The Political Denial of Science

[tacoman25]

I think they knew exactly what they were voting on since their goal is to gut climate science funding. They believe AGW is a hoax. They are now on record as denying climate change or global warming is even happening regardless of cause. Let's be fair, they are voting the party line with probably very little knowledge of the subject matter. They are lead by their ideology.

You realize that funding is getting cut for a lot of programs, not just climate science, right?

[WeatherRusty]

RUSTY!!!

'warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.'" "This finding is so obviously correct that there should be no need to offer the amendment," Waxman said.

That statement is a bunch of BS.... "the current warming is unequivocal? Are you kidding me man? "This finding is so obviously correct"........haha.....dude, its no wonder they scrapped the bill!

I read through it, NO republican claimed the Earth hasn't warmed, I don't know where rusty got that from.....no one can deny the earth has warmed without being a laughing stock. I'm definitely not a republican, not at all...but their take on this issue makes much more sense IMO.

The Issue here is the regulation of Greenhouse gases, which will cripple the economy with NO effect on "global warming"...assuming its due to human cause. They stated this themselves...and its laughable to claim a bill will "lower temperatures by 0.06C in 100yrs"....lol I mean really? Does anyone wonder why they rejected the bill? Cripple the Economy over a Hypothesis that has been failing to this point?

The Bill wanted republicans to "accept the vast consensus and the FACT that the earth is warming due to humans"..........what the hell man? Neither of those statements ar true, it was a ridiculous bill to start with. Goodbye! Its gone.

I'm not a republican, but the reason for regulating Greenhouse gases is based on reasoning that is complete speculation....and has a huge amount of scientific evidence against it.

Republicans came up with this idea of a bill...doesn't look anti science to me.

http://wattsupwithth...al-records-act/

By their vote every Republican stated in stark defiance of science that the Earth is not and has not been warming. They are a laughing stock if that is what they believe.

The vote on the amendment to the Republican sponsored bill to strip the EPA of it's ability to regulate greenhouse gases was a separate issue. They voted unanimouly against the scientific finding that the Earth has warmed over the period of interest, i.e. that coinciding with the period of AGW.

"accept the vast consensus and the FACT that the earth is warming due to humans".

That was a different amendment which they obviously also denied.

[BethesdaWX]

By their vote every Republican stated in stark defiance of science that the Earth is not and has not been warming. They are a laughing stock if that is what they believe.

The vote on the amendment to the Republican sponsored bill to strip the EPA of it's ability to regulate greenhouse gases was a separate issue. They voted unanimouly against the scientific finding that the Earth has warmed over the period of interest, i.e. that coinciding with the period of AGW.

That was a different amendment which they obviously also denied.

Thats the issue. If you're gonna base a bill off BS claims such as "unprecedented warming" and its "obviously due to Man".....then the bill should be burned. Why regulate GHG over a Hypothesis, when there are alternative hypothesis that correlate even better? Cripple the Economy, Raise energy prices, forcing people out of their homes.....we're already in a recession......It makes no sense to take that risk!

Republicans Rejected the Hypothesis that Man is causing Warming...there is NO consensus outside of the IPCC/Gov't.

We have better correlations to the warming

Global temps VS Geomagnetic Flux.

[WeatherRusty]

So you think that just because they didn't vote for the amendment that means none of them believe the earth has warmed? This is clearly a political issue and thread, about Democrats vs. Republicans, not about personal opinions on climate change.

As Waxman inferred, the amendment was likely more about AGW insuations than anything necessary.

I'm sure at least some of the Republicans understand that the world has been warming, regardless of cause. In politics does the truth really matter? This subject is certainly relevant to climate change in that it is currently first order business in Congress.

We carry on with our discussions here while the big boys and girls play the game for much higher stakes in the halls and chambers of our government. At stake is the clean air act and the very existence of continued research into climate change as the Republicans seek to eradicate the EPA and defund NASA.

[WeatherRusty]

You realize that funding is getting cut for a lot of programs, not just climate science, right?

Of course. However the EPA budget is on the receiving end of the greatest spending cuts of any federal agency. A proposed 30% reduction specifically designed to cripple the EPA. Since the EPA is charged with ensuring compliance with the clean air act and they have established CO2 as a pollutant, they represent the only body in the absence of Congressional approval of any climate bill, to stand in the way of the big polluters and their political arsenal. The EPA must be stopped if not destroyed.

[Mencken_Fan]

Someplace there is a tree that needs hugging. Why don't you find it instead of insulting people with whom you disagree.

The earth has been warming for 14000 years. To attribute the last 50 years to purely human activity is a political mindset form the left that wants to see redistribution of wealth, the destruction of corporate America, and the imposition of the "liberal view of life" upon the rest of the world.

Al Gore is the false prophet, and making a fortune stoking the anti American fires of the left.

We're still on the brink of a worldwide depression. You and your "movement" want to push us all into the abyss.

Honey, when it comes to conservative views that would actually help society as a whole, I'd run circles around you. If I were King, violent criminals would be executed by the thousands. Personal responsibility would replace the philosophically religious cancer of forgiveness of our sins by Jesus or God.

I don't hug trees....and I sure as hell don't hug your worthless god.

As for Mr. Al Gore....I despise the man; but being the great capitalist he is, I'm surprised to see you're not enamored by him. What is your point - hypocrisy or stupidity?

[Mencken_Fan]

This isn't the place for your anti-religious rants. Seriously, climate change.

My anti-religious rants here and in my real world are my late-life efforts to wake up the rational world.

Can you give me any reason other than religion for America's rejection or doubt of evolution? If the greatest pyramid in Egypt was a hotel, the first floor would be evolution; a theory that was accepted more than a century ago...yet we're still questioning it today?

America's churches are rabidly political, yet as "special" corporations, they pay no taxes. The educated, rational, secular world is de facto subsidising the spread of religious ignorance.

For every poster here who debates climate change rationally, there are millions who will pull a voting lever based on the views of Rush Limbaugh or Al Gore. Hmmm...I have an idea for a new thread....

[Clifford]

We carry on with our discussions here while the big boys and girls play the game for much higher stakes in the halls and chambers of our government. At stake is the clean air act and the very existence of continued research into climate change as the Republicans seek to eradicate the EPA and defund NASA.

I think it was the Democrats that delayed the new Space Shuttle, and have killed the lunar program.

Project Constellation has been cut by the DEMOCRATS.

There are estimates that the USA spends as much as the rest of the world combined on the military budget.

We have programs such as Medicare that is supposed to be self-supporting, but has been falling short for years.

The first thing we need to do is to pursue fiscal responsibility... then we can start aiming for the heavens again.

Now we're off invading another country that has very little to do with US National Security.

[WeatherRusty]

I think it was the Democrats that delayed the new Space Shuttle, and have killed the lunar program.

Project Constellation has been cut by the DEMOCRATS.

There are estimates that the USA spends as much as the rest of the world combined on the military budget.

We have programs such as Medicare that is supposed to be self-supporting, but has been falling short for years.

The first thing we need to do is to pursue fiscal responsibility... then we can start aiming for the heavens again.

Now we're off invading another country that has very little to do with US National Security.

Programs such as Medicare are essentially ponsi schemes which require the source pool of contributors to always be larger than the receiving pool. In other words, continuous never ending growth of the population. The relative balance of young people to older recipients must increase, or if not that younger pool will have to pay out ever more per capita just to keep up with inflation. As it is the average age of our nation's people is increasing.

Any system which is dependent on never ending continuous growth is doomed to failure. As such, the entire system of capitalism as an economic engine is doomed to fail eventually. A sustainable economic model is the only viable path long into the future. This is a simple consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. Nothing can grow for free, growth is always at the expense of something else. Sooner or later that something else will fail to keep up with the demand and pressure placed upon it. Capitalism is a ponsi scheme. We are robing future generations of their wealth by our excessive exploitation of the worlds non-renewable resources.

[VAwxman]

Maybe this thread should go to AP? Seems now we are arguing the merits of religion, capitalism, etc, rather than the science.

[The_Global_Warmer]

as long as the conservatives moderate and run things...it will get out of hand.

90 percent of the garbage spewed here is because the HNIC in conservative or these stupid posts and thread hi-jacking, fact bending crap would not be tolerated.

But when it's one of your own. you know how that goes.

I am just trying to keep it real, but I am sure this probably be the targeted post and maybe I will be made and example of for calling out the moderator.

Oh well. Conservatives seem to love the don't fact check me bs.

[ORH_wxman]

as long as the conservatives moderate and run things...it will get out of hand.

90 percent of the garbage spewed here is because the HNIC in conservative or these stupid posts and thread hi-jacking, fact bending crap would not be tolerated.

But when it's one of your own. you know how that goes.

I am just trying to keep it real, but I am sure this probably be the targeted post and maybe I will be made and example of for calling out the moderator.

Oh well. Conservatives seem to love the don't fact check me bs.

Your rants rarely have anything to do with facts. There are plenty of people on here who can have a civil debate without letting politics take over. If anything, its the liberal minded Rusty who decided to make a thread all about politics in the climate change forum so you are being a complete hypocrite in that regard.

Almost all of your posts in this forum are "calling out" people and often have politics tied in. That's pretty weak and holds very little weight in a scientific debate.

[Jaguars]

No way it would have broader ideological backing. AGW is an affront to the very basis of conservative thinking as are most all environmental issues. These people have fought every attempt to maintain a healthy environment from acid rain, DDT, ozone, first and second hand smoke and now AGW. They view AGW as a liberal conspiracy or hoax. An attack on the American ideal of personal freedom and individualism. An attack on the capitalistic model on which we base our economic system. None of this has anything to do with science. Its all politics and ideology. We are fighting a battle against fundamentalism which denies biological evolution and global warming. The conservative movement embraces these people with open arms. In essence ignorance being touted as a virtue.

The Republicans and Tea Party don't need me to stereotype them. They do a great job of that on their own. All the Republicans on the House Committee mentioned in the above articles voted in denial of the scientific fact that the Earth has warmed over the past century. How is that possible if they look at the issue from a scientific perspective? Its all politics, and most of the skeptic's talking points come directly from the political think tanks created for no other reason than to push a political agenda. Nothing to do with science, all politics. I listen to science, not politically tainted viewpoints.

If you believe science is being used to advance a political agenda, then you too are a conspiracy theorist. Science is knowledge, if you are against that because it upsets your fundamental believe system, then your opinions are ideological and not scientific.

It's your open-mindedness that's so refreshing.

[skierinvermont]

Agreed.

It's also silly for the OP to basically state that Republicans don't believe the earth has been warming. Show me one statement where the Republican party denies the earth has been warming.

I'm not a supporter of either political party, by the way. Or rather, I'm not staunchly Republican or Democrat.

Many of the committee members who voted down these amendments use double-speak to try to obfuscate whether the planet has warmed and what has caused it. Most of them receive funding from Koch Industries.

For example, Congressman John Shimkus, a member of the house Energy and Environment Comittee that voted down the amendments in Rusty's original post who nearly became the Comittee's Chairman, explains to us that humans cannot possibly be causing rising sea levels because the Bible tells us that the earth will not end in a flood and that humans will not cause the end of the world:

Where was this guy during the Cold War I want to know? So much for MAD.

Here is a list of statements by GOP committee members, and their respective contributions from Koch Industries:

http://wonkroom.thin...-climate-denial

These people are complete jokes.. it's really sad that these are the members of the UNITED STATES CONGRESS. There wasn't anybody else remotely more qualified, mentally balanced and less corrupt available for the job??

Please note the attack on the Clean Air Act as well, not just climate legislation.. these anti-science religious zealots industry funded politicians will do away with ALL environmental regulation on the basis of the bible, ignorance and money.

[skierinvermont]

Programs such as Medicare are essentially ponsi schemes which require the source pool of contributors to always be larger than the receiving pool. In other words, continuous never ending growth of the population. The relative balance of young people to older recipients must increase, or if not that younger pool will have to pay out ever more per capita just to keep up with inflation. As it is the average age of our nation's people is increasing.

Any system which is dependent on never ending continuous growth is doomed to failure. As such, the entire system of capitalism as an economic engine is doomed to fail eventually. A sustainable economic model is the only viable path long into the future. This is a simple consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. Nothing can grow for free, growth is always at the expense of something else. Sooner or later that something else will fail to keep up with the demand and pressure placed upon it. Capitalism is a ponsi scheme. We are robing future generations of their wealth by our excessive exploitation of the worlds non-renewable resources.

Medicare and SS aren't Ponzi schemes. Even if population growth stopped and economic growth somehow magically stopped as well, then we would still be able to provide a minimum standard of living and medical care for the elderly via SS and Medicare funded by tax receipts from the current working generation. Granted, the tax rates would have to be higher if there were no population or economic growth, but the system would be stable and could continue on indefinitely, unlike a Ponzi scheme. You seem to suggest that inflation might through a wrench into this somehow (I'm not sure that's what you were saying but that's how I read it).. but that's not the case because if there is inflation then that means wages and tax receipts will also rise proportionately.

I also don't believe Capitalism itself is a Ponzi scheme. All economic systems have an inherent demand for natural resources. Capitalism, no more than any other. In fact, Capitalism has spurred tremendous efficiency gains that have made numerous processes far less resource intensive than they used to be. Over half of real economic growth since 1980 has been via efficiency gains rather than increased carbon usage (IE carbon intensity has been decreasing). Such efficiency gains are harder to spur with a more rigid economic system.

Now it's possible that our current population trajectory is unsustainable, however I find that to be different than saying Capitalism itself is a Ponzi scheme. It is certainly possible that within the framework of a Capitalist model we are able to regulate the use of non-renewable resources and/or population growth. By fueling efficiency gains and research Capitalism can be a constructive force to help solve potential problems such as resource depletion and population growth.

Capitalism, accompanied by the necessary government regulations, may in fact be able to fuel indefinite gains in standard of living and global population through efficiency gains and the development of renewable resources.

[tacoman25]

Of course. However the EPA budget is on the receiving end of the greatest spending cuts of any federal agency. A proposed 30% reduction specifically designed to cripple the EPA. Since the EPA is charged with ensuring compliance with the clean air act and they have established CO2 as a pollutant, they represent the only body in the absence of Congressional approval of any climate bill, to stand in the way of the big polluters and their political arsenal. The EPA must be stopped if not destroyed.

You are making some pretty big assumptions here. I could make equally absurd assumptions about any program getting big budget cuts. Is it part of political agenda? Sure. But you are making it sounds much more conspiracy-theory...when again, we could make the same assumptions any time with these political decisions.

[tacoman25]

My anti-religious rants here and in my real world are my late-life efforts to wake up the rational world.

Can you give me any reason other than religion for America's rejection or doubt of evolution? If the greatest pyramid in Egypt was a hotel, the first floor would be evolution; a theory that was accepted more than a century ago...yet we're still questioning it today?

America's churches are rabidly political, yet as "special" corporations, they pay no taxes. The educated, rational, secular world is de facto subsidising the spread of religious ignorance.

For every poster here who debates climate change rationally, there are millions who will pull a voting lever based on the views of Rush Limbaugh or Al Gore. Hmmm...I have an idea for a new thread....

I don't care what your rationale is. This is the CLIMATE CHANGE forum. When 3/4 of your post has to do with religion rather than climate change, that's seriously off-topic.

[WeatherRusty]

Medicare and SS aren't Ponzi schemes. Even if population growth stopped and economic growth somehow magically stopped as well, then we would still be able to provide a minimum standard of living and medical care for the elderly via SS and Medicare funded by tax receipts from the current working generation. Granted, the tax rates would have to be higher if there were no population or economic growth, but the system would be stable and could continue on indefinitely, unlike a Ponzi scheme. You seem to suggest that inflation might through a wrench into this somehow (I'm not sure that's what you were saying but that's how I read it).. but that's not the case because if there is inflation then that means wages and tax receipts will also rise proportionately.

I also don't believe Capitalism itself is a Ponzi scheme. All economic systems have an inherent demand for natural resources. Capitalism, no more than any other. In fact, Capitalism has spurred tremendous efficiency gains that have made numerous processes far less resource intensive than they used to be. Over half of real economic growth since 1980 has been via efficiency gains rather than increased carbon usage (IE carbon intensity has been decreasing). Such efficiency gains are harder to spur with a more rigid economic system.

Now it's possible that our current population trajectory is unsustainable, however I find that to be different than saying Capitalism itself is a Ponzi scheme. It is certainly possible that within the framework of a Capitalist model we are able to regulate the use of non-renewable resources and/or population growth. By fueling efficiency gains and research Capitalism can be a constructive force to help solve potential problems such as resource depletion and population growth.

Capitalism, accompanied by the necessary government regulations, may in fact be able to fuel indefinite gains in standard of living and global population through efficiency gains and the development of renewable resources.

Efficiency gains are easily outweighed by population growth and increased prosperity, both of which place increasing demand on raw resources. If population growth is slowed by increasing wealth, the demand on resources can only increase as additional people are able to consume more and more. On the face of it greater prosperity for all would seem to be our goal, but there are only so many fish in the sea to support this.

The global population as it stands today utilizes about 83% of all the available land mass on Earth. That population is depleting resources and polluting the environment at ever increasing pace and we have no acceptable way to stop it. Capitalism is the best economic system yet designed to exploit the environment for the betterment of mankind. :Yet it can not go on indefinitely promoting progress, it is just not sustainable on its current path.

Natural systems are sustainable because they give back as much as they take on average. When an imbalance takes place it is corrected by natural counterbalancing forces. Natural systems are in near equilibrium with the environment which usually allows for longevity and sustainability. Capitalism, the way it is practiced anyway, does not seek equilibrium, it is survival of the fittest devoid of any counterbalance.

The natural world is bending and breaking in the face of our behavior as a species. Global warming, acidifying seas, polluted water, air and land, expanding oxygen depleted dead zones in the oceans, species extinction, invasive species, nuclear accidents, over fishing, whaling, elephant and rhino hunting, depleting stores of uranium, deforestation, loss of arable land, oil depletion etc. etc...

Make no mistake about it, conservatives fight environmentalism because they do not accept what I have said above. Environmentalism is a threat to unbridled capitalism because in the short term capitalism is the fastest way to prosperity, yet in the long run it is destined to fail as the environment is striped of it's diversity for the sake of one species' short term success

End of rant.

[WeatherRusty]

You are making some pretty big assumptions here. I could make equally absurd assumptions about any program getting big budget cuts. Is it part of political agenda? Sure. But you are making it sounds much more conspiracy-theory...when again, we could make the same assumptions any time with these political decisions.

Ask Sen James Inhofe what he thinks of AGW. He is trying to once and for all kill the science and any hope at mitigation. To him it is a conspiracy and he will stop at nothing to stop it. He believes it to be a hoax. He has been fighting this crusade for a decade. I am assuming nothing.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't care what your rationale is. This is the CLIMATE CHANGE forum. When 3/4 of your post has to do with religion rather than climate change, that's seriously off-topic.

You are correct, it is a climate change forum and I have always tried to stick to discussing the science. However, politics is deeply entwined into the discussion of climate change whether we like it or not. Most people argue the science from the perspective of their political and ideological leanings. And lets face it, religion is a huge factor in politics and the acceptance of scientific ideas. There is no escaping it.

So I say these diversions away from the core science are relevant and pertinent to the state of current affairs. Just don't harp on them incessantly.

[tacoman25]

You are correct, it is a climate change forum and I have always tried to stick to discussing the science. However, politics is deeply entwined into the discussion of climate change whether we like it or not. Most people argue the science from the perspective of their political and ideological leanings. And lets face it, religion is a huge factor in politics and the acceptance of scientific ideas. There is no escaping it.

So I say these diversions away from the core science are relevant and pertinent to the state of current affairs. Just don't harp on them incessantly.

Religion and politics have played a huge role in shaping America, no doubt. So if we wanted, we could tie them into just about any major issue. But that really isn't necessary, and it certainly doesn't serve the science.

[tacoman25]

Ask Sen James Inhofe what he thinks of AGW. He is trying to once and for all kill the science and any hope at mitigation. To him it is a conspiracy and he will stop at nothing to stop it. He believes it to be a hoax. He has been fighting this crusade for a decade. I am assuming nothing.

There are extremists on certain issue on both sides of the aisle. George W. Bush, considered to be a conservative Republican (as opposed to others more moderate), stated that he believed AGW was real. So clearly you can't take one person's viewpoint and apply it across the board to a whole party, or a whole Evil Agenda out to destroy science.

[skierinvermont]

There are about 8 regular posters and maybe a dozen more readers of this forum. Do we really have to get our panties in a knot over the organizational scheme? If you don't like the thread, don't click it. Nobody is forcing you to be here.

Maybe religion rants are going a little too far, but the effect of capitalism on the environment and climate is certainly relevant to this forum.

[skierinvermont]

Efficiency gains are easily outweighed by population growth and increased prosperity, both of which place increasing demand on raw resources. If population growth is slowed by increasing wealth, the demand on resources can only increase as additional people are able to consume more and more. On the face of it greater prosperity for all would seem to be our goal, but there are only so many fish in the sea to support this.

The global population as it stands today utilizes about 83% of all the available land mass on Earth. That population is depleting resources and polluting the environment at ever increasing pace and we have no acceptable way to stop it. Capitalism is the best economic system yet designed to exploit the environment for the betterment of mankind. :Yet it can not go on indefinitely promoting progress, it is just not sustainable on its current path.

Natural systems are sustainable because they give back as much as they take on average. When an imbalance takes place it is corrected by natural counterbalancing forces. Natural systems are in near equilibrium with the environment which usually allows for longevity and sustainability. Capitalism, the way it is practiced anyway, does not seek equilibrium, it is survival of the fittest devoid of any counterbalance.

The natural world is bending and breaking in the face of our behavior as a species. Global warming, acidifying seas, polluted water, air and land, expanding oxygen depleted dead zones in the oceans, species extinction, invasive species, nuclear accidents, over fishing, whaling, elephant and rhino hunting, depleting stores of uranium, deforestation, loss of arable land, oil depletion etc. etc...

Make no mistake about it, conservatives fight environmentalism because they do not accept what I have said above. Environmentalism is a threat to unbridled capitalism because in the short term capitalism is the fastest way to prosperity, yet in the long run it is destined to fail as the environment is striped of it's diversity for the sake of one species' short term success

End of rant.

Well I absolutely agree we are using a number of renewable and non-renewable resources at an unsustainable rate. I just don't see that as inherent to Capitalism. I see that as inherent to human desire for prosperity and natural population growth, regardless of economic system.

The Soviets weren't exactly the model of sustainability and raped their environment. The Chinese haven't either, before or after their transition to a market economy. Pol Pot tried, but killed 25% of the population.

Given the right set of regulations, Capitalism will help solve resource depletion through efficiency gains and innovation of alternatives. It would be much harder to confront the growing problems of resource depletion without Capitalism. Enact regulations for the use of non-renewable resources which are in danger of running out shortly and Capitalism will find alternatives and efficiency gains to compensate faster than any other system.

[WeatherRusty]

Well I absolutely agree we are using a number of renewable and non-renewable resources at an unsustainable rate. I just don't see that as inherent to Capitalism. I see that as inherent to human desire for prosperity and natural population growth, regardless of economic system.

The Soviets weren't exactly the model of sustainability and raped their environment. The Chinese haven't either, before or after their transition to a market economy. Pol Pot tried, but killed 25% of the population.

Given the right set of regulations, Capitalism will help solve resource depletion through efficiency gains and innovation of alternatives. It would be much harder to confront the growing problems of resource depletion without Capitalism. Enact regulations for the use of non-renewable resources which are in danger of running out shortly and Capitalism will find alternatives and efficiency gains to compensate faster than any other system.

Don't get me wrong. Capitalism is by far the most advantageous economic system in terms of human prosperity, but like most anything else it does have a down side. If uncontrolled, people will exploit resources and discard waist byproducts with nothing but the profit motive in mind. All I am trying to say is growth comes at expense to the world providing the resources we are using up with reckless abandon. There is no free lunch. We take from the Earth natural resources for free to convert to consumer products. There are hidden costs that are not necessarily monetary in nature to be paid in the long run. Currently it is the natural world that is paying the price for our growing population and our prosperity.

It doesn't have to be this way. Like you say, our economic model is capable of stemming the tide if we are wise and provide incentives for development of alternatives. As long as oil and coal are deceptively cheap ( we take them from the Earth for free ) the incentive to develop and market alternatives is reduced. That is the fundamental concept which promotes cap and trade schemes as a means to put a proper price on fossil fuels, while making alternatives more viable. AGW is real and posses the potential to do real harm to our very susceptible human societies. We need to add alternative, clean energies to the mix as soon as possible. We need to develop a new smart electrical grid system and more efficient transportation. More energy efficient building codes and retrofiring of older structures.

If Capitalism can get this done, then lets get going rather than denying we have very proximate issues which need resolving in quite short order.

[aslkahuna]

Maybe this thread should go to AP? Seems now we are arguing the merits of religion, capitalism, etc, rather than the science.

I agree, that way we could get Trixie, Phineas, Ed, Cheetah, Fozz, shyts(err zwyts), etc. in it too and turn this into a superthread flame war. I consider myself a conservative in mostg respects but as one knows from my posts I am environmentally aware (as most TRUE Conservatives are) and don't particularly like Rusty's generalizations-some day he'll annoy me to the point where I go from not responding to him to placing him on ignore.

Steve

[nzucker]

Don't get me wrong. Capitalism is by far the most advantageous economic system in terms of human prosperity, but like most anything else it does have a down side. If uncontrolled, people will exploit resources and discard waist byproducts with nothing but the profit motive in mind. All I am trying to say is growth comes at expense to the world providing the resources we are using up with reckless abandon. There is no free lunch. We take from the Earth natural resources for free to convert to consumer products. There are hidden costs that are not necessarily monetary in nature to be paid in the long run. Currently it is the natural world that is paying the price for our growing population and our prosperity.

I think the key is to use capitalism as a means of improving the Earth's environment, not as an unfettered tool for human prosperity. In many senses, capitalism does encourage a healthier environment: using resources costs money, so there is a clear incentive to consume less for businesses, and this means greater energy efficiency which should continue into the future. According to Baski and Green's 2007 paper Calculating Economy-Wide Energy Intensity Decline Rate, "Over time, energy intensity is expected to decline with energy-efficiency-increasing technological progress. The formulas developed...can aid in the construction of 'realistic' greenhouse gas emissions scenarios." A clear example of decreasing energy intensity is the transition from coal to petroleum to methane as a heating source: as time has progressed, fuels that have a higher ratio of clean hydrogen to dirty carbon have become more commonplace, and thus many homes in America, specifically in the Midwest, depend on natural gas as a heating source so as to burn only one carbon molecule for every four hydrogen molecules.

Nevertheless, as you point out, there are many environmental costs (externalities) that are not accounted for in the capitalist system, and thus are passed onto society as an eventual burden. I think here the point is not to have an uncontrolled capitalism, but rather one that is carefully managed by the government, not in a sense that suppresses the free market ingenuity like the Soviet model, but one that guides us towards accounting for all the ecological costs of our actions. For example, since carbon dioxide emissions are undoubtedly a burden that future generations will have to pay for at some point, barring a huge change in the overall warming trend of the climate, perhaps we need to develop a carbon index for consumer goods. Having a tax system based on carbon emissions generated by a product would not only make individuals aware of how much their actions contribute to global warming, it would also raise money to manage future environmental problems as well as encouraging businesses to switch to low-carbon models of producing their goods. A simple example is food. It takes about the same amount of energy to produce one hundred pounds of beef as it takes to yield ten thousand pounds of potatoes, which can obviously feed more people; raising livestock is a carbon intensive process. In the current system, consumers can buy cheap beef as opposed to energy-efficient vegetables because of the subsidies to the grain industry that feeds these cattle and the use of tropical forests as a place for ranching. If a carbon index were assigned to the beef, it would naturally be more expensive and thus consumed less (just as gas consumption declined over 1% in the summer of 2008 when fuel prices exceeded $4/gallon)...and businesses would also start finishing beef on grass, thus producing a healthier product and one that's more friendly to the earth. Consumers would clearly see the consequences of their actions in terms of climate/environment (deforestation of tropical lands, intensive use of energy and petroleum to produce grain feed, long-distance refrigerated trucking to market), and they would receive a healthier product since businesses would have an incentive to produce a lower carbon steak due to the tax. In this sense, you change the whole system but still maintain a free market, which allows for creativity and ingenuity in designing a product that avoids using too much carbon.

This is why it is crucial that we account for externalities, whether it's in beef production leading to global warming by consuming vast reserves of grain and increasing methane concentrations in the atmosphere, poultry consumption polluting the Chesapeake Bay by manure run-off that harms fisheries and natural wetlands, or car manufacture that requires steel, an industry responsible for nearly 12% of global carbon dioxide emissions (TIME Magazine). I don't think the problem is capitalism, but rather the inherent tendency for capitalism to trump long-term concerns that only the government can watch out for. That's why we need a free market in terms of innovation and availability, and yet a tightly controlled one in terms of externalities being paid off.

[WeatherRusty]

I think the key is to use capitalism as a means of improving the Earth's environment, not as an unfettered tool for human prosperity. In many senses, capitalism does encourage a healthier environment: using resources costs money, so there is a clear incentive to consume less for businesses, and this means greater energy efficiency which should continue into the future. According to Baski and Green's 2007 paper Calculating Economy-Wide Energy Intensity Decline Rate, "Over time, energy intensity is expected to decline with energy-efficiency-increasing technological progress. The formulas developed...can aid in the construction of 'realistic' greenhouse gas emissions scenarios." A clear example of decreasing energy intensity is the transition from coal to petroleum to methane as a heating source: as time has progressed, fuels that have a higher ratio of clean hydrogen to dirty carbon have become more commonplace, and thus many homes in America, specifically in the Midwest, depend on natural gas as a heating source so as to burn only one carbon molecule for every four hydrogen molecules.

Nevertheless, as you point out, there are many environmental costs (externalities) that are not accounted for in the capitalist system, and thus are passed onto society as an eventual burden. I think here the point is not to have an uncontrolled capitalism, but rather one that is carefully managed by the government, not in a sense that suppresses the free market ingenuity like the Soviet model, but one that guides us towards accounting for all the ecological costs of our actions. For example, since carbon dioxide emissions are undoubtedly a burden that future generations will have to pay for at some point, barring a huge change in the overall warming trend of the climate, perhaps we need to develop a carbon index for consumer goods. Having a tax system based on carbon emissions generated by a product would not only make individuals aware of how much their actions contribute to global warming, it would also raise money to manage future environmental problems as well as encouraging businesses to switch to low-carbon models of producing their goods. A simple example is food. It takes about the same amount of energy to produce one hundred pounds of beef as it takes to yield ten thousand pounds of potatoes, which can obviously feed more people; raising livestock is a carbon intensive process. In the current system, consumers can buy cheap beef as opposed to energy-efficient vegetables because of the subsidies to the grain industry that feeds these cattle and the use of tropical forests as a place for ranching. If a carbon index were assigned to the beef, it would naturally be more expensive and thus consumed less (just as gas consumption declined over 1% in the summer of 2008 when fuel prices exceeded $4/gallon)...and businesses would also start finishing beef on grass, thus producing a healthier product and one that's more friendly to the earth. Consumers would clearly see the consequences of their actions in terms of climate/environment (deforestation of tropical lands, intensive use of energy and petroleum to produce grain feed, long-distance refrigerated trucking to market), and they would receive a healthier product since businesses would have an incentive to produce a lower carbon steak due to the tax. In this sense, you change the whole system but still maintain a free market, which allows for creativity and ingenuity in designing a product that avoids using too much carbon.

This is why it is crucial that we account for externalities, whether it's in beef production leading to global warming by consuming vast reserves of grain and increasing methane concentrations in the atmosphere, poultry consumption polluting the Chesapeake Bay by manure run-off that harms fisheries and natural wetlands, or car manufacture that requires steel, an industry responsible for nearly 12% of global carbon dioxide emissions (TIME Magazine). I don't think the problem is capitalism, but rather the inherent tendency for capitalism to trump long-term concerns that only the government can watch out for. That's why we need a free market in terms of innovation and availability, and yet a tightly controlled one in terms of externalities being paid off.

Wow, excellent, excellent post! Not that I am surprised. Lots of facts and great common sense ideas.

For those who suggest this thread does not belong here, sure beats the endless yes it is, no it isn't debate don't you think?

Now if we could just get our politics in line so that we might start to implement these types of ideas and others which great minds no doubt are capable of producing. If there is a better set of solutions other than cap and trade, then bring it on. But we will never get there by remaining in denial of potential threats to which we could find solutions.

[WeatherRusty]

I agree, that way we could get Trixie, Phineas, Ed, Cheetah, Fozz, shyts(err zwyts), etc. in it too and turn this into a superthread flame war. I consider myself a conservative in mostg respects but as one knows from my posts I am environmentally aware (as most TRUE Conservatives are) and don't particularly like Rusty's generalizations-some day he'll annoy me to the point where I go from not responding to him to placing him on ignore.

Steve

What you call "generalization'", I refer to as summations. If the preponderance of the evidence points in one direction, then I will discuss from that point of view. For instance if 80% of Democrats agree to statements about AGW while only 40% of Republicans do, then we can make certain clear generalizations about the likelihood of any given Republican's response. If 20% of Democrats vote one way on an issue while 100% of Republicans do, it is fair to make certain inferences ( read the OP and attached reference ).

When I discuss the science of AGW, these are not my primary original thoughts, but rather a summation of what the mainstream science states. Don't blame me for doing my best to represent the science just because you may find my thoughts overly simplistic. I believe it is a virtue to be able to boil down complex issues to their basic ingredients and summarize the implications.

[BethesdaWX]

What you call "generalization'", I refer to as summations. If the preponderance of the evidence points in one direction, then I will discuss from that point of view. For instance if 80% of Democrats agree to statements about AGW while only 40% of Republicans do, then we can make certain clear generalizations about the likelihood of any given Republican's response. If 20% of Democrats vote one way on an issue while 100% of Republicans do, it is fair to make certain inferences ( read the OP and attached reference ).

When I discuss the science of AGW, these are not my primary original thoughts, but rather a summation of what the mainstream science states. Don't blame me for doing my best to represent the science just because you may find my thoughts overly simplistic. I believe it is a virtue to be able to boil down complex issues to their basic ingredients and summarize the implications.

Both sides can spread alot of BS, but there is no "mainstream" science. IPCC/Gov't are self-delcared "mainstream".

Wonder why democrats are against this? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/a-bill-for-climate-data-integrity-the-public-access-to-historical-records-act/

Democrats didn't even read their OWN health care Bill, nor write their OWN bill, its so laughable. It will most likely cost Obama the 2012 election.

I'm sorry, if a Bill contains BS statements such as "unequivocal warming" and "obviouslly due to man", then the bill will always be rejected....really now? How could you not expect a Bill full of BS and no science to pass?