Matt Yglesias

14 Responses to “Climate Security Arguments Making Some Gains”

1. Zach Says:
   October 16th, 2009 at 9:30 am

   I think the entire energy security argument is complete garbage but recognize that it’s paradoxically more persuasive than the threat of making the world as we know go away for a millennium.

   I’m skeptical of fears that it’s going to be harder to get climate change passed than health reform. I think that Graham, McCain, Snowe, Gregg, and Lugar’s support will be easy to get by horse trading for nukes and agreeing to give away permits (they all voted for the similar McCain/Lieberman bill in 2005). I don’t expect anyone to peel off on the left because of this. Getting the bill out of committee will be easier because Finance only has its hand in a small part of it. There’s more opposition amongst Democrats than w/ health reform, but I suspect that most would be satisfied to vote against the legislation but not support a filibuster if there’s enough protectionist provisions in the bill.

   I think McCain & Lieberman’s attacks on the Kerry/Boxer bill are more trying to set the stage for negotiations than obstructionism. “Cap and tax LOL” is obnoxious, but if you let them think they’ve negotiated the tax away you’ve got their support.

2. Zach Says:
   October 16th, 2009 at 9:38 am

   In fact, Kerry & Boxer ought to just bring the McCain/Lieberman bill up in committee and then accuse Republicans who changed their mind over the last four years of being weak willed. It’s not a great bill, but it could be amended a bit and then strengthened in conference. You really just need to come up with a bill that McCain will put his name on and you’re more or less there. Then send him to Copenhagen w/ Obama.

3. Bob Roddis Says:
   October 16th, 2009 at 9:50 am

   Lindsey Graham has always been a little Nazi shit.

   Go to the 7:40 point on this clip from “Sleeper”. Moments after Woody Allen is revived from his 200 year sleep, the secret police show up due to a suspicious increase in power usage.

   That’s really what all this Global Warming hysteria is all about, isn’t it? Giving the SWAT teams yet another excuse to kick down doors.

4. Jim W Says:
   October 16th, 2009 at 9:56 am

   If you buy into the ridiculous “energy security” argument, but don’t accept the reality of global warming (ie, if you’re a total idiot), then wouldn’t you just support increased domestic mining of coal, which is cheaper than clean energy?

5. ChooChoo! Says:
   October 16th, 2009 at 9:57 am

   Actually of course this new line of lies promoted by the Loonie Left will only serve to increase the Pentagon budget.
   After all the simple truth is that NOTHING will be done sufficient to alter their Sky Is Falling Oh God We Are All Going To Die! predictions and so the “wisest” course is to increase our security against the predicted unrest.
   WooHoo the Left becomes a partner for increasing the military budget! Not exactly what Gore had in mind but hey…
   It is just so sad that the models hadn’t predicted the last decade of cooling nor the dearth of hurricanes nor the early winters of late.
   And of course the attempt to guilt trip the developed world into throwing more money at corrupt third world governments is being greeted with the derision it deserves.
   All in all the Left is going to have an awfully hard time living down their latest fraud.
   But oh I can hear the excuses and yes buts now.
   I’ll say one thing for it though: the Right’s warnings about the cult like Leftie indoctrination taking place on college campuses are being proven true. And that to everyone’s loss.

6. SLC Says:
   October 16th, 2009 at 10:39 am

   Re ChooChoo & Bob Roddis

   Well, the right wing fucktards are out in force today.

7. Max424 Says:
   October 16th, 2009 at 10:41 am

   Big Nuke is coming! Who do we got down there in South Carolina? Duke Energy? Duke trades parts and chairman with Exelon. Exelon is the biggest and the baddest, and just the left Chamber. Practically up and joined the Green Party. Sometimes shit moves like clockwork.

   Lyndsey Graham. Green Man and friend of the environment. Too funny.

8. kth Says:
   October 16th, 2009 at 10:45 am

   Jim W, Graham seems either to be confusing or to be deliberately conflating two quite distinct issues regarding energy and military planning. The first is energy independence, the cure for which indeed is “drill, baby, drill” as much as developing clean and renewable energy sources.

   But the second is the very real concern among military strategists that the catastrophes and dislocations caused by climate change will destabilize developing states in warm regions (redundant I suppose), and that those areas will become breeding grounds for insurrection and terrorism. All the digging and drilling for coal and oil (and burning it, obv.) will only hasten that entropy.

   And yes: the nuke angle (SC hopes to be home to a slew of them) is a big part of Graham’s interest here.

9. Max424 Says:
   October 16th, 2009 at 10:47 am

   MY “(I have my own national security arguments that I like better)”

   Yeah you do, and they are all fine and dandy arguments too.

   But without electric cars we ain’t going nowhere. Unfortunately, the only one lobbying for the electric engine is China. Do you want to be taken over by China, Matt?

10. Bob Roddis Says:
    October 16th, 2009 at 11:12 am

    SLC:

    Your response is an insightful weaving of complex facts and logic into a brilliant and typically progressive tour de force. Congratulations, you foaming, slobbering moron.

    By the way, in their recent paper entitled “Designing Climate Mitigation Policy” by Joseph E. Aldy, Alan J. Krupnick, Richard G. Newel l , Ian W.H. Parry, and William A. Pizer, the authors assert on Page 5:

    Under the 550 ppm CO2 target, most models project global GDP losses (from reducing both CO2 and non-CO2 GHGs) of less than 1 percent out to 2050, though some models suggest GDP losses could reach 2–3 percent by this date. In present value terms these GDP losses amount to about $0.4–12 trillion out to 2050 when applied to a world GDP that is $60 trillion and growing (Newell 2008, 12). Under the 450 ppm CO2 target, cumulative GDP losses are about 1.0–2.5 percent and 1.5–5.5 percent in 2025 and 2050, respectively, or about $8–43 trillion in present value from 2010 to 2050.

    These writers are allegedly mainstream people. If true, these economic numbers would be catastrophic.

    Has anyone found a thoughtful, fact-based critique?

11. Zach Says:
    October 16th, 2009 at 11:41 am

    @Bob Roddis

    The problem with these analyses is this:
    1. On the scale of a few hundred years we’ll run out of oil/coal/natural gas and will have figured out solar or nuclear power
    2. Beyond a critical point, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are irreversible on the scale of centuries. We could grow emissions at current rates and completely stop in 2050 and be stuck with high CO2 levels for 500 years

    Basically, the effects of climate change go well beyond 2050 and get worse over time. The positive effect on the economy of not pricing carbon disappears once carbon based energy becomes more expensive than solar energy, which will likely occur before 2050.

    And, no, modestly decreasing the pace of global GDP growth isn’t a catastrophe. If it were to drop by several percent all at once, that would be another thing.

12. Bob Roddis Says:
    October 16th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    Zach:

    What is the basis for the following claims:

    Beyond a critical point, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are irreversible on the scale of centuries. We could grow emissions at current rates and completely stop in 2050 and be stuck with high CO2 levels for 500 years

    Basically, the effects of climate change go well beyond 2050 and get worse over time.

    Convince me why conditions will be so bad even if C02 levels go way up as some fear.

    If you have specific authors with citations, that would be appreciated.

13. Zach Says:
    October 16th, 2009 at 4:51 pm

    @Bob Roddis

    The models that you cited all include temperature increases w/ increased atmospheric CO2, so I don’t need to prove anything there. As far as irreversibility goes, you can check out this PNAS article:

    This paper shows that the climate change that
    takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years.

    This study assumes we continue business as usual until we’re at a certain ppm CO2 and then immediately halt all emissions.

14. Bob Roddis Says:
    October 17th, 2009 at 10:10 am

    Zach:
    Thank you. Do these materials answer my question of why the warming would be so bad? It is my understanding that similar warming has occurred in the past with plants, animals and people thriving.

    I will review these materials and try not to freeze to death in lieu of our usual 61 degree weather. Of course, I shouldn’t feel too sorry for myself because we haven’t lost power. Yet.