Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

KyussB wrote: »

Absolutely, all true - and a good way of paraphrasing, is that it's all a political problem - the economics of undertaking it don't present any show stoppers.

If it enters mainstream consciousness among the public, that economically there are zero obstacles to government undertaking it, that the obstacles are only political - then that is what would be needed to make such government action happen.

When you think about it: That is the best chance there is of making it happen (from either of the private or public sector). It is only propaganda and bad economics, that holds back the public from being able to see that stuff accurately - and we are already seeing people like Sanders/AOC making progress in overcoming that (even if they don't go for enough, yet).

In other words, if the Overton Window gets tipped far enough in that direction, it will solve the political problem.

I'm not sure if there are no economic barriers. Many will expect serious government investment to replace jobs in BnM and Moneypoint if lost due to closure, many will use it as an excuse to call for government investment in infrastructure and so on.

Public perception is changing (in public, if you know what I mean) but the fact remains that behaviours still have not come even close to changing appropriately.

Gaoth Laidir

Tell me how wrote: »

You'd probably be more comfortable in the weather forum discussing specific one off events rather than the broader topic being discussed here.

I'll post where I like, thank you.

You seem to have an issue with people pointing out the pointlessness of trying focus on an individual event in the context of this discussion. Particularly when you have said yourself you weren't entirely correct in relation to that.

Oh but that's exactly what the whole frenzy is about. Instant attribution of each single event, added up over numerous individual events. Don't tell me you still don't get it! Again, if you don't like me posting these facts then I suppose I get why.

Plus, at least one poster doesn't like anything being discussed which isn't in the thread title so they're probably getting upset at the reference to the RCP4.5 .

Aw, poor wittle KyussB doesn't want to weply to the wequest for info and has got all upset. I think the performance of the global temperature projections definitely qualifies as a topic for discussion in this thread. Again, where do you get off telling people what they can and can't discuss? Let the mods do that.

gozunda wrote: »

Oh but I do lolz - Tell me how - lolz. And your been around for a fair of amount of time and still with the unexplained greta worship but there we go :pac:

Btw did you forget as well about the carbon tax increases in the last budget or something ?

Sigh, I never said that there was no tax, but there being some tax and claiming it is all a ruse to 'Tax, Tax, Tax' are too very different things.

I know I've been clear already but in the interest of providing another case of laying it out clearly, here is why I support Greta.

She is correct that action is needed.
She is trying to live by example.
She is saying that science and industry needs to be supported to determine appropriate solutions.
She has motivated millions to support her cause.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'll post where I like, thank you.

Oh but that's exactly what the whole frenzy is about. Instant attribution of each single event, added up over numerous individual events. Don't tell me you still don't get it! Again, if you don't like me posting these facts then I suppose I get why.

Aw, poor wittle KyussB doesn't want to weply to the wequest for info and has got all upset. I think the performance of the global temperature projections definitely qualifies as a topic for discussion in this thread. Again, where do you get off telling people what they can and can't discuss? Let the mods do that.

Well, you were the one who brought up your interest in posting on those threads.
Would these be the facts that you then acknowledge you weren't 100% correct in using? What does that make them? Alternative facts?

You might want to check out your keyboard, last paragraph reads like a child typed it.

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm not sure if there are no economic barriers. Many will expect serious government investment to replace jobs in BnM and Moneypoint if lost due to closure, many will use it as an excuse to call for government investment in infrastructure and so on.

Public perception is changing (in public, if you know what I mean) but the fact remains that behaviours still have not come even close to changing appropriately.

Well, the economic barriers pointed out there, are only barriers in that they need a plan

(of what to do with the newly unemployed workers, what infrastructure we need and how to minimize carbon emissions from its development etc..)

Thankfully, there are plans ready. Sanders/AOC promote the Job Guarantee policy, and public works policies tied into that, which would precisely take unemployed people and put them to work (with a living wage) on infrastructure projects and R&D, precisely aimed at transitioning the economy to renewables and combatting emissions - the Job Guarantee in particuar, would ensure that nobody who wants a job, would be without one.

So, with the right plans, there are no economic barriers. There is, however, a lot of work and R&D that needs to be done, to fully realize the economic/infrastructural solutions, of course.

You're right that behaviours still need to change, when it comes to conservation/consumption and such - but the further key is: Government action at the right scale, can still completely solve the climate problem, even if peoples behaviours on an individual level barely change

rossie1977 wrote: »

Victoria Falls one of the great natural wonders of the world has almost dried up. This crisis is moving at incredible speed

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-50549711/could-victoria-falls-dry-up

Except it hasn't. The title if that piece is "Could Victoria Falls dry up?" It then stares that the average flow over the falls in 2019 is down by not quite 50% - ie one fairly dryish year by all accounts.

A quick search shows that the falls have a mean monthly flow of max 3,000 and a min of 300 cubic metres per second (i.e., the total volume of water passing in each calendar month divided by the number of seconds in the month). This is the standard measure used in hydrology to indicate seasonal variation in flow) The '10-year maximum' flow is 6000 cubic metres per second and gives the mean of the maximum monthly rate returned in a ten-year period. So there is quite a lot of variation there already. We will certainly have to wait more than one year to determine whether the falls are actually in any danger of drying up completely or otherwise ...

[Deleted User]

pmsl

im almost checking my own account for koch money at this stage.

theyve some vendetta against that one poster on boards all the same. if he disagrees with something, theyve funded it.

next halloween im dressing up as koch money, gonna jump out and say BOO! at him

*disclaimer. amusement at the thousandth dismissal of anything kyussb doesnt like as being related to the koch bros is not to be taken as support for the koch bros or their efforts. no communksts were harmed in the making of this post, though several dozen million died during idealogically fanatical collectivist plans in the twentieth century.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Am I really reading still reading this? Have my posts come out in Japanese or something? How difficult can it be? You've just made up some rambling analysis that resembles nothing I've said.

The IOD is a totally natural phenomenon. Nothing to do with humans. Any effects that ghgs have on its intensity, while possible, are still highly uncertain and have not been quantified, as stated by the Australian BOM in a link already posted. It is therefore incorrect for the media or anyone else to state categorically, which is what has been done, that the link with increased ghgs is tangible in this case. THAT is what I've been saying. The same with the other events around the globe that I mentioned.

Don't disagree with that statement but what link are you referring to? The link that was posted earlier https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/nov/19/global-heating-supercharging-indian-ocean-dipole-climate-system reports a quote from the Australian BOM:

"Australian climatologists have pointed to this year’s dipole as at least one of the contributing factors in the bushfires. Jonathan Pollock, of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, said this dipole was “up there as one of the strongest” on record".

That statement attributes the effect of the IOD as one of the contributing factors but doesn't express an opinion either way on whether its strength was impacted by the effects of AGW.

Did you post a link which contains the quote you allude to?

The aforementioned article however, does not state categorically, but rather suggests that Indian Ocean dipole events have become more common with the warming in the last 50 years, with climate models suggesting a tendency for such events to become more frequent and becoming stronger based on research done by Caroline Ummenhofer, a scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. You also stated that, and I paraphrase, "nobody is able to prove that this year's IOD is anything more than natural variability" but equally the converse is true, so whether the impact of the IOD on the recent bushfires,which is only one of several contributing factors, was amplified by the significant warming of the Indian ocean 100–300-m depth layer since 2003, and whether that warming can be attributed solely to AGW, is not yet known with an absolute degree of certainty. Your contention, I presume,although you did not state it explicitly, is that you object to the headline of the article namely "Global heating supercharging Indian Ocean climate system" but do not deny the substance of the content.

Who also stated that the IOD is not a naturally occurring climate oscillation? The trend of unprecedented increases in global mean temperatures, caused by AGW,has impacted naturally occurring climate drivers,the extent of which is a source of continuing research, so to categorically state no human activity has intervened to amplify their effects, is the polar opposite of anything science is saying. It's also completely nonsensical to suggest that you can categorically state an event, such as the recent Australian bushfires, was not in any way, form, or shape affected by the overall pattern of changing climate with the level of confidence expressed by yourself.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The conditions that have led to their severity and duration are due to a 100% natural phenomenon, as explained in great detail by learned meteorologists way more qualified than me.

Your claim above was not substantiated, as you emphatically stated, by the sources you refer to.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Was I wrong to say 100% natural for this fire? In hindsight, yes. I'll give you that. Meteorology and most certainly climatology are not exact sciences, so let me instead use the language of the IPCC and say it's virtually certain .

You are not writing in Japaneses,virtually certain of that,but your conclusion to your argument is not supported in the slightest by anything you posted so you should be candid about admitting that. All of which was expressed more succinctly in my previous post.

Gaoth Laidir

Tell me how wrote: »

Well, you were the one who brought up your interest in posting on those threads.
Would these be the facts that you then acknowledge you weren't 100% correct in using? What does that make them? Alternative facts?

You might want to check out your keyboard, last paragraph reads like a child typed it.

You're now rambling incoherently and know damn well that the 100% comment was not an admission of an error as I changed it to use the language of the IPCC. The point still stands.

Looks like you didn't get the irony of you acting like KyussB's mother, trying to get him out of needing to answer the question. The words were deliberate motherese, but I guess you missed that.

Anyway, KyussB, if you're still up and not put to bed by TMH, here's that trend I was asking about. From the IPCC 5th AR, with the subsequent annual temperatures (black dots) inserted by me. So far, at least, temperatures are well below the RCP4.5 model consensus. How so? Or should I not point this out either?

Tell me how wrote: »

Sigh, I never said that there was no tax, but there being some tax and claiming it is all a ruse to 'Tax, Tax, Tax' are too very different things.
I know I've been clear already but in the interest of providing another case of laying it out clearly, here is why I support Greta.
She is correct that action is needed.

She is trying to live by example.

She is saying that science and industry needs to be supported to determine appropriate solutions.

She has motivated millions to support her cause.

Except this is what you said in reply to my comment

gozunda wrote:

And still western governments are ramping up to tax the crap out of people

And you replied

Tell me how" wrote:

Except this is not happening outside of the narrative by those trying to find something to claim about Greta's message.

Well glad we cleared that up anyway.

Anyway as to the inexplicable greta worship - what can we say except all the above have been shown to be largely balloney or simply doesnt stand up to scrutiny - but you know that already!

gozunda wrote: »

Except this is what you said in reply to my comment

Nope. That level of tax is a pretty long way from taxing the crap out of people which 'tax, tax tax' would definitely imply.

gozunda wrote: »

Anyway as to the inexplicable greta worship - what can we say except all the above have been shown to be largely balloney or simply doesnt stand up to scrutiny - but you know that already!

Sorry, wrong again.
Your view on something (or inability to understand it) does not equate to it being balloney as a consequence. Sorry.

Tell me how wrote: »

Nope. That level of tax is a pretty long way from taxing the crap out of people which 'tax, tax tax' would definitely imply.

Did you miss out where I said and I quote 'ramping up to tax...' yes? Btw it was you who said 'tax, tax tax' (your quotes btw not mine!) Oh well no worries

Tell me how wrote: »

Sorry, wrong again.
Your view on something (or inability to understand it) does not equate to it being balloney as a consequence. Sorry.

Yes you are wrong there. But no need to apologise. Glad we agree on that anyway. It's not just me saying that btw. So yeah it does equate to the whole caboddle being balloney :pac:

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Anyway, KyussB, if you're still up and not put to bed by TMH, here's that trend I was asking about. From the IPCC 5th AR, with the subsequent annual temperatures (black dots) inserted by me. So far, at least, temperatures are well below the RCP4.5 model consensus. How so? Or should I not point this out either?

Why would I reply to that, when I never referenced the RCP4.5 parts of your post in the first place - when I replied to something else entirely?

It's like me repeatedly askng you - "What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?" - it's got fuck all relevance to anything you replied to, but if I keep on asking it, it can be used as a rhetorical attack - even though it makes bugger all sense...

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Mises.org - in other words, a Libertarian think tank which peddles Austrian Economics (a branch of economics long ago discredited) - and is (once again) funded by the Koch oil oligarchs - and a document relating to an economic system that nobody presented.

The New Deal in the US and the Marshall Plan in Europe are pretty good examples of the type of mass government efforts needed, that you'd be very hard pressed to pin the big 'C' label on.

It was you made the following claim and you have now way to support this.

KyussB wrote: »

. . . . Governments are completely capable managing the resources in an economy . . .

Nor are the original New Deal and Marshall plan examples of Governments completely managing the resources in an economy. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), China under Mao are examples where governments completely controlled the resources in economies however the lack of a rational price system impoverished the people living in those countries and had to be abandoned. Today North Korea is the most obvious example of a Government that attempts to be completely capable managing the resources in an economy. In resource rich Venezuela the government has collapsed the standard of living for the majority of its citizens many of whom have had to flee across the world in search of a living, they tried also to fix the prices.

Incidentally mises.org have never been funded by the Kochs and that is not an argument that supports your statement that "Governments are completely capable managing the resources in an economy". The original new deal originated with Herbert Hoover and it was not the solution to the great depression of the 1930s and prolonged it under FDR. The proximate cause of the 1930s depression was not the 1929 Wall Street collapse it was the wave of sovereign debt collapses that happened around the period and triggered the collapse of American banks who were creditors at the time. The solution to that was debt restructuring rather than control of the economy. In Western Germany after World war II the new German government rejected socialism and it was Ludwig Erhard (his economic advisors were Von Mises students) who introduced their Social market economy (soziale Marktwirtschaft). You can contrast the fortunes of the people who lived in West and East Germany over the period. People pushing their ideology that Governments are completely capable of managing the resources in an economy seem to overlook East Germany. . . .

weldoninhio

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So you think the earth is finite and we can keep consuming as we are? That we are not polluting our oceans? That wildlife and insects aren't depleting like never before?
All this is a hoax?

Of course the earth is finite. There are finite resources. Maybe it’s best for the planet that humans are wiped out? Or a large proportion of them? Who is polluting the oceans? Who is causing wildlife and insects to deplete??

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

It was you made the following claim and you have now way to support this.

KyussB wrote: »

. . . . Governments are completely capable managing the resources in an economy . . .

...

You are deliberately quoting only party of a sentence, in order to transform it from government undertaking large projects within the economy - New Deal style - to government taking control of the whole economy. This isn't an innocent misinterprettion on your and others behalf either - it's a deliberate pattern of straw men.

A large proportion of Mises Institute founders, personnel and board directors are tied up with Koch linked think tanks - and the views espoused by the Mises Institute are practically entirely the same (climate change denial, pro-tobacco-industry propaganda, support for child labour, opposing the boycott of apartheid in South Africa by Rothbard - whoe also supported a prominent KKK'er running for office, and the infamous racist/homophobic newsletters by Mises founder Rockwell and board director Ron Paul) - the Koch think tank network and the networks around the Mises Institute are two sides of the same coin.

Some choice quotess of the core Mises founder Rockwell and board director Ron Paul, in their racist newsletters:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"

"Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities"

Another newsletter asserted that HIV-positive homosexuals "enjoy the pity and attention that comes with being sick" and approved of the slogan "Sodomy=Death."

A number of the newsletters criticized civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., calling him a pedophile and "lying socialist satyr"

So yea - that's the quality of the Mises institute folk. Do you have any associations with Libertarian think tanks?

gozunda wrote: »

Sometimes a bit of reality helps when the train has not only derailed but gone over the viaduct and amounts to a trainwreck of gargantuan proportions.

Indeed the GND is political. Strange that some don't seem to appreciate that whilst at the same accusing others of making politicised commentary. It appears indeed that the same seem simply have no interest in science, only in politics. Odd no?

The calls for a green new deal is a political response to a very real, scientifically validated threat.

Calling the Green New Deal political is a bit like calling the eradication of Smallpox political, or the current attempts to rollback anti vax conspiracy theories and regain herd immunity 'political'. There are political implications but the actions were justified by the best available evidence.

The need to act is scientifically justified. The way we act is politically determined.

The reason people are calling for a 'Green new deal' is because decades of deliberate misinformation and obfuscation has meant that instead of beginning to reduce greenhouse emissions 30 years ago when there was more than enough data to justify action, we have delayed and 'debated' ourselves into a situation where it now requires radical action to prevent climate change from exceeding the 2c threshold beyond which there are the risks of unstoppable positive feedback mechanisms that will propel us into a 'hothouse earth'

We explore the risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, could prevent stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause continued warming on a “Hothouse Earth” pathway even as human emissions are reduced. Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene. We examine the evidence that such a threshold might exist and where it might be. If the threshold is crossed, the resulting trajectory would likely cause serious disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies. Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state. Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System—biosphere, climate, and societies—and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252

is_that_so

Akrasia wrote: »

The calls for a green new deal is a political response to a very real, scientifically validated threat.

Calling the Green New Deal political is a bit like calling the eradication of Smallpox political, or the current attempts to rollback anti vax conspiracy theories and regain herd immunity 'political'. There are political implications but the actions were justified by the best available evidence.

The need to act is scientifically justified. The way we act is politically determined.

The reason people are calling for a 'Green new deal' is because decades of deliberate misinformation and obfuscation has meant that instead of beginning to reduce greenhouse emissions 30 years ago when there was more than enough data to justify action, we have delayed and 'debated' ourselves into a situation where it now requires radical action to prevent climate change from exceeding the 2c threshold beyond which there are the risks of unstoppable positive feedback mechanisms that will propel us into a 'hothouse earth'

The New Green Deal is far too vague in detail and suffers from that "one plan to fit all" belief. The criticisms of it are quite valid, absolutely no clear overall cost and by extension no cost to voters, far too narrowly focused and with some impossible timelines. As for politics, the nod to FDR bit didn't alert you to what they are up to? Until the GOP returns anywhere towards some form of bilateralism, it's not going anywhere. Incidentally, the sun is likely take care of when that "2c" kicks in, over the next two sun cycles, with some cooling of its own.

Akrasia wrote: »

The calls for a green new deal is a political response to a very real, scientifically validated threat.Calling the Green New Deal political is a bit like calling the eradication of Smallpox political, or the current attempts to rollback anti vax conspiracy theories and regain herd immunity 'political'. There are political implications but the actions were justified by the best available evidence.The need to act is scientifically justified. The way we act is politically determined.The reason people are calling for a 'Green new deal' is because decades of deliberate misinformation and obfuscation has meant that instead of beginning to reduce greenhouse emissions 30 years ago when there was more than enough data to justify action, we have delayed and 'debated' ourselves into a situation where it now requires radical action to prevent climate change from exceeding the 2c threshold beyond which there are the risks of unstoppable positive feedback mechanisms that will propel us into a 'hothouse earth'

Oh do give that type of extreme ideological promotion a break lol. It's more than transparent that the green deal in its present format is a child of the democratic party in the US in a bid to get back into power. In the UK it has been - surprise surprise - adopted by the UK socialist party. It even has radicalised youth wing for fek sake!. And is about as about as political as it gets. Even the most summary reading shows that it is a crock of crap. But there you go. Unlike the rather daft comparison with something like smallpox - medical and other professionals are certainly not in unison about supporting this type of ****e. For sure the Green new deal' is composed of 'deliberate misinformation and obfuscation'. You dont need to be a genius to figure any of that out tbh.

gozunda wrote: »

Oh do give that type of extreme ideological promotion a break lol. It's more than transparent that the green deal in its present format is a child of the democratic party in the US in a bid to get back into power. In the UK it has been - surprise surprise - adopted by the UK socialist party. It even has radicalised youth wing for fek sake!. And is about as about as political as it gets. Even the most summary reading shows that it is a crock of crap. But there you go. Unlike the rather daft comparison with something like smallpox - medical and other professionals are certainly not in unison about supporting this type of ****e. For sure the Green new deal' is composed of 'deliberate misinformation and obfuscation'. You dont need to be a genius to figure any of that out tbh.

You just need to be either extremely prejudiced or narrow minded.

Surprise surprise, some have an issue with political parties trying to develop policies which will appeal to the electorate and which aim to be for the betterment of society.

What position are you currently holding Gozunda? There is not issue with the climate which needs action in how humans are influencing it? Or, there is an issue but we can get out of it by doing the exact same things we have been doing already?

Tell me how wrote: »

Surprise surprise, some have an issue with political parties trying to develop policies which will appeal to the electorate and which aim to be for the betterment of society.

Yes but they're socialist policies and as everybody knows,even if they're not really sure what socialism is, that's just bad. Can't you understand that? Why can't you be happy with our Utopian society and ignore those bad scientists and their pesky reports trying to influence our nice cozy political orthodoxy just so they can fleece us for our money to buy more Bunsen burners. Can you just stop with all this political stuff and focus on the real issue ..why isn't Greta at school learning how to speculate on the financial markets. At least that way she could afford her own yacht and wouldn't be so upset when she turns up at the UN next time.

is_that_so wrote: »

The New Green Deal is far too vague in detail and suffers from that "one plan to fit all" belief. The criticisms of it are quite valid, absolutely no clear overall cost and by extension no cost to voters, far too narrowly focused and with some impossible timelines. As for politics, the nod to FDR bit didn't alert you to what they are up to? Until the GOP returns anywhere towards some form of bilateralism, it's not going anywhere. Incidentally, the sun is likely take care of when that "2c" kicks in, over the next two sun cycles, with some cooling of its own.

The GND has a very clear set of programs it puts forward - principally the New Deal style infrastructural/redevelopment projects and R&D for advancing tech for renewables and eliminating carbon emissions, coupled with policies like the Job Guarantee and associated retraining programs, which (only part of its purpose) ensures that anyone in an industry affected by the necessary changes, will have a deccent living wage job and future prospects in the private industry again when they leave the JG.

There is no level of specificness that will ever satisfy someone who opposes the GND purely for political/ideological reasons - yet the details and major policies it does put forward, are pretty undebatably guaranteed to increase efforts at fighting climate change immensely (by orders of magnitude at least).

The cost is in not undertaking the GND, because the effects on the environment and the planet, are going to be immensely costly to us all, beyond calculation - far greater in scale than the mere monetary 'cost' of the GND.

The synonym of 'cost' with the implied meaning, of money spent and leaving the remaining pot smaller, doesn't apply to governments, because that's not how government finances work - the 'pot' of available money can be made to expand as much as the government needs to keep GDP at full potential (without having to create a cost in the private sector - as balanced budgets almost never happen) - the synonym of 'cost' that applies to government, is simply that which notes money has been spent, with zero said about the remaining availability of money.

This means that when you want to talk about the positives and negatives of cost in terms of government policy - you focus on the social cost, physical/infrastructural cost, environmental cost, the cost of an overheating economy etc. etc. - focusing on mere monetary numbers doesn't make any sense in this regard, it's actually completely backwards as suddenly allowing an actual/real environmental cost, becomes a monetary 'virtue', by avoiding the 'cost' of spending that money - even when in practical terms, the 'pot' the government spends from is only limited when maximum GDP output is reached, not by some arbitrary monetary limit.

Thinking purely in monetary terms is a completely fucking backwards way of understanding government finances, obscuring the true/real/actual/physical/social/etc. costs of things - which, unfortunately, is how most of the public still views things - and is one of the major things that needs to change in public perception.

KyussB wrote: »

The GND has a very clear set of programs it puts forward - principally the New Deal style infrastructural/redevelopment projects and R&D for advancing tech for renewables and eliminating carbon emissions, coupled with policies like the Job Guarantee and associated retraining programs, which (only part of its purpose) ensures that anyone in an industry affected by the necessary changes, will have a deccent living wage job and future prospects in the private industry again when they leave the JG.

There is no level of specificness that will ever satisfy someone who opposes the GND purely for political/ideological reasons - yet the details and major policies it does put forward, are pretty undebatably guaranteed to increase efforts at fighting climate change immensely (by orders of magnitude at least).

The cost is in not undertaking the GND, because the effects on the environment and the planet, are going to be immensely costly to us all, beyond calculation - far greater in scale than the mere monetary 'cost' of the GND.

The synonym of 'cost' with the implied meaning, of money spent and leaving the remaining pot smaller, doesn't apply to governments, because that's not how government finances work - the 'pot' of available money can be made to expand as much as the government needs to keep GDP at full potential (without having to create a cost in the private sector - as balanced budgets almost never happen) - the synonym of 'cost' that applies to government, is simply that which notes money has been spent, with zero said about the remaining availability of money.

This means that when you want to talk about the positives and negatives of cost in terms of government policy - you focus on the social cost, physical/infrastructural cost, environmental cost, the cost of an overheating economy etc. etc. - focusing on mere monetary numbers doesn't make any sense in this regard, it's actually completely backwards as suddenly allowing an actual/real environmental cost, becomes a monetary 'virtue', by avoiding the 'cost' of spending that money - even when in practical terms, the 'pot' the government spends from is only limited when maximum GDP output is reached, not by some arbitrary monetary limit.

Thinking purely in monetary terms is a completely fucking backwards way of understanding government finances, obscuring the true/real/actual/physical/social/etc. costs of things - which, unfortunately, is how most of the public still views things - and is one of the major things that needs to change in public perception.

Could you condense that into a tweet with an emoticon attached?

is_that_so wrote: »

The New Green Deal is far too vague in detail and suffers from that "one plan to fit all" belief. The criticisms of it are quite valid, absolutely no clear overall cost and by extension no cost to voters, far too narrowly focused and with some impossible timelines. As for politics, the nod to FDR bit didn't alert you to what they are up to? Until the GOP returns anywhere towards some form of bilateralism, it's not going anywhere. Incidentally, the sun is likely take care of when that "2c" kicks in, over the next two sun cycles, with some cooling of its own.

There is no single “the green new deal” proposal. What it represents is a commitment to make the radical investment in infrastructure required to rapidly decarbonise and invest in the skills and technology to enable the 22nd century global economy to thrive in harmony with a sustainable biosphere. It requires huge Upfront investment but it is extremely cheap compared with the devastating long term costs if we let the global climate spiral out of control

gozunda wrote: »

Oh do give that type of extreme ideological promotion a break lol. It's more than transparent that the green deal in its present format is a child of the democratic party in the US in a bid to get back into power. In the UK it has been - surprise surprise - adopted by the UK socialist party. It even has radicalised youth wing for fek sake!. And is about as about as political as it gets. Even the most summary reading shows that it is a crock of crap. But there you go. Unlike the rather daft comparison with something like smallpox - medical and other professionals are certainly not in unison about supporting this type of ****e. For sure the Green new deal' is composed of 'deliberate misinformation and obfuscation'. You dont need to be a genius to figure any of that out tbh.

All climate scientists of any worth agree that changes need to be made to reduce GHGs urgently. This requires investment. Just like smallpox would never have been eradicated without global concerted action, climate change will not be addressed without concerted global action to decarbonise

This requires governments and global institutions to make funds and incentives available for these investments to take place

Scenarios to help business navigate climate impacts

https://www.forumforthefuture.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=3860097b-a8e0-435d-bde8-ea5f53aca5ee

The above report was produced by Sustainability Cell of the Aditya Birla Group in November 2018.Aditya Birla Group is an Indian multinational conglomerate, headquartered in Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. It states that

the challenge of staying below 2°C should not be underestimated

and

for those looking to lead businesses that can be sustained in the long run, it is clear the business case exists only for action to stay below 2°C and successfully operate within this limit

.

It claims to

synthesise the leading scientific thinking on the physical impacts of climate change by 2040, and uses scenarios to explore the many possible levers that will push or pull us into a below two degree trajectory

.

It uses a baseline based on what science says is likely to have happened by 2040 and physical impacts of previous emissions already ‘baked into’ the system and the transition levers that must be pulled to reduce and control emissions to a below 2°C trajectory. It then outlines 4 scenarios describing what the business operating context could look like in 2040. The four scenarios are summarized as follows:

1.Efficiency First - is a precarious globalized house of cards where constant and often risky technological innovation, motivated by high carbon prices,is just keeping us on a <2°C trajectory.
2.Redefining Progress - is a digitally connected, yet highly localised world where priorities in many countries have shifted from rapid growth to healthier growth reflecting the changing aspirations of next generation leaders.
3.New Protectionism - is a splintered world of protectionist blocs, where tackling climate change is a matter of national security. Cultures continue to fragment along religious, values and ethnic lines.
4.Service Transformation - is experience-led. Service-based living,the mainstreaming of access over ownership, has happened quickly, and globally applied, individual carbon budgets are traded and tracked.

My bet would be on 3.

I would be interested to find out how this correlates with the action proposed by the GND. It is projected that Greta Thunberg will be the CEO of the company by 2033 although this is not included in the report and was perhaps fabricated by an unknown source.

Tell me how wrote: »

You just need to be either extremely prejudiced or narrow minded.Surprise surprise, some have an issue with political parties trying to develop policies which will appeal to the electorate and which aim to be for the betterment of society.
What position are you currently holding Gozunda? There is not issue with the climate which needs action in how humans are influencing it? Or, there is an issue but we can get out of it by doing the exact same things we have been doing already?

That's the thing Tell me how - logic certainly dictates that evaluating such politicised solutions requires critical thinking - which funnily enough is neither 'prejudiced' nor being 'narrow minded' - rather that involves being the exact opposite of both.

But then not everyone applies logic do they when following such populist ideologies? And no I have no rosy ideas about politics and politicians btw. Policies may indeed be designed to appeal to the electorate with the aim of putting bums on seats - but hey what's new eh?. Whatever the solution is - its certainly not the crap which is the 'Green New Deal' ...

gozunda wrote: »

That's the thing Tell me how - logic certainly dictates that evaluating such politicised solutions requires critical thinking - which funnily enough is neither 'prejudiced' nor being 'narrow minded' - rather that involves being the exact opposite of both.

But then not everyone applies logic do they when following such populist ideologies? And no I have no rosy ideas about politics and politicians btw. Policies may indeed be designed to appeal to the electorate with the aim of putting bums on seats - but hey what's new eh?. Whatever the solution is - its certainly not the crap which is the 'Green New Deal' ...

Now that you’ve told us what the solution isn’t, please tell us your own brilliant idea to reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere within the next couple of decades?

I’m genuinely fascinated to hear your insights

Akrasia wrote: »

Now that you’ve told us what the solution isn’t, please tell us your own brilliant idea to reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere within the next couple of decades?

I’m genuinely fascinated to hear your insights

He doesn't have one. And yet is trying to undermine the message Greta is trying to communicate. Rinse and repeat for many naysayers.

At least he's no longer suggesting there isn't an issue like earlier in the thread.