Enough about all these fear-mongering narratives and all the nonsensical net-zero CO2 billions. We are now going to talk about the positive climate prospects for the future.
Presently and in the past, humanity has emitted a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. This has had some costs not internalized by the emitters somewhat too much has been and continues to be emitted. The question is, what is the optimal policy set to maximize the net benefits of CO2 emission? [Whether that will eventually entail zero gross emissions is undetermined.]
Debunking exaggerated claims of "crisis" does not get us very far toward finding that policy set.
Ahhhh... but politically and psychologically it matters a lot. Their goal is no regulation of fossil fuels period. And the more they can discredit the arguments against fossil fuels burning. The better.
Hey Thomas, you’re doing terrific work on the energy madness. But I think you’re wrong on climate, theoretically and practically. I’ve given one reference in my earlier comment (there are many more) with strong evidence that in the past and recently, temperature rises have preceded atmospheric CO2 increases (i.e., causation is not what’s commonly thought). On the practical side, all increased CO2 emissions since 1995 and all projected increases are from non-OECD countries that make up 80% of global population. Even if US emissions were zero tomorrow, the drop would be offset in decades by increased emissions from those non-OECD countries at current growth rates. Billions of people have energy usage less than that of one medium sized refrigerator a year. They all want reliable electricity, lights at night, labor-saving devices, smart phones, air conditioners, factories, offices and hospitals needing stable electricity. Those are powerful incentives, which won’t be stopped by claims of theoretical climate damage costs, many decades later, somewhere. Many will make the calculation, for example in The Philippines, where they’ve had typhoons/hurricanes every year for millennia, to build low cost efficient power plants (probably coal) and use the money saved to build houses out of concrete. The U.S.-centric focus of many commentators misses the global picture.
This article assumes that the chief measure of the threat from global warming is weather-related deaths. This is silly. Weather related deaths are a non-problem. The real issue is the change in the habitability of densely population regions of the planet that are already warm. How will the affected populations respond to changes that make their lives worse? How many will try to come to America. Do you want to let them in? If not, what are they to do, just calmly sit down and die so we can have the lives we want?
Don't you think they will believe that their problems are our fault? Will they become terrorists and get nukes from Pakistan or North Korea to use here. In 50 years of the War on Drugs the US has been unable to stop the flow of contraband into the country. Surely, they can smuggle nukes in and start setting them off in American cities if they were sufficiently motivated by anger and hatred. 911 showed that America can be attacked and can't really do anything about it (the hijackers came from Afghanistan, we invaded and lost).
This is the real threat but instead the "don't worry be happy folks" are focusing on idiotic stuff like deaths from cold or heat. Seriously?
Agreed they are looking at only one measure and not the most important one at that. But that's the story with the Climate Change deniers. Come up with any semi-plausible denial, and even a bunch that aren't even that, in order to forestall any meaningful action. And there's a big constituency for that sort of thing. We've all seen it. A coalition of carbon-sourced substance sellers, and a bunch of folks who don't wanna change their ways & habits. Especially now that the "eco" and Liberal crowds have taken these issues and made them their own. That makes opposition just for general principles quite common on the Right. And you know how they are:
1) There is no global warming.
2) Okay, there is some global warming, but it isn't because of anything people are doing, it's Mother Nature's thing.
3) Okay... Okay... Some global warming is caused by people. But only a little of it.
4) Okay... okay... okay... Climate change is real and really is causing most of the climate change of the last 50 years... but the problem's too out-of-control, there's nothing we can do about it now.
5) Rinse & Repeat for any bothersome rules & regulations that hinder the making of u profitdo
Well I guess we should worry about such things IF we do not take advantage of relative low cost avoidance and mitigation investments to maximize the discounted future income net of direct harm from climate change plus costs of mitigating those costs.
Ahhhh yes... where does the good professor and this substack get their funding? I smell fossil-fuel industry money hereabouts. And that industry is inherently untrustworthy. Case in point: Charles Koch. He has paid for several doubtingThomas campaigns to sew doubt about climate-change. Madison Avenue campaigns, Seats at prestigious universities, magazine articles, even whole books. While Koch himself believes in climate change. Saw him say it on Worth TV. He just didn't know if the sea rise would be one foot or fifty feet. And that unknown was his excuse to continually add to the problem and fund denialist literature. If one advocates for a position one does not believe in one is doing something wrong. Couple of problems though: 1) this planet is our one and inly home, and we're running an uncontrolled experiment on it by changing the composition of the atmosphere. Put that way, it sounds both stupid and criminally negligent. 2) Due to the sluggish response of the environment to these changes, when it does become blindingly obvious that it's changing, it will be too late to do much about it. Given that the body politic is slow to change its direction.
I have a lot more, but think I'll wait until you respond.
So let me get this straight... one set of. Billionaires is lying and conniving to sell as much fossil fuels as they can with no government over sight or standards. And using bogus-science arguments to bolster their positions... Another group of Billionaires is trying to profit from the misdeeds of the first bunch of Billionaires plus profit some more because modern societies use up lots of energy. They also are using bogus-science arguments to bolster their positions... YOU, as a supporter of the pro-fossil fuel bunch of Billionaires ( and you should be paid for your advocacy, if you aren't already) are combing through the literature to find counter-arguments in service to the first bunch of billionaires and to the detriment of the second bunch. All well and good. Personally I think you've picked the wrong side to advocate for... but this is all in the spirit of democracy and avid fair debate. So far, so good. But there are a couple if things I feel I just have to mention, even though I am under no illusion that my words will change your mind. Mostly because I don't think you'll learn anything from them... you've already made up your mind, and you might even have some ulterior motives and wider philosophical leanings that play out in a wider canvas. Something you aren't mentioning. Plus... and this is a biggie, you are cherry-picking from the report by the Honest Broker guy, and in so doing your use of SOME of his findings and positions, but most certainly not others, makes your advocacy just a wee bit disingenuous. If you know what I mean. And I think that you do. Which would account for my attitude. ... Thoughts??? ... And while You're thinking about that... I'll just mosey on over to your reply post of a little while ago... and see if I can't answer your questions.
Professors Berkhout and de Lange give a very sensible overview of climate hysteria, the reasons why no panic is warranted, the insane costs if present policies are expanded and the need to work together in a positive way. This approach is being circulated samizdat-style, but is unlikely to reach many. And if someone sent it to a politician, they would likely just receive back a summary of the 7,519 pages of the IPCC AR6 (WG I, II and III). These professors, excellent scientists in their own right have summarized the deficiencies and errors in the AR6, but few will read even that level of detail.
The scientific fraud, deception and disinformation will take decades to undo, but the economic catastrophe is already becoming evident. New coalitions will be needed to overcome the Green Blob.
We're already paying the costs and it's only going to get worse and more expensive as we go along. Insurance rates for one, if you can get insurance at all. Plus, the profits to be made all went into private hands. The mantra of the Billionaires and their henchmen: Costs to be socialized, profits to be privit
No, it’s a manageable problem using practical environmentalism.
But, the Green Industrial Complex will be much worse.
Mike, there are good reasons we should worried about internal terrorist.
Roger Pielke, Jr. has been writing about scientific fraud and integrity lately. His work gets extensive readership.
This seems like an argument against a straw man.
Presently and in the past, humanity has emitted a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. This has had some costs not internalized by the emitters somewhat too much has been and continues to be emitted. The question is, what is the optimal policy set to maximize the net benefits of CO2 emission? [Whether that will eventually entail zero gross emissions is undetermined.]
Debunking exaggerated claims of "crisis" does not get us very far toward finding that policy set.
Ahhhh... but politically and psychologically it matters a lot. Their goal is no regulation of fossil fuels period. And the more they can discredit the arguments against fossil fuels burning. The better.
Hey Thomas, you’re doing terrific work on the energy madness. But I think you’re wrong on climate, theoretically and practically. I’ve given one reference in my earlier comment (there are many more) with strong evidence that in the past and recently, temperature rises have preceded atmospheric CO2 increases (i.e., causation is not what’s commonly thought). On the practical side, all increased CO2 emissions since 1995 and all projected increases are from non-OECD countries that make up 80% of global population. Even if US emissions were zero tomorrow, the drop would be offset in decades by increased emissions from those non-OECD countries at current growth rates. Billions of people have energy usage less than that of one medium sized refrigerator a year. They all want reliable electricity, lights at night, labor-saving devices, smart phones, air conditioners, factories, offices and hospitals needing stable electricity. Those are powerful incentives, which won’t be stopped by claims of theoretical climate damage costs, many decades later, somewhere. Many will make the calculation, for example in The Philippines, where they’ve had typhoons/hurricanes every year for millennia, to build low cost efficient power plants (probably coal) and use the money saved to build houses out of concrete. The U.S.-centric focus of many commentators misses the global picture.
This article assumes that the chief measure of the threat from global warming is weather-related deaths. This is silly. Weather related deaths are a non-problem. The real issue is the change in the habitability of densely population regions of the planet that are already warm. How will the affected populations respond to changes that make their lives worse? How many will try to come to America. Do you want to let them in? If not, what are they to do, just calmly sit down and die so we can have the lives we want?
Don't you think they will believe that their problems are our fault? Will they become terrorists and get nukes from Pakistan or North Korea to use here. In 50 years of the War on Drugs the US has been unable to stop the flow of contraband into the country. Surely, they can smuggle nukes in and start setting them off in American cities if they were sufficiently motivated by anger and hatred. 911 showed that America can be attacked and can't really do anything about it (the hijackers came from Afghanistan, we invaded and lost).
This is the real threat but instead the "don't worry be happy folks" are focusing on idiotic stuff like deaths from cold or heat. Seriously?
Agreed they are looking at only one measure and not the most important one at that. But that's the story with the Climate Change deniers. Come up with any semi-plausible denial, and even a bunch that aren't even that, in order to forestall any meaningful action. And there's a big constituency for that sort of thing. We've all seen it. A coalition of carbon-sourced substance sellers, and a bunch of folks who don't wanna change their ways & habits. Especially now that the "eco" and Liberal crowds have taken these issues and made them their own. That makes opposition just for general principles quite common on the Right. And you know how they are:
1) There is no global warming.
2) Okay, there is some global warming, but it isn't because of anything people are doing, it's Mother Nature's thing.
3) Okay... Okay... Some global warming is caused by people. But only a little of it.
4) Okay... okay... okay... Climate change is real and really is causing most of the climate change of the last 50 years... but the problem's too out-of-control, there's nothing we can do about it now.
5) Rinse & Repeat for any bothersome rules & regulations that hinder the making of u profitdo
Well I guess we should worry about such things IF we do not take advantage of relative low cost avoidance and mitigation investments to maximize the discounted future income net of direct harm from climate change plus costs of mitigating those costs.
If rising CO2 emissions have no adverse impact, why would you bother with avoidance or mitigation? You are claiming there is no problem.
Ahhhh yes... where does the good professor and this substack get their funding? I smell fossil-fuel industry money hereabouts. And that industry is inherently untrustworthy. Case in point: Charles Koch. He has paid for several doubtingThomas campaigns to sew doubt about climate-change. Madison Avenue campaigns, Seats at prestigious universities, magazine articles, even whole books. While Koch himself believes in climate change. Saw him say it on Worth TV. He just didn't know if the sea rise would be one foot or fifty feet. And that unknown was his excuse to continually add to the problem and fund denialist literature. If one advocates for a position one does not believe in one is doing something wrong. Couple of problems though: 1) this planet is our one and inly home, and we're running an uncontrolled experiment on it by changing the composition of the atmosphere. Put that way, it sounds both stupid and criminally negligent. 2) Due to the sluggish response of the environment to these changes, when it does become blindingly obvious that it's changing, it will be too late to do much about it. Given that the body politic is slow to change its direction.
I have a lot more, but think I'll wait until you respond.
The actual lying billionaires are on the climate hoax side https://open.substack.com/pub/rogerpielkejr/p/climate-cooking?r=539lj&utm_medium=ios
So let me get this straight... one set of. Billionaires is lying and conniving to sell as much fossil fuels as they can with no government over sight or standards. And using bogus-science arguments to bolster their positions... Another group of Billionaires is trying to profit from the misdeeds of the first bunch of Billionaires plus profit some more because modern societies use up lots of energy. They also are using bogus-science arguments to bolster their positions... YOU, as a supporter of the pro-fossil fuel bunch of Billionaires ( and you should be paid for your advocacy, if you aren't already) are combing through the literature to find counter-arguments in service to the first bunch of billionaires and to the detriment of the second bunch. All well and good. Personally I think you've picked the wrong side to advocate for... but this is all in the spirit of democracy and avid fair debate. So far, so good. But there are a couple if things I feel I just have to mention, even though I am under no illusion that my words will change your mind. Mostly because I don't think you'll learn anything from them... you've already made up your mind, and you might even have some ulterior motives and wider philosophical leanings that play out in a wider canvas. Something you aren't mentioning. Plus... and this is a biggie, you are cherry-picking from the report by the Honest Broker guy, and in so doing your use of SOME of his findings and positions, but most certainly not others, makes your advocacy just a wee bit disingenuous. If you know what I mean. And I think that you do. Which would account for my attitude. ... Thoughts??? ... And while You're thinking about that... I'll just mosey on over to your reply post of a little while ago... and see if I can't answer your questions.
Professors Berkhout and de Lange give a very sensible overview of climate hysteria, the reasons why no panic is warranted, the insane costs if present policies are expanded and the need to work together in a positive way. This approach is being circulated samizdat-style, but is unlikely to reach many. And if someone sent it to a politician, they would likely just receive back a summary of the 7,519 pages of the IPCC AR6 (WG I, II and III). These professors, excellent scientists in their own right have summarized the deficiencies and errors in the AR6, but few will read even that level of detail.
The scientific fraud, deception and disinformation will take decades to undo, but the economic catastrophe is already becoming evident. New coalitions will be needed to overcome the Green Blob.
We're already paying the costs and it's only going to get worse and more expensive as we go along. Insurance rates for one, if you can get insurance at all. Plus, the profits to be made all went into private hands. The mantra of the Billionaires and their henchmen: Costs to be socialized, profits to be privit
Hey Keith, I have no idea why you believe what you believe. But Warren Buffett, leading some of the biggest insurance companies in the world, doesn’t see much impact of climate on insurance https://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/03/no-climate-change-impact-on-insurance-biz-buffett.html. He surely knows, as you appear not to, that climate related disaster losses are declining as a percentage of GNP https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17477891.2020.1800440.
Panic s never warranted, but a non-zero tax on net CO2 emissions IS.
Don’t think the science supports that https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35