
It's Global Warming, Stupid - jgv
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid
======
twoodfin
Flagged as inappropriate for HN, but if we're going to have this discussion:

It would greatly help the "we must do something" crowd if they spent some time
working out exactly what that "something" would be, posting it for public
comment and refining as needed.

I am sympathetic to the idea that leveling off and eventually reducing global
CO2 emissions would be a sensible thing to do, but the key word there is
"global". China is already the world's leading emitter by a good margin and
will likely continue to increase their emissions, regardless of what happens
in the West. Indeed, if we make energy and its uses more expensive here, the
likelihood is that at least some of those emissions will simply migrate to
China, where they will be cheaper but likely greater for the same degree of
production.

I have yet to hear a proposal that is likely to both have an effect that
justifies its cost (carbon taxes are wildly regressive, and removing that
feature is tricky!), and is not absurdly unlikely to ever come to pass.

The cap and trade bill mentioned in this article fails the first test, I
believe.

~~~
abhimishra
And yes, we do need to agree at a global level and be willing to pay more for
certain goods/services as a result. The entire economic system will just re-
balance itself around that, if we as a global society agree that the costs of
inaction are greater.

Another note: while China is the world's leading emitter, they also have
contributed the most to abatement of emissions according to some (example:
[http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/Global_Policy_Tracker_2...](http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/Global_Policy_Tracker_20120424.pdf))
Let's not forget that the US did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, while China
did
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Kyoto_Pr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Kyoto_Protocol)).

------
jerrya
Here is a political scientist with a strong climate science background
discussing how Sandy is at this moment, is #17 in terms of all time damage,
but could move into the top 10.

[http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/10/sandy-and-
top-20-n...](http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/10/sandy-and-
top-20-normalized-us.html)

For me the question is what kept damages from Sandy down, is it because a) it
really wasn't that bad, or b) it really was that bad but East Coast resources,
modern construction, and recent experiences with Katrina, etc., minimized
damages?

Regardless, I find articles written a day or two after an event, by a layman,
attributing causality to that event fairly vacuous.

~~~
bradleyland
What do you mean by "what kept damages from Sandy down"? The damages for Sandy
huge for a weak category 1 hurricane.

By contrast, study the infographic linked below. Florida was hit by Charley,
Frances, Jeane, Rita, and Wilma in the span of two years (2004-2005). These
were all category 1 or 2 storms at landfall. They weren't nearly as large as
Sandy, but we're talking five separate storms of greater intensity. Some of
them made landfall or passed over densely populated South Florida regions. In
total, these storms added up to around $75b in damages; a mark I wouldn't be
surprised if Sandy passes. Individually, none of them passed the $20b mark.

Sandy did tremendous damage in the northeast for a weak category 1 hurricane.
No single factor is to blame. There are many:

* Sandy was large... LARGE

* Sandy hit an extremely densely populated area

* Coastal topology in the region made it susceptible to storm surge

That last point can't be made strongly enough. Once again, we see that it is
the water (ocean) that poses the greatest threat. The wind and rain are bad,
but even a small amount of water can pass wind and rain damage by a long shot.
It also takes far more lives.

[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/rising-
tide#...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/rising-tide#r=lr-
fst)

------
patrickgzill
So, what happened in 1938, when a storm of similar power swept through the
region? Was that also global warming?

~~~
msandford
People have a powerful bias towards recent history. Perhaps 1938 was a 100
year storm, and perhaps this was another. But nobody lives to be 300 years old
to where a 100 year storm isn't ZOMG WORST STORM EVAR!!!1!one!

------
jimmybrite
Ok there Jim Norton.

