The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[semente]

Just now, Paul R said:

Yes, but a temporary aberration only. It would be stupid to abrogate the rule of law for a problem that can be corrected in just a few years. Four or Eight at the worst. About 18 months now.

 

Multinational corporations have been destroying local economies both at home and especially abroad for ages. It's not just the Trump admin. And not just the US. Mass production is fueled by globalisation. The British and Dutch and French and Portuguese and Spanish Empires were sustained by force, not by free trade. In a win-win deal, business won't be as profiteable for either side so the larger player wins. Business plays the politician, the politician sends in the army.

US and Russia don't want a united Europe because they can't push it and shove it...and that is bad for business.

 

The EU has been expanding East partly driven by the interest of business. Cheaper labour, more relaxed labour rights, larger market.

[esldude]

14 minutes ago, Summit said:

The economic costs of climate change is massive. Already in sir Nicholas Stern’s report from 2006 the report states that climate change is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen, presenting a unique challenge for economics. The cost of not doing nothing (or enough) is much greater than the cost of taking actions and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions.

 

“Sir Nicholas Stern, former Chief economist of the World Bank, was asked by the British government to lead a review on the economics of global climate change. The Stern Review was published in October 2006 and attracted a great deal of attention from various circles, from academic to NGOs and the media in Europe, but also worldwide. This article aims first to highlight the Review’s main points and to single out a selection of the most significant factual data and quantitative evaluations that make up the Review’s rich contribution to the subject, going beyond the well-publicised striking results in which the possible damages of climate change are compared to the impact of the two world wars of the 20th century, but lasting forever. The survey concludes with reflections on criticism of the Stern Review made by several economists, mostly in the US, regarding the integrated assessment modelling exercise included in the Review. The most consequential criticisms are related to the low discount rate used to tackle this very long-term issue and the treatment of adaptation of future generations to a new global climate. Paradoxically, the much-attacked choice of a low discount rate chosen to ensure an equal treatment of the utility of all generations is the best-grounded in the utilitarian philosophy that underpins the type of economics that both the Stern Review and most of its critics share.”

 

https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/240

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-how-much-climate-change-could-cost-the-u-s/?redirect=1

Richard Tol, an environmental economist at the Economic and Social Research Institute, is highly critical of the Stern Review, and has said that "If a student of mine were to hand in this report [the Stern Review] as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a 'D' for diligence; but more likely I would give him an 'F' for fail (Cox and Vadon, 2007).^[32] There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make. [...] Stern consistently picks the most pessimistic for every choice that one can make. He overestimates through cherry-picking, he double counts particularly the risks and he underestimates what development and adaptation will do to impacts." Tol has referred to the Stern Review as "populist science."^[53] In a paper published in 2008, Tol showed that the Stern Review's estimate of the social cost of carbon (SCC) along a "business-as-usual" emissions pathway was an outlier in the economics literature.

 

Now I've not read the 700 page report and I'm no professional economist.  My eyebrows were raised however by Stern saying temperature rise could well be more like 6 degrees.  That made me think he was modeling the very worst possible result of every factor.  And then I read these criticisms of his paper and that is what many of them are saying.  And that would be okay if it was clear that was the exercise he engaged in.  It instead appears he was trying to indicate these are the costs we'll likely face.  I certainly hope is wrong. 

 

The other reason such a treatment is a bad idea is were we to take his outliers of how bad it could get as fast as it could we'd end up thinking basically it has become too late to change it at all.  And maybe it is.  But people who don't want to change anything would use it as an excuse not to bother.  It might seem I'm one of those people, but I'm not.  I don't think scare-mongering like this is going to get us to where we need to be.  Even if correct you'll not get enough people on board. 

[semente]

14 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

That is a bit of a fallacy - tiny impacts get lost in the noise, unless global and coordinated. That is the real problem. How do you get people everywhere to cooperate? Guilt tripping first world countries only goes so far. And can backfire, making first world people just look stupid in other eyes. 

 

 

One could argue that China is a developed nation but lets assume it is still devoliping in many areas. The USA walked out of the Paris agreement but China has set very strick targets. I'm sure that there are more examples.

[Paul R]

41 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Paul, come on now. This is where you live ?

 

 

Not any longer - about 1700 miles north and west now.

 

[semente]

22 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

You want to preserve the ecosystem, but that ecosystem has been in constant flux for millions of years. It isn’t even the same today as it was 10 years ago. Can you explain, in detail, what exact changes to make, what the effects will be, and how to deal with any unintended consequences? Can you model it? 

 

For example, what species are okay to make extinct in your changes? Some will go extinct, that much is certain. What habitat will you make uninhabitable? Not to mentions who pays for it? 

 

Do you really want to advocate making irreversible changes blindly? 

 

 

We can't model it but we can at least halt the negative impact that human activity is producing. Reversing it may be impossible but if we can reduce the impact to minimal levels then whatever changes happen won't be caused by humans. Such levels have been rising steadily since the Industrial Revolution but in recent decades the curve has shot almost vertically.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Oh my - speechless. I can send you a frying pan... 😁

 

The German are the Sausage eaters. I am not even sure what we eat mostly (with the notice that I / my family is not representative at all). Good steaks (various kinds), lam chops or leg of lam. Chicken leg, beef (as in stews), other big meat, goat. It also depends what we run into. Mostly pork for general (pasta or chinese etc.) dishes. Shrimp. Currently we have a freezer full with deer (all parts). So this is typically what would go on a BBQ (like yesterday).

FYI: These days we can order meat over the internet (Amazon not (yet) involved).

Ah, now I think of it, we often mimic the typical English breakfast. The more fat the better it is. This surely involves sausages.

 

The video speaks of 5 eggs a week per person. Something wrong there. I'd make that 15 at least.

 

We make all the bread (including pizza, pita) ourselves. Also pasta. We grow all the herbs imaginable. We grow a few vegetables but this is only for trying out. We make all the beer ourselves. Liquors (based on existing brandy). Next up will be an illegal distillery (I am serious).

Blahblahblah

[Summit]

Yes the planet has been warmer in the past, but if the global warming continue it will get so warm that the permafrost melts and leak methane which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. If permafrost starts leaking methane the global warming will not be stoppable and the affects will be devastating for the life as we know it.  

 

@ esldude many reports of the cost of climate change has been published after Nicholas Stern’s report from 2006.  

 

Am an Environmental Economics 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/

[semente]

Controlling food waste and the size of portions is one thing that anyone can easily deal with, and will also bring benefits to one's health, and consequently save taxpayers money and fuel. Just because we can afford it doesn't mean that we have to buy the double decker burger or the largest tub of popcorn or a pint of beer. Moderation.

 

An organic chicken drumstick costs the same as four chicken-factory ones. It's expensive but if you eat only one then it'll cost you as much. Buy local and reduce air polution from intercontinental shipping, help a local farmer and make your community a better place.

Easy peasy. 😁

[charlesphoto]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

Please don't use the NYT as a source.  They openly decided to become opposition to the elected president of the US.  They've thrown away their credibility.  You are doing the same with your claiming a dictatorship.  Don't be so ridiculous, and melodramatic.  Elections don't go how you want at all times.  It still how the system works.  I'd also like less influence from corporations, but that doesn't make it a dictatorship. 

 

Give me/us a break with the 'fake news' meme. Electing a real estate mob family to the WH with a corrupt Senate (two words: Merrick Garland) is a recipe for disaster - and as near this country has or will come to dictatorship (a wanna be one at the least) - so of course the NYT etc is going to report it like it is, not like the Trumpers believe it should be. 

[semente]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

Please don't use the NYT as a source.  They openly decided to become opposition to the elected president of the US.  They've thrown away their credibility.  You are doing the same with your claiming a dictatorship.  Don't be so ridiculous, and melodramatic.  Elections don't go how you want at all times.  It still how the system works.  I'd also like less influence from corporations, but that doesn't make it a dictatorship. 

 

Isn't that one of the roles of newspapers, to perform scrutiny and opposition?

 

Free media and speech; two things you don't get in dictatorships. I'm sure Trump would love to control the media...

[4est]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

The US has too many babies. 18b dipers per year. That really is too much.

I cannot help but think that the US ought to quit giving people a tax break for having kids and start giving breaks to those who don't.

 

5 hours ago, esldude said:

How do GMO's effect the ecosystem?  No I don't agree.  If you are raising natural corn or you are raising GMO corn, you aren't letting other plants there in either case. 

I am sorry Dennis, but that is a poor excuse to perpetuate the use of Glyphosate and the Monsanto monopoly.

[Paul R]

6 hours ago, semente said:

 

We can't model it but we can at least halt the negative impact that human activity is producing. Reversing it may be impossible but if we can reduce the impact to minimal levels then whatever changes happen won't be caused by humans. Such levels have been rising steadily since the Industrial Revolution but in recent decades the curve has shot almost vertically.

 

We will have to disagree I think, at least in part. 

 

I think it is a good idea to start minimizing changes, if at the same time we engage in intensive and wide ranging research. As I pointed out gently before, it may be that human intervention is holding off the start of a new ice age, or any of dozens of other effects that may not be harmful.  We just do not know.

 

Climate change is certainly real, but in some ways, it is just the current generation’s cause. My generation was huge on, among other things, environmentalism. We have a much cleaner environment now, with rivers you can eat the fish out of, far less pollution from vehicles, solar and wind power, and many more things that are simply better. But it has been achieved here and in other countries at a very high cost. Economically and socially, as well as with the imposition of a lot of government intervention. So high a cost that some are working hard to reverse many of the restrictions, purely to gain a personal economic benefit. 

 

We simply do not know the costs or results of the “Do something! Anything!” path. We should take 10 years and study the hell out of it before making any irreversible moves. One of those costs will be how to deal with those who will not abide by the rules. 

 

The analogy is easy - it only takes one person to crap in the pool to ruin the pool for everyone else. That’s true even if everyone else follows the rules and does not crap in the pool. 

 

With clear and significant economic and even social advantage to those to those who do “follow the rules”... 

[Paul R]

5 hours ago, semente said:

Controlling food waste and the size of portions is one thing that anyone can easily deal with, and will also bring benefits to one's health, and consequently save taxpayers money and fuel. Just because we can afford it doesn't mean that we have to buy the double decker burger or the largest tub of popcorn or a pint of beer. Moderation.

 

An organic chicken drumstick costs the same as four chicken-factory ones. It's expensive but if you eat only one then it'll cost you as much. Buy local and reduce air polution from intercontinental shipping, help a local farmer and make your community a better place.

Easy peasy. 😁

 

Not easy peasy for everyone.

 

If you have a family of four, you maybe can only afford the “chicken factory” choice. Which, by the way, may be just as healthy or unhealthy as the organic bird. Especially if you are paying high taxes on everything, high medical costs, high tariffs costs on everything from clothes to toilet paper, and expected to pay for the rest of the world  and even those in your own country who are economically disadvantaged to enjoy the same standard of living. 

 

Add on on the cost of paying for climate change moderation, even if nobody knows what exactly the effects will be, and essentially, it will kill you. Perhaps this is the new Cold War - guilt trip the west into killing themselves?  

 

I know that is not a popular point of view. But... it is what it is, and not looking at the unpleasant parts is just another way of hiding your head in the sand. 

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

 

Give me/us a break with the 'fake news' meme. Electing a real estate mob family to the WH with a corrupt Senate (two words: Merrick Garland) is a recipe for disaster - and as near this country has or will come to dictatorship (a wanna be one at the least) - so of course the NYT etc is going to report it like it is, not like the Trumpers believe it should be. 

 

I disagree with Dennis here, in that I think NYT is doing a pretty good job of respecting the office while reporting on the man and the issues.

 

The sitting president’s lies and propaganda are not new in historical terms, but are certainly new to most of the U.S. population. Last example was Nixon,  and he escaped jail time just because Ford was a very smart man, and put the country ahead of punishing one rather bad person. 

 

What is scary is that we may find, in the future, that this president is acting in his own self interest, instead of the best interest of the country. If so, then heaven help him because the country will rip apart and who knows where that will lead?  Certainly to a state where Russia will become far more powerful in world affairs. Perhaps that is what all this is really about. 

 

Someone is due to write a thriller about the US President really being in the pay of Russian spy masters soon. To bad Tom Clancy isn’t here to write it. 

[semente]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Not easy peasy for everyone.

 

If you have a family of four, you maybe can only afford the “chicken factory” choice. Which, by the way, may be just as healthy or unhealthy as the organic bird. Especially if you are paying high taxes on everything, high medical costs, high tariffs costs on everything from clothes to toilet paper, and expected to pay for the rest of the world  and even those in your own country who are economically disadvantaged to enjoy the same standard of living. 

 

Add on on the cost of paying for climate change moderation, even if nobody knows what exactly the effects will be, and essentially, it will kill you. Perhaps this is the new Cold War - guilt trip the west into killing themselves?  

 

I know that is not a popular point of view. But... it is what it is, and not looking at the unpleasant parts is just another way of hiding your head in the sand. 

 

We're four at home and I'm on a part-time job at the moment and my wife's been finishing her DPhil so I have to do a bit of juggling around with supermarket discounts. My children never had candy or soft-drinks or junk food and they seem happy without all of it. They also only get gifts for birthdays, Christmas and as rewards for their school performance. The youngest inherits most of his brother's clothes.

 

As I've said, people eat much larger portions than they need or should healthwise. If you size the meals adequately there'll be little or no waste. And the city council picks up the organic leftovers for composting. We've just been granted an allotment but that will take a while and some investment before it starts to bear fruit. A hail storm last week was not exactly helpful...

[semente]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

I disagree with Dennis here, in that I think NYT is doing a pretty good job of respecting the office while reporting on the man and the issues.

 

The sitting president’s lies and propaganda are not new in historical terms, but are certainly new to most of the U.S. population. Last example was Nixon,  and he escaped jail time just because Ford was a very smart man, and put the country ahead of punishing one rather bad person. 

 

What is scary is that we may find, in the future, that this president is acting in his own self interest, instead of the best interest of the country. If so, then heaven help him because the country will rip apart and who knows where that will lead?  Certainly to a state where Russia will become far more powerful in world affairs. Perhaps that is what all this is really about. 

 

Someone is due to write a thriller about the US President really being in the pay of Russian spy masters soon. To bad Tom Clancy isn’t here to write it. 

 

Quality investigative jounalism is a mandatory requisite in a functioning democracy.

 

Yes the news is full of "commentators" with their opinions but there are also professionals doing a good job.

[Ralf11]

17 hours ago, Paul R said:

High levels of CO2 encourage plant growth, which actually does sequester carbon.    

 

Also, there are other ways to cut back on global warming,  -> if <- that is what we should do.  I am not utterly convinced we want to reverse global warming, at least not completely. The planet has been warmer (and cooler) than this within historical memory.  If I had to choose, I would choose warmer over cooler. 

 

1. The increased plant growth is inadequate to avert catastrophic effects of climate change -- and warming is only one of three effects.

 

2. You are mistaken about the magnitude of the effects and their impact on civilization.

 

I advise some reading - start with the latest IPCC report.

[Paul R]

21 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

1. The increased plant growth is inadequate to avert catastrophic effects of climate change -- and warming is only one of three effects.

 

2. You are mistaken about the magnitude of the effects and their impact on civilization.

 

I advise some reading - start with the latest IPCC report.

 

And I advise far more objectivity and research for you, snd with a wider scope. 

[esldude]

So here is something helpful and worth doing. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/05/31/thorcon-advanced-nuclear-reactor-more-than-worth-its-weight-in-salt/#4c0be4287694

 

 

[semente]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

So here is something helpful and worth doing. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/05/31/thorcon-advanced-nuclear-reactor-more-than-worth-its-weight-in-salt/#4c0be4287694

 

 

 

We could move nuclear waste to the Moon. I've read it's going to set itself free from the Earth at some point...

[esldude]

6 hours ago, semente said:

 

Isn't that one of the roles of newspapers, to perform scrutiny and opposition?

 

Free media and speech; two things you don't get in dictatorships. I'm sure Trump would love to control the media...

Scrutiny and honest reporting yes.  That doesn't describe the NYT since Trump has been president.  Scrutiny and honest reporting wouldn't include deciding to oppose the presidents policy and control narratives in order to do that.  

 

I'm sure any president  wants to control the media at times.  Because they think it is hampering efforts they believe in.  I'm not for that.  But scrutiny and honest journalistic reporting is what should happen.  Any news organization of course has to decide what to report on.  

[esldude]

Just now, semente said:

 

We could move nuclear waste to the Moon. I've read it's going to set itself free from the Earth at some point...

You should read about the reactor.  You've just made yourself look foolish by a knee-jerk reaction.  If we could harness knee-jerk energy we'd have it made. 

[semente]

Just now, esldude said:

Scrutiny and honest reporting yes.  That doesn't describe the NYT since Trump has been president.  Scrutiny and honest reporting wouldn't include deciding to oppose the presidents policy and control narratives in order to do that.  

 

I'm sure any president  wants to control the media at times.  Because they think it is hampering efforts they believe in.  I'm not for that.  But scrutiny and honest journalistic reporting is what should happen.  Any news organization of course has to decide what to report on.  

 

I live in the land of cr@p journalism...

 

 

 

[semente]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

You should read about the reactor.  You've just made yourself look foolish by a knee-jerk reaction.  If we could harness knee-jerk energy we'd have it made. 

 

I forgot the smiley. 😁 It was a joke.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

Quality investigative jounalism is a mandatory requisite in a functioning democracy.

 

Yes the news is full of "commentators" with their opinions but there are also professionals doing a good job.

Unfortunately quality investigative journalism doesn't describe the NYT of recent years.  It is more of a mouthpiece of biased propaganda for one political side.  Unfortunately so is Fox news for the other side.