means everyone has a pony!
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
James, because god knows the Republican party has long been trying to preserve America’s manufacturing base…
The reason it’s hard to have a dialogue is because scum like you are completely dishonest. One day, you’ll say one thing. The next day, you’ll say something entirely different. Today, you love manufacturing. When it comes to the auto-bailout, you hate it. You love poor people if you can use them as a shield for your corporatist BS, but you hate them if they, I don’t know, demand an education or healthcare for their children. You’re a pure sophist, you don’t even have a soul.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I’m not feeling that enlightened by the continuing semantic pseudo-argument between people who already know where they stand on this issue. The information is out there, if charles & co. actually want to inform themselves; if they prefer to trash-talk, that’s fine, but it’s not a good use of my time.
What I would find useful is more practical discussion about best strategies for political action, among people who share some of the same assumptions.
For instance, if we want to put pressure on Congress, what are the best groups to contribute to? Should I spend my time dialing for DNC/OFA, or just give more money to Al Gore’s group, or what?
We’re not powerless on this issue. The question is just, how do we best take action — and when is the best time to do so? I know there are people who understand the political terrain better than I do, and I would appreciate more information and/or opinions about strategy.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
What’s really good is that we won’t waste hundreds of billions of dollars trying to avert a world-wide calamity that exists only in the minds of liberals desperately hoping to do something “great.” As someone who has voted Democratic every year since 1972 (voted for Dick Gregory on the way to Vietnam back in ‘68), I am sooooooooooooo skeptical when it comes to Al Gore environmentalists.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Your post makes no sense soullite. Republicans generally don’t believe in massive government intervention in the economy. Both auto-bailouts and massive energy taxation are interventions. It’s not really that hard to figure out. Try closing your foul mouth and using your brain.
I don’t know when Matt started trying to imitate Atrios in everything he did, but saying Republicans want to destroy the planet is on par with Glenn Beck saying fascism is coming to America. Welcome to the completely disingenuous hack world Matt.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
another thing that’s a crappy use of our time: explaining the concept of irony to people who either can’t understand it, or pretend not to
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Your post makes no sense soullite.
It’s not supposed to make sense. It’s just meant to vent Soullite’s uncontrollable rage at people who disagree with him. Same as usual.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
You do get wound up. I would recommend cutting back on the amphetamines.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
This is kind of off the topic, but I was just wondering: All the climate-change deniers on this thread…how do you feel about the validity of the theory of evolution? Could we get a quick head count on that?
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:04 pm
The global warming denialist view is exactly comparable to the Laffer Curve “tax cuts always produce revenue increases” view in that it is almost entirely discredited by the vast majority of experts and ideologically independent third-parties and has credence only as the result of many years of a coordinated and concerted right-wing disinformation campaign. It’s very disturbing.
I’m not an ardent environmentalist and long watched the evolving global warming debate with a certain amount of skepticism. But, the verdict is in. It’s real and it’s human-caused. And it’s seriously dangerous. Ironically, I think there’s less reason to worry about it for environmentalist reasons than for humanitarian reasons. There’s no strong indication that we’re headed for a runaway greenhouse effect (which would be the worst possible, most horrifying outcome) and life will adjust and some species will go extinct but probably more will thrive. It’s humans, however, that will bear the brunt of rising ocean levels, especially the poor in the developing world.
I do think that we should balance the effects of policies on the present poor in the developing world against their effects on reducing misery in the future. Some policies might cause as much current misery as they avoid future misery (by totally stifling economic development, say). But ocean levels are going to rise. How badly this works out is still within our capacity to change by controlling how much more carbon we pump into the atmosphere in the coming decades.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Okay, so, putting my money where my mouth is, here’s my probably naive strategy:
1) Keep donating to Repower America, since they seem to be the most prominent group for whom this is Issue #1.
2) But, for the moment, husband my finite resources of shoe leather and dialing time. I’m not convinced that the powers that be are going to push hard to get something done on this issue this year — I suspect the better timing will be post-Copenhagen.
3) When I feel like the window for action is opening, stop what I’m doing and try to actually contribute by taking action.
That could be a stupid plan; I welcome advice, especially from people who understand the inside baseball of legislative strategy. On that topic, I’m happy to be trash-talked and abused as much as you like. Might actually learn something.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
As someone who has voted Democratic every year since 1972 (voted for Dick Gregory on the way to Vietnam back in ‘68), I am sooooooooooooo skeptical when it comes to Al Gore environmentalists.
As a American in his 20s, I just want you to know my generation has deep respect for your generation’s accomplishments. We value and await your opinions on topics such as this, because we know you act only out of selflessness, always with an eye towards the future, and you would not hesitate to sacrifice personal comfort for the well-being of future generations.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Even if we stop emitting even a single mole of CO2 tomorrow we’re still screwed.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
It’s not April 1st anymore.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
All the climate-change deniers on this thread…how do you feel about the validity of the theory of evolution?
Define “climate-change deniers.”
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Someday, in all probability, all the naysayers will get the chance to say “who could have foreseen?” in the grand tradition of know nothing politicians and ostriches of every stripe and flavor.
We know we are facing major climate issues, even if we don’t exactly the shape or degree of calamity we face. It would be nice if we could follow the Cheney 1% rule when it doesn’t involve invading another county.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
We know we are facing major climate issues, even if we don’t exactly the shape or degree of calamity we face.
We don’t know that we are facing “calamity” at all. And not only do we not know “exactly” how serious a problem climate change will be, we don’t even know roughly how serious it will be.
Proponents of action on climate change might have a teeny bit more credibility if they didn’t constantly make claims that go far beyond what the scientific and economic analysis supports.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
“Proponents of action on climate change might have a teeny bit more credibility if they didn’t constantly make claims that go far beyond what the scientific and economic analysis supports.”
Compare with the people poo-pooing Krugman, Shiller, Roubini two years ago.
Exactly who turned out to be correct then? The people warning of problems, or the people claiming that capitalism was self-correcting?
You idiots were wrong about Iraq. You were wrong about the financial bubble. But, undeterred, you’re just as happy to bloviate about one more thing you know fsck-all about.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I said this on a prior post, and I think I will keep writing this as long as Mr. Yglesias keeps using alarmist language like “opponents of cap-and-trade want to destroy the planet”.
1) How sure are you that business-as-usual GHG emissions will have catastrophic geologic and economic harms?
2) How sure are you that such harms would be worse than the economic cost of cutting energy use or switching energy sources in order to cut GHG emissions?
3) How sure are you that your desired GHG emissions cuts would avert the forecasted geologic harm — particularly if developing countries are not also cutting GHG?
By the way, I am a committed environmentalist and a supporter of renewable energy. (I work primarily with renewable energy in my day job.)
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Clearly I now must de-friend Feingold on Facebook. I wonder how he’ll take it.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Compare with the people poo-pooing Krugman, Shiller, Roubini two years ago.
Compare proponents of action on climate change with “the people poo-pooing Krugman, Shiller, Roubini two years ago?” Why? What’s that supposed to tell us?
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Charles says:
Proponents of action on climate change might have a teeny bit more credibility if they didn’t constantly make claims that go far beyond what the scientific and economic analysis supports.
So what do the scientific and economic analysis support?
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
{sigh} nbt, you sound sincerely curious. Look up the IPCC report — easily googled. Then use wikipedia to get a list of the int’l scientific organizations that have endorsed the IPCC conclusions. The heavy hitters from a lot of different disciplines are on that list.
Then look up the cost-benefit analysis done by McKinsey consulting.
Here’s a link:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/greenhousegas.asp
McKinsey is not usually viewed as a crew of rabid tree-huggers; google a list of their clients and you’ll see it’s very corporate.
Finally, I’m puzzled by your use of the phrase “geologic harm.” Most of the likely consequences of climate change are not geologic. The “planet” will survive just fine, if by planet you mean this ball of rock. Life will go on. It’s just that rainfall patterns will change, forests will burn, coral reefs will be decimated, people will starve — and, eventually, sea levels will rise. Not a big deal on the geologic timescale, but it’ll suck for our children.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Have you learned enough to interpret the published scientific literature? If not, have you analyzed the opinions and reputations of various scientists speaking out on the topic? If not, have you followed the appraisels of arguments of those scientists as they are critiqued by others knowledgeble in those areas?
Or have you just decided that environmentalists are always wrong and Al Gore is a serial exaggerator.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Basically the entire scientific community involved in studying climate is certain that human created greenhouse gases are and will continue to warm the planet by large amounts. That’s a FACT. The chances that pretty much every scientist is wrong on this are very small. The do-nothing strategy to greenhouse gases is an enormous and foolish gamble.
So what if the planet warms up? Coastal flooding, mass immigrant populations (people cannot live underwater), rainfall changes – all of these will destabilize weak governments and exacerbate other tensions within communities. War will be the result, and if you think that the US won’t get involved then you haven’t been paying attention for the past 100 years.
We are going to save ourselves a few dollars now in doing nothing to regulate greenhouse gases so that we can get enmeshed in 10 other “Iraqs” down the road, totalling trillions upon trillions of dollars.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
What no one brings up there’s a list of scientists out there that disagree’s with Global Climate Change, its got like four thousand names on it.
Yes I know, some were put on the list who actually understand and agree with Global Climate Change.
Yes I know, many of the people on the list aren’t really scientists or are from a very distant field (I get all my Paleoclimatology research from dentists, don’t you?)
And yes I know, a list of four thousand scientists world wide is kinda small compared the two-hundred thousand Geophysicts alone… But still, there’s a few scientists who disagree!!!
Finally, I understand the Political tinkering has caused forecasts to have to include a bit too much into nothing bad will happen, and that’s why every year we find out its a lot worse than we expected.
But if a few degree’s warmer were good enough for Dinosaurs, than damn it, its good enough for us humans who are rich enough to adapt to the massively changing fresh water distribution.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
@40: yep, that about sums up the argument for inaction
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.
Syun Akasofu, Ph.D, University Of Alaska
Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D, Anderson Materials Evaluation
J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
Colin Barton Csiro, (retired)
David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Roger Cohen, Ph.D, Fellow, American Physical Society
Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D, Past-President, Italian Geological Society
Susan Crockford, Ph.D, University Of Victoria
Joseph S. D’aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
Upon Tyne, (retired)
Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology
Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society
Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates
Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired)
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig
Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics
Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Director, Inttas (Paraguay)
Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa
James Goodridge, California State Climatologist, (retired)
Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford
Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition
William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University
Kenneth E. Green, D.Env., American Enterprise Institute
Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University
Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University
Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut, (emeritus)
Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona, (emeritus)
Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy, (retired)
Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth
Bernd Huettner, Ph.D.
Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo
A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum Geologists
Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired)
Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University
Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University, (emeritus)
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm, (emeritus)
Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia, (emeritus)
David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General, Nz Dept. Scientific And Industrial Research
Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado
Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National Science And Technology Forum, South Africa
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus)
James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University
Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks
Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting
Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen
Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegian University Of Science And Technology
James F. Lea, Ph.D.
Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist
Peter R. Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri
Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical School
Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin
Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus)
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation
James A Marusek, U.S. Navy, (retired)
Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia
Timmothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc.
Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College
Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University, (emeritus)
Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University, (emeritus)
David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada
Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania
Alfred Peckarek, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University
Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska
Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)
Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan
John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals
Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University
Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop’s University (emeritus)
Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service
Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.
Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of Reclamation
George H. Taylor, MS, Applied Climate Services
Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata, (Argentina)
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D.
Dr. Anton Uriarte, Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg, (emeritus)
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate Change
Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
Miklos Zagoni, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Antonio Zichichi, Ph.D, President, World Federation Of Scientists
Footnotes
Swanson, K.L., and A. A. Tsonis. Geophysical Research Letters, in press: DOI:10.1029/2008GL037022.
Brohan, P., et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006: DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006548. Updates at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature.
Pielke, R. A. Jr., et al. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2005: DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-86-10-1481.
Douglass, D. H., et al. International Journal of Climatology, 2007: DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I agree. I think the Republicans are mostly neutral on the issue.
The money Republicans see it as something happening after they’re dead, so they don’t care. Besides, if there is a market in future survival, someone will pay for it. Don’t argue that future generations can’t buy their survival before they’re born, they’ve bought plenty of wars somehow.
The neocons see it as a wash; We’re dead, but so are our enemies.
The fundies though, are certainly pro-apocalypse.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
What’s really good is that we won’t waste hundreds of billions of dollars trying to avert a world-wide calamity that exists only in the minds of liberals desperately hoping to do something “great.”
Are all climate scientists liberals? I doubt it.
Al Gore is a big spokesman for the environmental movement. He has serious star power. People listen when he speaks. That’s why his is such a big spokesman. It’s not like a secret cabal of liberals chose him. He published books and gave speeches on the topic, just like lots of other people. His books sold more copies and more people watched his speeches.
Gore is a liberal. Therefore, it’s easy for people to smear global climate change as “liberal whining” or something like that. He might as well wear a big shirt with a target on it saying “Direct your ad hominem attack here.”
There are lots of scientists who are saying similar things. However, they don’t have the big megaphone that Gore gets. They’re also highly educated academics – which means that the Republican base dislikes them on sight. We could get a “Joe the Plumber” common man type to make the case, but who would take him seriously?
So for good or for ill, Gore will probably remain a highly influential spokesman for the environmental movement.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
They grant Ph.D.s in Medieval Studies. How many of those are on that small list?
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
It’s a ludicrous list, and fortunately, it comes pre-mocked by comment #40.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“So what if the planet warms up? Coastal flooding, mass immigrant populations (people cannot live underwater), rainfall changes – all of these will destabilize weak governments and exacerbate other tensions within communities.”
People may not be able to live underwater, but they can fucking walk away from that water toward dry land. That would be a lot cheaper and easier than making the rest of us poor, no? In fact, places that are now cold and inhospitable will be warm and livable, so there will be even more places for people to go. Canada needs immigrants — imagine how many it could welcome if Northern Canada became livable.
Bring on the global warming.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Ted #37 – Thank you. Actually, I contributed in a small way to the drafting of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007.
You’re right, I should have used “geologic change” rather than “geologic harm”.
I am mostly playing devil’s advocate in my comment #33, as I do support GHG emissions reduction policies, but the passionate certitude used by Yglesias bothers me. There’s a good case that the optimal mix of climate change response investment would have a non-trivial amount of adaptation/mitigation and a somewhat moderate amount of GHG reduction. I don’t know what the magnitudes are, of course.
I also note the following in the executive summary of the McKinsey survey you linked (and I know plenty of McKinseyites. McKinsey’s primary modus vivendi is convincing their clients that change is possible, and then taking credit for it!): Although our research suggests the net cost of achieving these levels of GHG abatement could be quite low on a societal basis, issues of timing and allocation would likely lead various stakeholders to perceive the costs very differently — particularly during the transition to a lower carbon economy. Costs will tend to concentrate more in some sectors than others, and involve “real” up-front outlays that would be offset by “avoided” future outlays. Given the timing of investments relative to savings, the economy might well encounter periods of significant visible costs, with the costs and benefits shared unequally among stakeholders.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
It’s a ludicrous list,
So right! I mean, this guy’s ludicrous:
Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
And this guy:
Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
And this guy:
Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Norway
And this guy:
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
Another hack:
James Goodridge, California State Climatologist, (retired)
This one too:
Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics
Plus lots of other scientists who obviously don’t know anything because they disagree with you.
“and fortunately, it comes pre-mocked by comment #40.”
Why try to refute facts when you can just mock them instead?
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
“It turns out that mass relocations of people are neither cheap nor easy.”
Why not? We have plenty of scarcely inhabited, cheap land in the Great Plains that would be even nicer in a warmer climate. Floridians can move there, if necessary. That would be a whole lot cheaper than making everyone else pay three times as much for their electricity.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
So what do the scientific and economic analysis support?
The question is so broad it’s hard to give a concise answer. It’s like asking what evolutionary biology supports. The scientific and economic analysis does not support the claim that we know we are facing “calamity.”
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“The money Republicans see it as something happening after they’re dead, so they don’t care.”
They don’t care about what happens to their children or their grandchildren? I guess that’s why they’re so sanguine about inheritance taxes.
You sound as stupid as Matt when you say that opponents of cap & trade impoverishment don’t care if the world gets ruined. The truth is that they don’t think the world will get ruined if it ends up getting a little warmer — and they’re not even sure it will get much warmer. And plenty of smart people agree.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Brad, you don’t make any sense. You’re arguing that everything I said is right, so of course I’m wrong. Republicans don’t have policies that support the working American. They do not have policies that support poor Americans. You just acknowledged that. The only difference between what I wrote and what you wrote is that you think they deserve brownie points for pretending not to be cronies of planet-destroying industries.
Actions. Speak. Louder. Than. Words.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Basically the entire scientific community involved in studying climate is certain that human created greenhouse gases are and will continue to warm the planet by large amounts. That’s a FACT.
No, it’s not a fact. It’s nonsense.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Please, In case you haven’t noticed, people do things to fuck themselves over in the long term for short term gain all the time. If you haven’t learned that, you’ve managed to learn nothing from this country’s current problems.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
The scientific and economic analysis does not support the claim that we know we are facing “calamity.”
Citations required.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
charles needs to improve his skills with using teh google.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
And here we have, in one paragraph, all the stupidity of the conservative movement in one place.
(a) What about sanctity of property? Last time I checked, you guys were all about no takings from anyone else. Don’t you think destroying the value of people’s land and homes is a pretty big taking? Do you not think they should be compensated for that? How do you expect that compensation to play out?
(b) OK, so the population of Bangladesh needs to go somewhere else. Where EXACTLY do you propose that these people go? You think China or India are going to be happy to welcome a huge population of refugees? Is the US going to open its borders to all the displaced of the world?
(c) There is this thing called blowback you know. You might want to learn a little about it before making truly moronic geo-strategic pronouncements. When some charismatic Bangladeshi decides, screw it, the people who forced him to leave his home and created the weather that killed his wife are going to pay, you don’t think he’s going to find a ready and willing audience to join his cause?
The number of people truly motivated to kill Americans in the name of Allah is, fortunately, rather small, because in an age of science, no matter what lip-service people might say, few in their heart of hearts honestly believe this religious crap. (Don’t believe me? Then why are Americans, supposedly such big believers, so afraid of death?) But the number of people who would be motivated to anti-Americanism by something tangible, something that’s not just an idea but a reality, would be vastly higher.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
People may not be able to live underwater, but they can fucking walk away from that water toward dry land. That would be a lot cheaper and easier than making the rest of us poor, no?
Some days I wonder if the human race is worth saving.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
@50: Yes, I’m sorry, it’s a ludicrous list. The list doesn’t tell you what the Ph.Ds are in or (usually) what position the person held in the organization where they worked. An amusingly large proportion of the people are retired (emeritus = retired).
The fact that someone has a Ph.D and once worked for the Dept of Energy tells you zip, zero, zilch, about their authority on this issue. I mean, jesus, I’ve got a Ph.D; I’ve got friends who have PhDs and work on climate science. How much authority does that give my pronouncements? Zip.
People who make lists like this don’t understand how scientific credibility is produced. It’s not produced simply by testimonials and credentials, and it’s certainly not produced by the letters “Ph.D” or “U.S. Navy (retired).” There’s a bit more to peer review than that.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Well, to start with you have these things called buildings, and roads, and all sorts of other things that people use that can’t be moved and would have to be replaced. And then there is the problem that the people who own the land you want to move into might obect, or at least demand to be paid. And so on.
Are you kidding? Dude, these are the people who organized the reconstruction of Iraq and successfully evacuated New Orleans! Relocating tens of millions of people will a snap…a cake walk, if you will.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Valentine’s an engineer, not a climate scientist.
Giaver’s specialty is superconductivity and biophysics, not climate science.
Sharp is a biologist, not a climate scientist. (And, if you look at his home page, sharpgary.org, comes across as a major crackpot. Why do all the cranks format their home pages in the same, “best practices of 1994″ way?
Note the pattern…
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Bonafide researcher on the topic, as far as solar radiation is concerned.
No experience in the field. Spent most of career in management.
Biologist, no experience in field,
Professor of marketing
Holds several valuable patents for turning coal into liquid fuel
At this point believed not to exist
Marine biologist, but no work on the topic.
Certainly worth considering, but not an expert.
No work in field. No refereed publications in any field.
Certainly a very accomplished scientist, but no no experience in field.
It certainly is a good thing that Syun Akasofu comes first alphabetically. I think at this point, it’s up to the list-wavers to point out names on that list that are worth considering.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Again, I’d like to pose the question re: evolutionary biology. I’d also like to add age of the Earth to that. So, for those still on the thread:
1. Evolution? Real.
2. Age of Earth? 4.5 billion years.
3. Man-Made Climate Change? Real.
4. Effect of Significant (+5 degrees F) Climate Change? Catastrophic.
I know everyone here wants to debate #4, but could we get a quick answer on 1-3 before we proceed any further? Just so we can understand each other’s starting points.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
For some reason Syun Akasofu was not at the top of the list in last post.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I also just noticed that it looks like my comments are for the name below them, when they are for the name above them.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Life on earth thrived in the past when the climate was warmer and the atmosphere had more CO2 than it does today.
It just didn’t thrive with, you know, air conditioning or refrigerated food…..
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
tsg,
Citations required.
This rather like asking for citations that science and economics do not support the existence of the Easter Bunny. Do you have any citations supporting the claim that that we know we are facing “calamity?”
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I don’t know that there’s even real debate on 4. The debate is partially about whether 3 leads to 4.
The debate is how much climate change, how soon, and what can or should be done about it. I believe opinion of people who work in the field runs the gamut from “We have time to take a careful approach to solving the problem” to “We need to start ameliorating the damage now”.
I believe some of the people on that CATO list believe quite confidently in anthropogenic climate change. They just believe we can deal with it later more efficiently. However, that is a distinctly minority opinion
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Njorl,
I agree with pretty much all of your post #71. However, the debate about what can or should be done about climate change is not simply a debate about whether we should act now, but also about the type and degree of action that is warranted. For instance, even among those who think we should start pricing carbon now, there are major disagreements over what the price should be.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I think Njorl is trying to describe the location of remaining disagreement among scientists and well-informed people — to the extent that there is debate remaining.
The *political* debate is another matter. It has little to do, really, with the areas of remaining scientific uncertainty, and a lot to do with fears about whose ox might be gored if we do something.
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:02 pm
I am remembering something from my days of running generic disadvantages as a college debater, but didn’t Sherwood Idso (on that list of scientists protesting alleged global warming alarmism) contend that deforestation was good because it would prevent the next ice age?
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I think Njorl is trying to describe the location of remaining disagreement among scientists and well-informed people — to the extent that there is debate remaining.
That would be, to a huge extent. As I said, even among people who agree that we should price carbon now, there is huge disagreement over what the price should be. William Nordhaus thinks it should be something like $35/ton, while Al Gore thinks it should be many times that amount.
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Njorl, I agree with #1, #2, and #3. #4 I’m not so sure about, my issue is with the mechanism for #3. I don’t see CO2 as having a significant effect. We use an unbelievable amount of energy. Most of the energy is being converted from chemical form to heat. Burning the oil and coal is a heat input, and so the planet becomes warmer. The materials we use to construct roads, houses and other things trap heat instead of reflecting it back, this also makes the planet warmer.
There is no reason to limit CO2 emissions because the temperature increase is not a catastrophic exponential increase. There is no tipping point.
I seriously fear rapid changes to “renewable” energy. How would changing all of our energy production to wind power affect weather patterns? How would we dispose of thousands of miles of solar panels when there useful life is over in 20 years?
Fear mongering over climate change could lead to real problems later.
-Bernie
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
“If you give enough of the proceeds back on a flat basis, cap & trade need not be regressive.”
“I know Matt has supported in the past rebating enough of the proceeds to hold lower-income people harmless.”
I don’t see how the math could work out in any way that would make poor people better off under cap & trade. Cap & trade will be a large de facto tax on energy-intensive businesses, which will probably reduce economic growth and increase unemployment. Lower economic growth means lower tax revenues. How will the government’s revenues from the cap & trade fees offset the lower tax revenues overall that would likely result from this drag on growth? And if the government ends up with less revenues overall, where will it get the money to fully offset the increase in energy prices on poor people?
And what about all the well-paid workers in carbon-intensive fields who will lose their jobs? The ones will go from $30-$40 per hour jobs in coal mines, oil fields, etc. to $10 per hour jobs in the service sector?
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:23 pm
No, from a astronomical standpoint, we generate essentially no heat. The energy incident from the sun upon the Earth in one year is orders of magnitude higher than the sum total of the energy realeased by all humans since Australo Pithicus.
That will probably be true for another 200 years or so, at least.
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I could be wrong, but my understanding is there is still an energy balance, the earth receives energy from the sun, and loses energy to space. Left alone temperature doesn’t change. When you add another heat input (even if it is many times smaller) the earths temperature goes up, the heat losses go up at the new higher temperature. The comparison to CO2 and temperature also parallels the increased use of chemical fuel. I haven’t been able to find a study that proves a noticeable effect of atmospheric CO2. There is a strong correlation, but there isn’t any scientific experiments that show the mechanism.
Global warming is real, but I don’t believe CO2 is the cause. The same response(reduce burning fossil fuels) will work either way. The difference is that alarmist say there is a point where you get a positive feedback, a higher temperature makes temperature go up causing big problems. Thats the part I don’t believe.
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
I don’t see how the math could work out in any way that would make poor people better off under cap & trade. Cap & trade will be a large de facto tax on energy-intensive businesses, which will probably reduce economic growth and increase unemployment.
This does not factor in innovation. The standard line from many conservatives is that they are “pro-capitalism,” implying that liberals are not. One of the great things about capitalism is its driving of technological innovation.
Cap and trade will be a significant drag on the economy if nobody can innovate any ways to reduce energy. But there are loads of ways the already exist to increase efficiency and few financial incentives right now to develop any more. I like cap and trade because I firmly believe that a capitalist system is awesome.
I’ll put it even stronger: right now the taxpayers foot the bill for all the problems caused by greenhouse gases (now and in the future). Those costs are not factored into the price of energy. So the government is partially footing the bill for energy producers. That is de facto socialism and I won’t stand for it.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:10 pm
DTM is thoroughly confused, as usual. If the government charges me for emitting carbon but reimburses me for that charge, it isn’t giving me any incentive to reduce my carbon emissions. The net cost to me of emitting carbon remains zero. If the government does not reimburse me it is raising my cost of living and making me poorer. This isn’t a matter of “transition costs,” it’s a matter of charging people for something they previously got for free.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:16 pm
DTM, I like your ideas there. I’d like to expand on them a bit.
People who are poor generally spend less on energy than do middle class folks. They are more likely to live in apartments, less likely to drive cars, and less likely to own big SUVs if they do drive cars. Additional expenses hurt poor people because they have so little money to begin with. A small tax adjustment can easily and cheaply compensate for that.
It’s the middle class folks who drive Suburbans and live in McMansions who are going to wind up spending significantly more on energy costs in the short term. They too will transition away from high energy consumption, but it will take some time. However, these people are generally in such a strong financial situation that they can afford it without needing help from the government.
But if it’s politically necessary to give a tax credit to everyone so that cap and trade can become a reality, then I’m all for it.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Charles, it gives you plenty of incentive.
Before cap and trade, consider identical products
Product A: $1000
Product B: $1000
You don’t care which one you get. Same product, same price. You flip a coin and pick product A.
Because product A leads to more carbon emissions during manufacture, here are the prices after cap and trade:
Product A: $1200
Product B: $1100
You also get a check from the government (a tax credit) to cover the costs of the transition. The check is for $200.
You could pick product A and use the check from the government to cover the additional expenses. You’re no worse off now than before. But why would you do that? Product B saves you $100 that you could use to buy other stuff.
Conclusion: the incentive works even with the government giving you back some money.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Jesus Christ. This is the sort of idiocy we are dealing with — “I don’t know nothing about no physics but I know there ain’t no way CO2 can raise the temperature of the earth”.
This is NOT an issue that can be understood using the most trivial thermodynamics, because the relevant system (earth + sun) is not in thermal equilibrium.
What happens is that CO2 (and other greenhouse gases like H20 and CH4) are essentially valves with respect to electro-magnetic energy.
We have an energy balance, yes. Light from the sun hits the earth and is absorbed. This is a certain amount of energy coming in. This energy has a certain frequency spectrum which is not well absorbed by the atmosphere.
The light is then absorbed by the surface of the earth. Since the earth is , to zeroth approximation, not getting hotter, this same amount of energy is radiated away by the entire earth. That’s what basic thermo gives us.
BUT this energy is radiated away through the entire atmosphere, NOT at the surface of the earth (because the earth is not like the moon or mercury). And so while basic thermo does tell us how many energy is radiated away, it does NOT tell us the temperature profile of the atmosphere that will lead to this energy being radiated away. The basics, however, are obvious. Simplifying aggresively, we have the surface of the earth at room temperature, we have the “top of the atmosphere” at the 3K temperature of outer space, and we have a temperature profile joining these two extremes. Adding greenhouse gases increases the thermal resistivity of the atmosphere, which reduces the OUTGOING thermal flux (but not the incoming thermal flux, because the two have different spectral distributions) and in consequence the temperature at the surface rises until the outgoing flux again matches the incoming flux.
To make a very simple analogy — you are pushing a certain amount of water through a long pipe. You have the pressure of the pump at one end (the surface temperature of the earth) and open air at the other end where the water is coming out (zero pressure corresponding to the temperature of space). For a certain pipe and a certain pressure, you get so much water flow per second. Now you add something to the pipe to reduce the water flow — you put a filter in it, you get some gravel caught in it, whatever. The “resistance” of the pipe rises, and the water flow slows down. The pressure backs up at the pump, and for the pump to be able to send as much water through as before, the pump pressure (the equivalent of the surface temperature of the earth) has to rise.
As for positive feedback, well that has even less to do with basic thermo. It has to do with various effects that kick in as the temperature of the earth rises. There are two obvious such effects.
(1) Albedo. A higher temperature of the earth means less ice around the world in glaciers and at the poles. Ice reflects light, so that it doesn’t contribute anything to the heat budgeting discussed above. Less ice means more energy absorbed by the surface of the earth, which means more energy (now downgraded from visible to IR) has to flow out, which means the surface of the earth has to rise to get the necessary flux given the thermal resistivity of the atmosphere.
(2) Methane. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. As tundra starts to warm up, organic matter embedded in it decays, releasing methane. Also methane hydrates under the ocean have the potential to start warming up, again releasing methane.
Both of the above mechanisms result in obvious tipping point effects (melting of the icecaps, and release of ocean methane hydrates).
There are additional possible positive feedback effects, which are, however, not likely to result in tipping points (ie non-linear effects). H20 is another potent greenhouse gas. The general state of the atmosphere is to be close to saturated with H20. A warmer planet means more water in the atmosphere.
There are also some negative feedback effects; for example if the cloud balance of the earth were changed, then more sunlight would be reflected. But the people who actually study this stuff for a living (you know, as opposed to people like Freeman Dyson who know as little as you and I about the details) believe that the negative feedback effects pale in comparison to the positive feedback effects.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
DTM, I agree again. I’m particularly excited about the innovation that will come of such a plan. Bigger houses and cars will always use more energy, but with clever design they can use a lot less than they do now. Bring on the 60MPG SUV and the 5 bedroom LEED Platinum house!
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Dave C – I’d have used a $150 rebate in your example but you’re obviously correct.
I don’t understand how the “This can’t possibly work! They’ll just tax me and then rebate the same amount! That’s so stupid!” meme has spread so far. The only real acceptable thing to say after using that bit is “Oh, duh… sorry about that, I’m an idiot. Please forgive me.”.
Until then there is really no point in continuing a conversation.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
@Please
How totally ignorant must one be? We’re talking about the complete and total uninhabitability of the current coastal world that lives at sea level. This means L.A., New York, New Orleans. Too ‘liberal’ for you? It means Houston, Miami, Seattle, Portland. It means London, Hong Kong, Tokyo. How about Rome, Venice, Lisbon or Cadiz?
Is this going to happen overnight? No. Is it inevitable result of a sea level rise of feet? Yes. No, I don’t think it’s cheaper to replace human civilization and all its history than it is to curb CO2 emissions, you fucking moron.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:47 pm
You could pick product A and use the check from the government to cover the additional expenses. You’re no worse off now than before. But why would you do that? Product B saves you $100 that you could use to buy other stuff.
Right. Other stuff that emits carbon. You’re incentivizing me to reduce my emissions by product substitution, but also incentivizing me to increase my emissions by buying more products.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
@50
I don’t know if this is still the case, but as of last year, there has not been one published, peer-reviewed, article in a scientific journal questioning the reality of climate change, or that the primary cause of it is human activity.
Also, most of the consensus models of just 3 years ago are proving to have woefully underestimated the pace and extent of climate change. Worst case scenarios are proving to be the rule, rather than the exception.
But a sizable number of the population prefer to stick their heads in the sand and engage in debates settled 15 years ago. No wonder the prospect for preventing catastrophic climate change is so weak.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:02 pm
DTM,
I explained how you can hold lower-income people harmless. I never claimed you could hold everyone harmless, and indeed you can’t,
To the extent that you “hold” a person “harmless,” by which I assume you mean reimburse them for what you charge them for emitting carbon, you’re not giving them any incentive to reduce their emissions. To the extent that you do not “hold” them “harmless,” you are impoverishing them. There’s no free lunch.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Dave C,
Cap and trade will be a significant drag on the economy if nobody can innovate any ways to reduce energy.
Assuming the cap is significantly below current emissions, cap-and-trade will be a significant drag on the economy, period.
But there are loads of ways the already exist to increase efficiency and few financial incentives right now to develop any more.
If there were already “loads of ways” to increase efficiency without incurring costs greater than or equal to the savings from increased efficiency, we’d already be using them.
I’ll put it even stronger: right now the taxpayers foot the bill for all the problems caused by greenhouse gases (now and in the future).
Huh? If we’re already footing the bill for current and future costs of greenhouse gases, why do you want us to pay even more?
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:21 pm
We’re talking about the complete and total uninhabitability of the current coastal world that lives at sea level. … Is this going to happen overnight? No. Is it inevitable result of a sea level rise of feet? Yes.
How many feet? How long have we got before sea level rises so much as to make the current coastal world that lives at sea level completely and totally uninhabitable? And why should we believe this outcome is an inevitable result of a sea level rise of feet?
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:27 pm
What most of you are ignoring is this simple reality: having the US push a cap and trade system to reduce carbon emission when neither India nor China will do so is worse than useless – it’s actively harmful. You’ll get no global reductions in emissions; just a relocation of where they happen. Since India and China (and a raft of other nations that will also stay out of this scheme) will have vastly lower production costs than the US< we’ll have one of two choices:
– allow every single energy intensive industry in the US to relocate
– start a trade war with massivce tariff walls (whicg Steven Chu, and advocate of cap and trade, has admitted)
We know what the economic impacts of trade wars are; we tried one in 1930. Regardless of what Matt, DTM, and a host of others here would like to believe, we neither know that warming is coming, nor do we know what the cost of any warming we do get will be.
So what it amounts to is that Matt wants to trade known – and large – harm for a complete unknown. But I’m sure he’ll feel better sitting in his soon to be non-air conditioned apartment in DC, since he’ll think he’s saving the planet.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 pm
People who are poor generally spend less on energy than do middle class folks. They are more likely to live in apartments, less likely to drive cars, and less likely to own big SUVs if they do drive cars. Additional expenses hurt poor people because they have so little money to begin with. A small tax adjustment can easily and cheaply compensate for that. It’s the middle class folks who drive Suburbans and live in McMansions who are going to wind up spending significantly more on energy costs in the short term. They too will transition away from high energy consumption, but it will take some time. However, these people are generally in such a strong financial situation that they can afford it without needing help from the government.
Just because it is theoretically possible to offset the regressive effects of carbon pricing doesn’t mean it is politically possible. The poor tend not to vote. The poor tend not to be politically engaged and active. The poor are not a powerful political constituency. The middle class, on the other hand, do vote and are active. Especially the upper middle class. So are corporations. Attempts to shift the tax burden or pricing structure away from the poor and on to the middle class to compensate for the regressive effects of carbon pricing are likely to be unsuccessful.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Compare with the people poo-pooing Krugman, Shiller, Roubini two years ago. Exactly who turned out to be correct then?
Peter Schiff and Ron Paul.
The people warning of problems, or the people claiming that capitalism was self-correcting?
The people who claimed that the free market was self-correcting, and who also warned of problems because we are nothing cose to a free market.
You idiots were wrong about Iraq.
No, I was against the war.
You were wrong about the financial bubble.
Hell, my people (the paleoconservatives) were about the only people warning of the financial bubble way back in 2002 when the Fed first pushed interest rates toward 0.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 pm
The people who claimed that the free market was self-correcting, and who also warned of problems because we are nothing cose to a free market.
So no country is close to a free market, and yet you believe the free market’s self-correcting because….is there evidence, or are you just invoking the almighty Invisible Hand?
From here, it sure looks like the “free market” countries are the first to have been devastated by the economic crisis. Iceland is wrecked. Ireland is screwed. Britain and the US are screwed. France, Germany, Japan, and China are somewhat better off.
This is data. What you’re doing is theology.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:37 pm
In the US, the beginning rumbles came from 2 govt entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You know – the place where Rahm Emannuel made all his money, where Barney Frank and Chris Dodd got all their payoffs from, and where Frank, Dodd, and Waters insisted that loans must, must be granted to those unable to pay.
There are plenty of Republicans with dirty hands on this as well, but the nice thing is, they have no power now – it’s all up to the idiots who really wanted to see a huge housing bubble, and now really, really want to re-inflate it.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Which is OK, because low-income people on average are relatively light consumers of carbon, and a lot of their carbon consumption is entangled with other consumers in any event.
How do you know it’s “OK?” You haven’t described any cost-benefit criteria for the policy, or identified the size of the population that you propose to “hold harmless” in this way, or provided any data that would allow us to compare the emissions of that subpopulation with those of the rest of the population. The more people you “hold harmless,” the more you undermine your goal of reducing emissions.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:42 am
@Charles
I will try tomorrow to dig up some more information, but for now I hope that this Scientific American article from two weeks ago will get the discussion going.
It is not apocalyptic (neither, for that matter, am I; I was simply responding to the idiocy that suggests we all just walk inland to settle a newly sweltering Canadian plain). It is eye opening.
The problem is that the models just keep getting worse. I can’t remember an occasion where any credible source came out and said “enh, it’s probably not going to get all that bad.” Instead, we learn that more methane was released from a faster melting tundra, or that the Greenland ice sheets are disappearing more rapidly than expected.
Now the one reasonable argument that I’ve heard from those that think our tackling this problem whole-hog isn’t one of “this isn’t happening.” Climate-change deniers are ridiculous at their core. Rather, it’s from those that say “yes, this is a problem; we acknowledge that. We just believe that there are more immediate problems facing our world and that the massive resources that must go to fixing this problem would go a long way toward solving starvation or curing tuberculosis or… ad infinitum.”
I don’t agree with those arguments, but at least they make sense.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:05 am
I will try tomorrow to dig up some more information, but for now I hope that this Scientific American article from two weeks ago will get the discussion going.
The piece gives an estimate of a sea level rise along the California coast of 1 to 1.4 meters by the year 2100, 91 years from now. It doesn’t identify the scenario or assumptions that went into this estimate.
Even if we did nothing whatsoever to mitigate or adapt to this rise, the idea that it would render the “current coastal world that lives at sea level completely and totally uninhabitable” and that that outcome is “inevitable” is just utter nonsense. Perhaps you had a much longer timescale in mind. Millenia?
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:38 am
@ 66 The essence of the thread, Scythia.
1)Evolution?: No.
In the beginning, omnivorous dinosaurs, including plant eating T-Rexes, happily munched on apples and veggies, and shared the Garden of Eden with the first couple.
2)Age of the Earth?:8,400 years, give or take a century or two
Omnivorous dinosaurs continued to roam and munch, and may have broke bread with Jesus. After that, who cares!
3) Man made climate change: No
Man made climate change would lead to a second great flood, something God has expressly forbidden.
4)Effect of Significant(+5 degrees F)Climate Change? Not-Applicable
Jesus will soon be riding down from the clouds to slaughter 99.99999999999999% of humanity with expertly delivered strokes from his scythe. The other .0000000000000001% of humanity will be beamed up to Heaven.
This is what President Bush believed, and approx 35-75% of Americans.
Let the climate debate rage on!
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:07 am
“Likely flood casualties include both the San Francisco and Oakland international airports, as well as 3,500 miles of roads and 280 miles of railways, 140 schools, 30 power plants and 29 wastewater treatment facilities, the study found.
But some of the aesthetic beauty and recreational values associated with the California shore, one of the state’s prime natural assets, are at risk, including the famed central coastal cliffs of Big Sur. In all, 41 square miles of coast will be lost to erosion, according to the study.”
That sounds like quite a lot, Charles, with all due respect (very little in practice).
Plus, of course, there’s the sea-water getting into the groundwater, which will make coastal agriculture problematic.
Why don’t you, er, go jump in a lake?
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:25 am
DTM – why would China and India – both poor countries – agree to limit their emissions? Do you have some wild idea that the poorer nations will all line up and say “ok, you rich people got to have lots of goodies – because you have wild eyed theories we don’t necessarily buy into, we’ll agree to keep our people poor”
Right. Let me know how that works for you.
Second, the US is already igniting a trade war – (Mexico, and the car bailouts violate WTO rules). Once those start, rational behavior doesn’t tend to follow.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:37 am
If there were already “loads of ways” to increase efficiency without incurring costs greater than or equal to the savings from increased efficiency, we’d already be using them.
Hidden assumption: our free market optimizes efficiency. This piece of economic dogma is demonstrably false. If it were true, incandescent bulbs would be obsolete by now. But people go the hardware store and notice that these energy guzzlers are cheaper than compact fluorescents (CFLs). So they buy the cheap stuff and pat themselves on the back for saving a few bucks. Then they pay lots of money to the electric company and wind up worse off than if they had purchased the CFL.
The assumption behind this one is that consumers are totally rational and know everything. Maybe on planet Vulcan this would be a decent assumption, but on Earth it’s totally false.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:28 am
The problem of developing countries is a big one. Of course, we want them to develop as fast as possible, but not at the cost of trashing the planet.
Again, this is where innovation comes in. We can pass on our knowledge about efficiency to them. And we will get way better at being efficienct if we implement some kind of cap and trade system.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
In all this discussion, does no one else see the parallels between Cheney’s fatuous 1% statement and the accord of most of the worlds climate scientists that global warming is at least partly due to human activity? If B&C can spend a trillion $s and hundreds of thousand of lives to avoid the fake possibility that Saddam had WMDs, what is a reasonable expense to avoid the very real possibility that all these climate scientists (peer reviewed!:) are correct? What would be a reasonable approach to the probability that we will lose NO again, that large parts of Bangladesh will disappear, that much of Micronesia and Polynesia will disappear, that even significant parts of the coastal US will only continue to exist if immense, and immensely expensive, dikes are built?
Opponents of Cap and Trade and every other attempt to ameliorate global warming betray their true concerns by their unwillingness to consider even the probability of significant harm to our global society. They don’t want change. They fear change – insecurity must ride them as a fierce and unrelenting demon. If they were rational, they would consider the large, and growing, consensus of climate experts as at least an estimate of probability, but there is little that is rational in their response.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
“And the meek shall inherit what’s left of the earth”
[Republican] Beatitude
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:52 am
OMG, in case you skimmed by and missed it, check out Bernie @ 77 and 80.
And the sad fact is, he probably isn’t that far from the average American brain trying to understand this without, y’know, lookin’ in books or something…
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Ok, Maynard Handley made a nice try at explaining this to Bernie, but still with an aura of mego effect.
Bernie, think of the earth as a brick heated on top of an old woodstove. Now take the hot brick and put it on the back stoop. It will radiate heat you can’t see- this is called black body radiation. If you wrap the brick in a blanket, it will stay warm longer. A blanket with a denser tighter weave will keep the brick warm longer than a blanket with a loose open weave.
The earth is the brick, and the atmosphere is the blanket. Adding carbon to the atmosphere makes the blanket denser, which keeps the planet warmer.
Why would the average guy ignore all the other stuff? Because it ain’t happening! There is no incredible rise in sunspots, solar flares, cosmic rays, volcanos, or man-in-the-moon marigolds.
The physics suggested that adding carbon to the atmosphere would cause warming, and that theory has now been confirmed by results.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Dave C,
Hidden assumption: our free market optimizes efficiency. This piece of economic dogma is demonstrably false. If it were true, incandescent bulbs would be obsolete by now.
No, that’s not an assumption. Markets do not have to “optimize” efficiency to produce a more efficient allocation of resources than any other method of allocation. You yourself recognize this when it suits your purposes.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
@Charles
Charles, what do you think are going to happen to buildings– homes, schools, businesses, etc– at or below sea level if the sea level rises more than 3 feet?
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
A bit of news from just today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_sc/sci_sea_ice
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
@ 116 Serial Catowner (so am I)
Excellent explanation. Keep trying. I do. The Bernies of the world are worth talking to.
The rest, the ostriches(Creationists etc…) and their enablers(Big Oil etc…)must be marginalized and then crushed.
The first phase, marginalization, is underway. I can only hope to see the beginning of the second phase.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
So no country is close to a free market, and yet you believe the free market’s self-correcting because….is there evidence, or are you just invoking the almighty Invisible Hand?
The Post-World War I Depression/Recession (early 20s) was very short, largely because the government did not do anything and just let it happen.
When the Great Depression happened, Hoover sprung into action. The Federal Reserve pumped money into the system and lowered rates like mad, Hoover browbeat financially troubled companies into maintaining wage rates, managed to convince them to invest and expand at a time when the capital to do so wasn’t there, he supported farm prices, and the Depression only worsened.
These two data points would support my thesis.
In any case, though, theo, if faith in the free market is so stupid, how come the free marketers of the Mises Institute saw this coming way back in 2002 (when interest rates were going to 0%) before anyone else did? Read some of Gary North’s archive from 2004 if you don’t believe me.
April 4th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
thanks for all
April 4th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Some of those people are the most “progressive” in the Senate. WTF are they thinking? That this is optional?
God help us.
Everyone please write letters and emails and call.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
to Everyone Agrees!
That list has been debunked over and over again. Stop printing it all over the place. Half of those people aren’t even scientists. The ones who are are in fields not even related to climate change, and the rest are paid off by Exxon etc. We are up against a HUGE DISINFORMATION campaign coming from the oil and coal industries and the gotdammed right-wingers who want to destroy this planet. I wish there was a way for them all to burn in hell without taking the rest of us down with them.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Hi Shelly,
It is true I am PhD of engineering physics, but what credentials are required to conclude that there is no evidence to demonstrate that something is true?
I have been a consultant to the US DOE on this matter since 1987 – for over twenty years, I have not seen any direct evidence that any AGW claims are true.
(Many people are surprised to learn there is no direct evidence for AGW – but you already know that, right, Shelly? So I’m not going to waste your time over things you know already.)
I would be the first one to support any means to gather such evidence, and have written about this; but until SOME evidence other than computer projections is available, how can I support the notion – under the terms of my job, which is to do all I can on behalf the American people?
The compensation I receive for what I do: a lot of terrible looking email and letters. That’s not the most welcome gratitude I can think of, but does not deter me in the least.
So go ahead and add some more slander and accusations, I think I’ve seen most of it already; but you never know, I might be surprised to see something original along these lines
Brian G Valentine
US Department of Energy
Washington, DC