rEvolutionist wrote:Seth wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:Of course a carbon tax would do something, but we need to implement a proper one. The one we have in Australia is weak as piss. The point of a tax to change behaviour is that it has to be strong enough to change behaviour. It is to a degree here, but clearly not enough.
Changing behavior in the short term does nothing to deal with the oncoming and inevitable long-term issues, it just wastes time, money and effort on useless social engineering attempts.
What you've forgotten is that the carbon pollution we produce now gets built into the system in the future. It's a non-sequitur to say that we need to adapt to the change we have already built in, and that there's no use in moderating our pollution now. We should be doing both.
The question is where should we be focusing our capital and effort RIGHT NOW, and it's not on asinine carbon footprint reduction schemes that won't work and won't do any good anyway. Sure we should seek to reduce carbon output, but the immediate threat is that 150 years from now or less, large areas of the land surface will be uninhabitable because they will be underwater. If we focus the bulk of our energy and capital on adapting to that change, the carbon reduction schemes will come to pass naturally as social awareness of the problem is made manifest by those policy changes I suggest. It makes no sense whatsoever to follow the path Kyoto laid out because it WILL NOT WORK. It does NOTHING to actually prevent the looming disaster, and in fact makes it WORSE by allowing new carbon emission sources to be developed in places where they do not currently exists, all as a part of a global new world order socialist policy that wants to punish the United States and pander to third-world and undeveloped countries by letting them get away with murder (literally) while quashing the very seat of technological advancement that might find a technological solution to carbon sequestration. In other words, the current plan is to cut the US "down to size" and destroy our economy and technological society and hasten the "development" of third-world shitholes because it's "fair."
The third world shitholes should REMAIN third world, undeveloped shitholes and should NOT be allowed to increase their carbon output because none of the advancement they might make will be beneficial to anyone but themselves, and it will cost the world far more to allow such advancement that it will to let the engine of commerce flourish so we can find solutions to the problems we face.
Tax stuff too much and people will just unelect you and elect someone who will tax less.
That's essentially true, and one of the biggest problems with short-term governance cycles in managing long term problems. I'm not really sure what the solution to this problem actually is.
Let the markets drive the solutions. That's the ONLY way it will work. It's simply impossible to impose the kind of dictatorial tyranny that would be required to make the current plan work. Nobody would stand for it and there would be war all over the world. Nations and peoples need to come to the realization that they have to work diligently, but within their means and the ability of the economy to fund such efforts, and that happens over time and NOT as the result of some intergovernmental "agreement" that can be ignored or overturned by the next legislature.
This is a purely economic question, and only the free market can solve it. We cannot regulate our way out of this, it simply can't happen because the drastic changes that would be required would take a dictator greater than Stalin, Mao and Hitler combined to enforce such regulations. It's not going to happen anywhere there are democratic political processes because as soon as the burdens of regulation become too egregious and costly for the majority, they will simply vote out the bastards who enacted it, repeal it, and elect someone who will look to their ECONOMIC stability and survival. Human beings are simply not altruistic or far-seeing enough to look beyond their own immediate short-term comfort and interests, and they never will be.
And only a vibrant and growing economy can possibly fund the infrastructure revisions that are required to deal with things like sea-level rises and desertification of some areas (and the inevitable un-desertification of others).
Is investment and growth and roll-out of renewable energies not vibrant economic activity?
It's mostly a completely useless waste of money and valuable resources that provides typically less than 2 percent of the US energy needs. The ONLY possible energy solution for the basic need for electricity that is viable other than coal and gas is nuclear power, and the Luddites block that at every turn.
It's a century or more long plan that's needed and work has to begin right away if humans are going to adapt. Piddling around with carbon-busting behavioral modification is only going to make things worse by devolving the economy and drying up both the money and the interest in actually doing something that will make life possible/easier when the inevitable happens.
The thing is, we still have a chance to limit the change to about 2C (although, it's looking pretty unlikely). 2C is perfectly manageable with our current technology. So, it's not actually time to chuck in the towel and call it a lost cause. If we got of our arses and did this properly, we could get out of this relatively ok.
We still can, but we have to refocus our priorities on real, effective adaptations to the new status quo rather than chasing politically-correct bullshit that makes people feel good but actually only makes things worse, as in the anti-fracking hysteria going on right now.
The first priority is habitation policy changes by governments in areas which will be affected by sea-level rise and flooding. This means enacting a regulatory framework that FORBIDS the building of new permanent structures in ANY flood plain area, combined with policies that lay ALL risk for damage from flooding on the individual who chooses to reside in a flood plain. No insurance will be allowed, and no reconstruction of damaged or destroyed buildings (commercial or private) will be permitted. Current "grandfathered" uses may remain as constructed, but no expansion, rebuilding or replacement will be allowed if the structure is damaged or destroyed for any reason.
Your de facto party (the Republicans), and a lot of conservative parties around the globe, don't even fucking believe in global warming. They have to believe in it first before we can do any of that. And if they believe in it, then we could get around to actually reducing carbon emissions and thereby reducing the future threat.
Well, there is the small matter of the data being manipulated by the "climate scientists" who have a vested personal economic interest in pandering the AGW theory so they can keep getting grants, but that's a minor problem. Just start hanging any academic whose work is found to be faulty or fraudulent.
Bangladesh? Well, sorry, but anyone living or working in the immersion zone for maximum possible sea-level is on their own. They have a hundred or more years to move somewhere else and use the floodplain for agriculture till it's submerged.
Where are they going to move, though?
Somewhere else, like Pakistan and India, where they came from in the first place. Or, we just forbid them to procreate and let them die out in the next 100 years.
This is a serious issue, and will cause massive social dislocation and disruption.
Yes, it will. Of course we could just let them all drown.
If you think that will have no flow on effects to the West, then you are kidding yourself. And don't forget, it is the West that caused this problem.
No it didn't. Everybody caused this "problem" if there is in fact a problem and it's not just part of the natural cycle of the environment, which is becoming increasingly more likely.
Adapt or die.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
