Every single Republican candidate for president was openly mocking Obama when he was in Paris a few months ago for the climate talks. They're an absolute embarrassment:
So many people point to politicians as the problem, but remember the people who keep them in power. Politicians are just people who play the numbers, which is exactly how a republic is supposed to operate.
Yes that's correct and it works assuming the population is accurately informed. There's been a huge propoganda push against the idea of human caused climate change. And it's largely worked. I'm sure many of the politicians even believe it.
I think it has a lot more to do with moneyed interests who would lose out on climate-change regulation than with a tremendous bloc of voters who will not support a candidate who believes climate change is real.
Saying ISIS is a bigger threat to the global world than climate change is....embarrassing? Innocent people are being blown up and their heads are being cut off at this instant because of ISIS. They are committing a genocide at this very minute.
How many people per year would you estimate ISIS kills?
Is it more than 150,000 people [1]? Because that's how many people the WHO estimates currently die right now as a result of climate change. And the number is expected to go up to 250,000 by 2030-2050 [2].
Other estimates have been even higher, e.g. [3] which came up with 400,000 extra deaths due to climate change per year already.
Thanks for the links. I'll read them later in full. Off the bat: “That estimate includes deaths as a result of extreme weather conditions, which may be occurring with increased frequency.” May being the keyword there. Also, if the argument is more rainfall and temperatures contributing to spread of disease, does it estimate the ability to harvest more, or for longer periods in cooler climates? Not to belittle the warnings and data presented, but to look for the positive in the negative.
The GP poster is right--the threat to the average person from terrorism, from all sources, is tiny compared to, say, the risk due to extreme weather....or getting hit by a bus when crossing the street. Humans don't tend to respond rationally to fear, and tend to over exaggerate the risks of shocking things like death from terrorism. It is so common that some people came up with the idea of micromorts, so that one can reliably compare risks of unrelated items. Terrorism results in pretty tiny micromorts compared to, say, getting stuck by lightening.
And yet, with the record levels of climate emissions, billions of people are living longer and healthier due to cheaper energy costs that keep them warm and fed at low cost.
Why is the global world living longer despite its ever increasing usage of fossil fuels? Just to take one example, China's life expectancy has grown increasingly despite having record levels of pollution. You would think that more and more people would die as fossil fuels increase. Something doesn't connect here. Care to explain the conundrum for me?
ISIS having their hands on a nuke would be catastrophic.
Isis getting a nuke is quite far fetched. What is a bigger danger is one of the terrorist groups in Pakistan (which actually has nuclear weapons) getting a nuke. Or India & Pakistan having a nuclear exchange. Or one of the wars in the Middle East leading to Israel or the USA to use the nuclear weapons they have ready there (which they continually threaten). Nuclear war is one of the scariest things we face and could destroy us instantly, it's a small chance but a possibility.
However climate change is definitely already happening and is potentially also devastating for the survival of the species. It could itself ignite a number of conflicts, we have no idea what will happen, but we know it could be very bad.
Actually since Israel's nuclear weapons are a secret they are not continually threatening to use them, however the US is a different story. There are US nuclear weapons present in every war and the threats are made with statements like, "no option is off the table", and by looking at official policy, which maintains the option of a first nuclear strike.
I did exaggerate, sorry. There is some credible possibility of this happen, but our current models don't predict it. [1] I think it is fair to say that climate change could be very disruptive to civilization. Eg, it could cause famines, refugee crises, collapse of some societies, etc.
I would note that the graph does not show what the headline indicates.
The graph BNEF prepared shows carbon emissions ~tripling from 2012 to 2040, due to substantial growth in non-OECD coal & gas consumption, which swamps the drop in these categories for OECD countries.
Meanwhile, its consumption of coal – the dirtiest of the fossil fuels – dropped by 3.7 per cent, with imports down by a substantial 30 per cent.
The country’s solar and wind energy capacity soared last year by 74 and 34 per cent respectively compared with 2014, according to figures issued by China’s National Bureau of Statistics yesterday.
The latest figures state that “clean energy” – a combination of hydro, wind, solar, nuclear and natural gas – now accounts for 18 per cent of all its energy, up from 13 per cent in 2011.
Such rapid changes in how energy generation in China is changing suggests to me, that graph projecting non-OECD CO2 emission is most likely be wrong and overly pessimistic.
I'm not worried about China at all, their leadership has a far better chance of listening to science and acting appropriately. As they grow their standard of living it will be using less carbon intensive methods.
Meanwhile, the US is far too entrenched with ideology and vested interests that have captured the political machinery.
Kind of sad that we're in this state, but people keep voting Republican...
This could be primarily because of the economic slowdown, but I've read other articles that report the change is more systemic and permanent as China seeks to lead in clean energy tech.
I care about China of course, I said I'm not "worried" about them. I'm not "worried" about those increasing emissions, that's completely expected, and better than what most people thought it would be in previous years.
What solutions are you proposing exactly to reverse climate change? The trillions in investment so far in clean energy have yielded minimal results. What specifically are you recommending?
If renewables did get trillions in investment this far, a reference would be nice, it wouldn't touch the subsidies fossil fuels receive annually at $5.3tn[0].
Accounting for environmental damage is important, but if you calculate the subsidies like that, it isn't just the energy industry that gets subsidized (as would largely be the case with renewables), it's the consumers using the energy (they receive most of such subsidies).
So just to be clear: The $5.3 trillion is arrived at by counting untaxed environmental harm as a subsidy. Which I think it is interesting to consider the damage, but I don't think that is what people are going to think when they think energy subsidy.
No, this really is a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry: the amount they pay to obtain fossil fuels is less than the actual cost, which means they can sell them for prices which would be unprofitable if they paid for the environmental costs and for applications where they'd otherwise be replaced by other more environmentally-friendly options. The consumers definitely aren't the ones who are being subsidised here - they don't care where their energy is coming from, so the actual consumer benefit is only the difference between the cost of fossil fuels and the cost of the cheapest option if fossil fuel producers had to pay the full environmental price, minus the environmental harms to the consumers. (Which may well actually not be a net benefit to consumers at all.)
But consumers would have either had to pay extra for that $5.3 trillion expense, or not use as much energy. Figuring out where the blame should be placed is a bit of chicken and egg, but we're trying to point out that bandying questionable numbers around like this isn't helping the cause.
I think my point still stands in response to his argument, if you ignore post-tax subsidies. The pre-tax sum is $333bn in 2015 and $541bn in 2013. So would easily accumulate to trillions over a short number of years.
But I do think post-tax subsidies is a fair metric, for example, in places where there's state health care, my tax is being spent to care for people whose health has been affected by fossil fuels. So it seems like state subsidised to me.
As I mentioned in my other reply to you (which happened at the same time) revenue neutral carbon tax, or the equivalent righty version which is cap and trade.
But really technology is going to drive this change, as long as the entrenched interests don't prevent the use of renewables that are cheaper than fossil fuels.
Already ideally sited solar and wind are cheaper than coal, and learning curves are pushing that down all the time.
Storage is also getting incredibly cheap, with lithium ion batteries it's around $0.08/kWh right now at the wholesale level.
What we're really going to need is efficient carbon capture schemes though, because the feet-draggers have cost us an extremely valuable 15 years. If we can do capture at something less than $500/ton then I'm starting to feel a bit optimistic that we can head off the worst of it.
But every. Single. Ton. That we emit right now is going to cost out children several times that amount. Improving efficiency of use and increasing the scale and efficiency of the renewable energy manufacturing is a massively important economic development for the US and the world.
The trouble with the idea that technology will drive this change is that it's just driving down the cost of fossil fuels to below the new technologies as countries like Saudi Arabia desperately try and make sure they sell all of their oil. In order to avoid global warming we need to leave fossil fuels in the ground and that's just not in the interest of fossil fuel producers, and because for a lot of those fuels extraction is a tiny portion of the price they can afford to undercut renewables all the way down the cost curve until the pumps run dry or the renewable energy manufacturers give up and go out of business.
Fuel costs are just one part of the infrastructure, as fuels get cheaper, capital costs will dominate. (And they already do for, say, cars where less than half of the per mile costs are for fuel.) At some point I believe the capital costs will be less for renewables than for any fossil fuel based system.
Of course if we were to price in the negative externalities, I think that renewables would already be cheaper. But this is one case where ideology has prevented us from setting up an efficient market for energy.
Except cap and trade programs have done nothing to prevent or curb climate change. Oil companies just buy carbon offsets and continue polluting. Solar still depends on billions in subsidies to be viable, as with many other renewable energy sources. Solar is also extremely inefficient. It costs around 8 times more to output the same energy compared to natural gas for example. We've already invested billions in solar, and we've barely made a dent on solar costs. Oil is very cheap and affordable to the poor, which explains their continued use in the developing world over renewable energy.
What carbon cap and trade programs? Is your contention that a cap and trade program could t reduce emissions? If it can't, then it's not a cap and trade program.
Your pricing information on renewables is out of date, and quickly becoming more out of date.
The renewable industry is changing fast, traditional energy industry changes slow. Those dinosaurs won't know what's hit them until it's too late.
Not 100% sure about this, but if you rely only on a pure market approach, then oil & coal will become cheaper & cheaper while they become less popular. Their demand will drop & so the price will go down.
The reality is that we must put an human mandated limit on the amount of carbon fuels to burn.
Think of it another way: If burning carbon fuels causes major instability in the climate, then the fate of the human race should not be determined by the amount of carbon in the ground. It should be determined by humans being determined.
Higher prices on carbon fuels would be the simplest solution. Cap and trade works. It's not perfect but it works. Creating property rights for the sky lets markets do their magic.
"A 2003 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) study found that the Acid Rain Program accounted for the largest quantified human health benefits of any major federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 years, with benefits exceeding costs by more than 40:1."
There are several examples in history of succumbing to hte logic "we need a single-party state in order to finally listen to scientists about the best way to run society!" It doesn't end well.
I suppose if the scientists were in charge, we'd finally stop burning fossil fuels? That we'd force massive changes to resource distribution and reshape society in order to save the world?
And if you don't agree, you're too dangerous, right? Off ot the gulags?
Do you understand that millions and millions of people would die of starvation?
It's amazing how eagerly people advocate for the right kind of totalitarianism.
Hah, that's not even remotely what I was asking for, and very weird that you would put totalitarianism as words in my mouth. Most unfair.
the way that parties change is that people stop voting for them. Any vote for such a stridently anti-science and anti-future party encourages them.
That said, this is my most important issue. Others will rank other issues higher, and vote on that basis. But it will be at least a decade after the Republican Party apologizes and corrects their science mistakes that I will trust them to vote for them.
Since when are any politicans forthright in correcting and apologizing for their mistakes? Barring prison or other legal woes, when was the last time the advocates of any government program awknowledged and sought to remedy the deleterious effects of their actions?
I don't read that epistasis was suggesting it's because they're a single party totalitarian state. It's because their elected officials aren't loudly proclaiming that climate change doesn't exist, regardless of how many parties there are.
Plenty of multi-party democracies have parties that somehow manage to agree on whether anthropogenic climate change exists and whether dinosaurs were real. America just isn't one of them.
We don't need a single party state, we need parties that aren't embarrassingly out of touch with how the world works. When your presidential candidates take pride in not believing things despite overwhelming evidence, you have a problem.
What's amazing is that people think questioning means you aren't scientific (and thus an idiot). Believing in science MEANS questioning everything.
Our society questions nothing. If we find it on the internet - it's true. Very few want to be a contrarian or go against what's popular at any given time for fear of others shaming them in mob-groups for having a different viewpoint.
We've entrusted too much credibility in people with science degrees and their models. I've done some interesting things with machine learning. It's extremely easy to develop predictive models that confirm what you want to confirm. That was probably the first thing I learned and if you aren't humble - you'll use a model as a crutch and be proved a fool.
Some of the greatest minds in history have been proven wrong. Science is not a democracy.
Our country isn't either but people forget that. They think 50+1 should dictate everything. Me-first.
If only they understood the other side - they could unite. But they haven't advanced beyond their tribalism and self-righteousness.
There is this scary video[1] done by NASA that shows the earth with the level of CO2 across a year. The CO2 from China goes right to SF... And then it goes crazy. You can also see why the amazon rainforest is named the lungs of the planet or in this video it looks more like the heart of our planet.
But China seems now to be really willing to reduce its impact on the planet. There are the huge investments on solar panels for instance.
Can you provide a link supporting your claim that animal agriculture has >50% of the CO2 footprint or that the American continents produce much more CO2 than China?
I couldn't find the links for the second claim (its somewhere out there) but the ones provided don't account for animals, land use and rainforest elimination. All three are major factors of the animal agriculture.
Note that these links are talking about total greenhouse gas production, not just CO2 as was originally stated in pitchka's comment and questioned in mine. Pitchka's "18%/51%" estimates are not actually talking about literal CO2 output, but rather about general "GHG" (greenhouse gas) emissions, including gases like methane.
Based on these links which we traded, while you appear to be incorrect in your claims about literal CO2 emissions (which was what I originally commented on), perhaps what is more important is that you are correctly alluding to the effect of greenhouse gases besides CO2, such as methane.
We can hide behind per-capita stats but the global CO2 level and climate does not care about per capita.