That’s always the mantra: Serious climate policy is too pricey, especially in this economy.
To that I say: Watch this excellent video from King 5 News. (It’s almost 16 minutes long, but well worth it.) The impacts of climate change, such as flooding, carry a very steep cost. And judging by the video, the costs aren’t mostly borne by the rich—they’re paid for by those who can least afford it.
I want to be perfectly clear.The floods in Western Washington—this year and in several recent years—are completely consistent with what the climate science has been predicting for the Northwest. It doesn’t really matter whether these particular floods are the direct result of global warming (that’s an untestable hypothesis),what matters is that this is exactly what we should expect in the future. If the scientists are right, get ready for more.
So if you think carbon pricing is too expensive, just wait until you see the bill for failing to put a price on carbon.
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Flat
amazingdrx Posted 2:21 pm
08 Jan 2009
Relocating cities, dealing with crop failure, power outages that go on and on for months, all hugely expensive to the GNP.
300 mph tornadoes will not even leave concrete buildings intact, humans will have to do everything from bunkers if this trend continues.
The cost of doing nothing is inestimably gargantuan.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Billhook Posted 8:06 pm
08 Jan 2009
Not being a statistician, I'm unable to test the degree of confidence behind that claim, nor can I test the degree of probability that extreme weather events are being similarly multiplied
As I understand it, an untestable hypothesis is one which cannot be verified or disproven.
So what prevents an analysis showing the likelyhood of increasing weather damage being other than a mere fluke ?
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 9:40 pm
08 Jan 2009
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 9:47 pm
08 Jan 2009
....... that really matters to the confederacy of self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe who have chosen the idolatry of business activities and ignored the the relentless dissipation of Earth's resources and the rampant degradation of Earth's environment, come what may for our children and coming generations?
Many too many leaders of the family of humanity today live arrogantly and greedily in our planetary home. They appear to take pride in their unsustainable behavior. Certainly, we will "have our cake and eat it too," they say. They own fleets of cars, fly around in thousands of private jets, live in McMansions, exchange secret handshakes, frequent exclusive clubs and distant hideouts, and risk nothing of value. They will live long, large and free, so they say. Please do not bother them with the problems of the world. They choose not to hear, see or speak of them. They hold much of the world's wealth as well as the extraordinary political/military power great wealth purchases. If left to their own devices, they will continue to self-righteously exercise their 'inalienable rights' to conspicuously consume whatever they desire; to recklessly dissipate Earth's resources and expand economic globalization unto every corner of our natural world and, guess what, beyond; to carelessly consent to the unbridled global growth of human numbers so that where there are now 6.7 billion people, by 2050 we will have 9+ billion members of the human family and, guess what, even more people, perhaps billions more beyond 2050, if that is what they wish. Like the Bilderbergers, they identify themselves as Masters of the Universe. They enjoy freedom and living without regard to human limits and Earth's limitations. They adamantly eschew any talk of the personal responsibilities that come with the exercise of personal freedoms or any discussion of the existence of biophysical boundaries. They deny good science or consider it junk. Climate change is a hoax to them.
Many too many of our leaders and all of the self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe among us choose to deny the existence of "limits to growth", even though abundant scientific evidence of the existence of such boundaries is available. Please understand that these 'Masters' do not want anyone presenting them with scientific evidence that they could be living unsustainably in an artificially designed, temporary world....a manmade world filling up with gigantic enterprises, virtual mountains of material possessions, ill-gotten gains, phony profits and filthy lucre.
Scientists appear not to have found adequate ways of communicating to the family of humanity what people somehow need to hear, see and understand: the rapacious dissipation of Earth's limited resources, the relentless degradation of the planet's frangible environment, and the increasing risk of destroying Earth as a fit place for human habitation in our time, when taken together, appear to be proceeding at breakneck speed now, moving toward the precipitation of a catastrophic ecological wreckage of some sort.... unless, as a matter of course, the world's colossal, artificially designed, soon to become patently unsustainable global economy continues to speed headlong toward the monolithic 'wall' called "unsustainability" at which point the unbridled expansion of the runaway global economy crashes before Earth's ecology is collapsed.
Who knows, perhaps we can still realistically and hopefully hold onto the expectation that behavioral changes by many members of the human community will encourage others, even the Masters of the Universe, to go forward from this time and place toward the achievement of new goals: restricted and "right-sized" rather than unbridled and ever larger-scale production, restrained rather than outrageous per human over-consumption and the regulation of human population growth..... changes that save both the human economy and God's Creation for the children and future generations.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
Permalink
GreenWheelsBlog Posted 12:10 am
09 Jan 2009
Cameron
@ the Green Wheels Blog
Permalink
Trebuchet Posted 12:46 am
09 Jan 2009
We all do this as individuals. We (usually and hopefully) buy new tires for our car before there's a blowout (much more dangerous and expensive). We (usually and hopefully) patch our roof when there's a leak (much more expensive). Wasn't it the Stern report that said just 1% of global GDP would do the trick? What a tremendously small price to pay.
Even the metaphor of buying insurance isn't actually accurate, because you may never need insurance. We NEED to avoid dangerous climate change to survive as a society. To survive as a country. To keep our freedoms. To keep our democracy.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:55 am
09 Jan 2009
We need green jobs and the lower, more stable energy costs that they will result in. An economy based on oil won't recover, as demand increases so will gas prices, it's happening now, that price increase will send the economy back down again.
The risk of depending on oil is catastrophic to the economy and the climate.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 1:19 am
09 Jan 2009
Also, a special thanks to Amazing Dr. X for being unwilling to suffer gladly the fools and self-serving powerbrokers among us.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1 ...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:35 am
09 Jan 2009
I'm going to the local inaugural party and talk all this green stimulus stuff up, maybe get a few new grist readers and commenters? Let's have an energy re-evolution!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:43 am
09 Jan 2009
Mighty US consumer, ask and you shall receive. Walmart will just add auto showrooms for their chinese versions of these cars, unless detroit and Toyota act now.
They will probably do that anyway. Obama can spot this trend. If we all shout out. And tell him we want this zero carbon driving...and living.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 2:42 am
09 Jan 2009
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
Permalink
Billhook Posted 3:36 am
09 Jan 2009
To nail that question, IMHO we need to see just who benefits from the current energy resource dependency but cannot benefit from the alternatives.
First, there are the fossil resource owners, whose profits will crash with a wholesale cut in fossil usage under a global climate treaty.
Their interventions are a matter of record - for example, only two items were vetoed from the agenda of the Rio Earth Summit in '92 - The Vatican vetoed any discussion of Population Growth; Saudi Arabia vetoed any discussion of Sustainable Energy.
Second, there are the energy supply & combustion equipment corporations, for whom the massive cuts required must look like a death sentence, particularly for the giants who are well aware they lack the agility to re-invest successfully in utterly different energies.
Third, and most potent and least acknowledged, is the fact that American power has benefited hugely for many decades from the global demand for dollars resulting from oil trades being priced in dollars.
The provision of new energies that may undercut this arrangement is repugnant to powerful US interests.
In addition to which, developing countries have on average been spending around one half of their foreign currency earnings on paying the fossil fuel imports bill. Meaning that they must earn hard currency from cash crops, mineral sales, tourism or something, just to keep the lights on & the trucks rolling.
With the provision of homegrown sustainable energy resources, that pressure to produce one half of their output of cheap food, minerals, tourism etc, would come to a halt. And America, as the leading wealthy nation, would lose out more than most.
So, in case you were thinking that it is sheer stupidity that gets the climate damage maths ignored, I'd say we must think again.
It is in reality cold blooded callous selfishness of one fading generation in wealthy nations, who are abusing the rights of both the rising generation and those as yet unborn,
Hansen is right in my view; there are powerful people who should be brought to trial for their part in the calamity that we now face.
Until the first are indited, others will continue their abuse under a reasonable assumption of impunity.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
rogerkb Posted 5:59 am
09 Jan 2009
The total cost may be lower but that does not mean that it will be cheap. The costs for new wind and new coal installations have just about reached parity (allowing for the fact the average capacity factor of coal is twice that of wind), mainly because the cost of new coal plant construction have skyrocketed in recent years. If we want to get rid of coal (I certainly do) then we have to add the cost of a super grid and energy storage. Furthermore, rising oil prices (If we stimulate our way out of this recession greenly or otherwise the price of oil will skyrocket again) will imply rising construction costs for any type of new power installations. Of course the long term cost of coal, including negative externalities and rising mining and transportation costs, is probably much higher than for wind. However, in an economic system in which our long term plans are short term profits, coming up with the finance capital for massive new energy projects of any type may prove to be very difficult.
We need an economic paradigm which emphasizes wealth maintenance rather than the constant increase of wealth. If we need to get richer in the short term in order to insure high employment levels and healthy retirement funds, then our ability to properly weigh the long term negative impacts of our economic activity will be severely limited. Anyone who is truly interested in the long term welfare of humanity should be thinking hard about how to create a wealth maintaining paradigm. I have a lot of trouble believing that carbon taxes and renewable energy subsidies within in a system of private finance capitalism will prove to be a sufficient response to the problems which we are facing.
Roger Brown
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 8:06 am
09 Jan 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:20 pm
09 Jan 2009
If we want to get rid of coal (I certainly do) then we have to add the cost of a super grid and energy storage. Furthermore, rising oil prices (If we stimulate our way out of this recession greenly or otherwise the price of oil will skyrocket again) will imply rising construction costs for any type of new power installations.
The cost will be payed with lower cost, more stabley priced energy and more stable disaster resistant smart grid technology that stores power.
Oil prices don't have to zoom up and down either, if plugin hybrids and other electric transportation solutions are used to reduce oil demand year after year, incrementally to match diminishing supply.
The restoration of the manufacturing, job, and tax base, with green jobs and more stable energy pricing, will generate growth that will dwarf the upfront cost of this new energy economy.
When you consider cost, add in the second recent coal slurry disaster.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
rogerkb Posted 2:34 am
10 Jan 2009
The restoration of the manufacturing, job, and tax base, with green jobs and more stable energy pricing, will generate growth that will dwarf the upfront cost of this new energy economy.
The statements above are unproven assertions that what you want to happen will happen. You will have to pardon me if I do not regard your statements in this regard as the pronouncements of an oracle. China, the fastest growing economy in the world, is building coal fired power plants like crazy. Are you claiming that before the end of the next decade that all new coal fired generation will have been abandoned in favor of low cost renewables? This question is not rhetorical. If you refuse to answer it don't bother replying to this post. If the answer is "yes" then please give the gory details of the economic calculations which support this assertion. If the answer is "no" then please give me the name of your crystal ball manufacturer; I would like to purchase one for myself.
However, let us suppose for a moment that you are indeed a technological oracle and that when the hiccup of the current global recession is over, the millennium of cheap, clean solar energy will arrive, and a new global economic boom will take off with not only China, and India, Africa, and South America rushing to catch up with us, but with the OECD nations constantly increasing their wealth exponentially. Is it your view that no other resource limitations besides energy stand in the way of the nirvana of constant growth during your lifetime (I am assuming that you are not so brain dead that you believe that exponential growth will continue forever.)? Do you believe that fossil fuel emissions are the only significant human impact on the biosphere, so that once they are eliminated we can engage in a no-holds barred consumer feeding frenzy for decades into the future?
Sooner or later we have to create an economic system that explicitly incorporates ecological intelligence. I do not see how this intelligence is ever going to come into existence in economic system in which our primary goal is to sell more stuff this year than we sold last year.
Roger Brown
Permalink