Skip to main content

Last week, a generic right-wing propagandist named S.E. Cupp appeared on Bill Maher's show, spewing what to a certain breed of climate denialist has become a favorite misdirection. They don't flat out deny the science, although they certainly don't acknowledge the gravity of what the science tells us; but they attempt to pretend that the real question isn't whether or not anthropogenic climate change is occurring, rather it's whether or not we can afford to deal with it. But any excuse for not dealing with it is but a different flavor of the same. It all boils down to ignoring the depth of the crisis so the fossil fuels industries can churn right along, reaping massive profits from the destruction of the biosphere.

Cupp's cutesy claim was that we can't afford to address climate change. It's about people's mortgages, she blithered. But not only does she ignore the obvious fact that the environmental consequences of climate change will render such concerns trivial if not moot, she also ignores the actual economics of climate change. Because it's not a question of whether we can afford to deal with it, it's the answer that we can't afford not to. Perhaps living in some fantasy land divorced from science provides people like Cupp with some sort of psychological solace, but it doesn't require exercising one's imagination to consider the geopolitical consequences of some 200,000,000 people being displaced, worldwide. It does require a sober acceptance of the meaning when even the usually staid and cautious National Academies of Sciences reach this conclusion:

The compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence, says Advancing the Science of Climate Change, one of the new reports. While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never "closed," the report emphasizes that multiple lines of evidence support scientific understanding of climate change. The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

"Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems," the report concludes. It calls for a new era of climate change science where an emphasis is placed on "fundamental, use-inspired" research, which not only improves understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change but also is useful to decision makers at the local, regional, national, and international levels acting to limit and adapt to climate change. Seven cross-cutting research themes are identified to support this more comprehensive and integrative scientific enterprise.

And while Republicans such as Joe Miller, Ken Buck, Carly Fiorina, Linda McMahon, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, David Vitter, Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Rob Portman, Jim Huffman, Pat Toomey, Dino Rossi, John Raese, and Ron Johnson are among those Republicans that specifically deny the clear scientific consensus on climate change, other Republicans, such as John McCain, Christine O'Donnell, Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, and both Republicans running in New York are among those opposed to cap-and-trade to address it. The National Academies?

A carbon-pricing system is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions.  Either cap-and-trade, a system of taxing emissions, or a combination of the two could provide the needed incentives.  While the report does not specifically recommend a cap-and-trade system, it notes that cap-and-trade is generally more compatible with the concept of an emissions budget.

Of course, those opposed to cap-and-trade don't offer any realistic alternatives, not only because there aren't any to offer but because they aren't interested in a realistic response. But to be even more specific and direct, the false question of whether or not we can afford to deal with climate change ignores the economic impacts of climate change itself, which have actually been studied. And written about--for those who actually care about the research and that are capable of reading.

Four years ago, the British government's HM Treasury produced a comprehensive analysis, titled the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. It takes its name from the radical hippie who led the team making the analysis: Nicolas Stern, former chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank, former chief economist and special counsellor to the president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and currently the first holder of the I. G. Patel Chair at the London School of Economics and Political Science, as well as the chair of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics.

When it was released, the BBC summarized the Stern Review's conclusions about the environmental impacts of climate change:

TEMPERATURE

# Carbon emissions have already pushed up global temperatures by half a degree Celsius

# If no action is taken on emissions, there is more than a 75-percent chance of global temperatures rising between two and three degrees Celsius over the next 50 years

# There is a 50-percent chance that average global temperatures could rise by five degrees Celsius

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

# Melting glaciers will increase flood risk

# Crop yields will decline, particularly in Africa

# Rising sea levels could leave 200 million people permanently displaced

# Up to 40 percent of species could face extinction

# There will be more examples of extreme weather patterns

And the economic impact:

# Extreme weather could reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by up to 1 percent

# A two-to-three degree Celsius rise in temperatures could reduce global economic output by 3 percent

# If temperatures rise by five degrees Celsius, up to 10 percent of global output could be lost. The poorest countries would lose more than 10 percent of their output

# In the worst case scenario global consumption per head would fall 20 percent

# To stabilise at manageable levels, emissions would need to stabilise in the next 20 years and fall between 1 percent and 3 percent after that. This would cost 1 percent of GDP

But what is that compared to the cost of dealing with climate change? For Cupp and anyone else who might need things explicitly spelled out, The Guardian two years ago quoted Stern from a London speech:

Lord Stern of Brentford made headlines in 2006 with a report that said countries needed to spend 1% of their GDP to stop greenhouse gases rising to dangerous levels. Failure to do this would lead to damage costing much more, the report warned - at least 5% and perhaps more than 20% of global GDP.

But speaking yesterday in London, Stern said evidence that climate change was happening faster than had been previously thought meant that emissions needed to be reduced even more sharply.

This meant the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would have to be kept below 500 parts per million, said Stern. In 2006, he set a figure of 450-550ppm. "I now think the appropriate thing would be in the middle of that range," he said. "To get below 500ppm ... would cost around 2% of GDP."

Yes, the cost of stopping the rise in greenhouse gases is now estimated at up to 2 percent of global GDP. But the cost of the damage from them is estimated to be- at a minimum- more than twice as much, with a maximum of up to 10 times as much. Even someone with Cupp's challenges and values ought to be able to understand that!

And a little closer to home, the University of Maryland's Center for Integrative Environmental Research compiled a series of reports, some broken down by state and some by region, which can be found here. As explained in the introduction of the full report, titled The US Economic Impacts of Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction (pdf):

In the West and Northwest, climate change is expected to alter precipitation patterns and snow pack, thereby increasing the risk of forest fires. Forest fires cost billions of dollars to suppress, and can result in significant loss of property. The Oakland, California fire of 1991 and the fires in San Diego and San Bernardino Counties in 2003 each cost over $2 billion. Every year for the past four years, over 7 million acres of forests in the National Forest System have burned with annual suppression costs of $1.3 billion or more.

The Great Plains and the Midwest will suffer particularly from increased frequency and severity of flooding and drought events, causing billions of dollars in damages to crops and property. For example, the North Dakota Red River floods in 1997 caused $1 billion in agricultural production losses, and the Midwest floods of 1993 inflicted $6-8 billion in damages to farmers alone. The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region will see increased vulnerability to sea level rise and storms. Depending on the category of the event, evacuation costs for the Northeast region may range, for a single event, between $2 and $6.5 billion. Since 1980, there have been 70 natural weather-caused disasters, with damages to coastal infrastructure exceeding $1 billion per event. Taken together, their combined impact surpassed $560 billion in damages.

Decreased precipitation levels in the South and Southwest will strain water resources for agriculture, industry and households. For the agriculturally productive Central Valley in California alone, the estimated economy-wide loss during the driest years is predicted to be around $6 billion per year. Net agricultural income for the San Antonio Texas Edwards Aquifer region is predicted to decline by 16-29% by 2030 and by 30-45% by 2090 because of competing uses for an increasingly scarce resource – water.

The true economic impact of climate change is fraught with “hidden” costs. Besides the replacement value of infrastructure, for example, there are real costs of re-routing traffic, workdays and productivity lost, provision of temporary shelter and supplies, potential relocation and retraining costs, and others. Likewise, the increased levels of uncertainty and risk, brought about by climate change, impose new costs on the insurance, banking, and investment industries, as well as complicate the planning processes for the agricultural and manufacturing sectors and for public works projects.

In other words, climate change isn't just an environmental issue, and it isn't just a humanitarian issue. Those who don't much care about the environment or humanity can't find comfort in making economic excuses, unless they don't really care about the economy, either. To be as explicitly clear as is possible: The climate crisis is an economic crisis, and unless one cares only about the continued staggering profits of the fossil fuels industries, there are no rationales or excuses not to be addressing climate change as the global environmental, human and economic crisis that it is.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:00 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If the companies fighting global warming (16+ / 0-)

    spent even part of what they spent fighting this on FIXING it, that would be a hell of a lot of money.  But lately they've been on a "we didn't cause it kick." Which, to me, is like watching your house get hit by lightning, and then refusing to put out the fire because you didn't start it.

    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France

    by stophurtingamerica on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:03:14 PM PDT

    •  to corporations, The Environment = Ford Pinto nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess

      "calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni),Warning-Some Snark Above

      by annieli on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:45:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  SHORT TERM THINKING. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radical simplicity

      They don't think past the end of the quarter and their quarterly bonuses.

      -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

      by neroden on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:24:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Economic Tipping Point (0+ / 0-)

      Thank you, Laurence, excellent job of summarizing a very complex issue.

      However those who correctly call it an 'economic' issue also fail to mention the impact of the feedback loop in economics which are the market effects and also the impact particularly of elasticity of supply.

      Elasticity plays a role because in many commodities, which will be in only slightly diminished supply due to CC, this very slight reduction in supply, can cause staggering increases in prices.  If the supply reduction is broadly based accross many commodities, and it will be, the economic impact will be absolutely staggering, economy killing, and will make the current unpleasantness look appealing.  This fact has not been encorporated into any of the climate change economic models so far as I am aware.

      Furthermore, the reduction in corporate profits, due to climate change costs, will be vastly, very vastly, amplified by the ratcheting effect of stock market prices, which will be catastrophic, overall, for share prices.  The system  runs on a very small margin, so anything upsetting that margin has huge effects of profits, and this effect is multiplied by falling price earnings ratios.  So the entire economy is going to absolutley crater due to these small percentage changes.  Anyone who thinks climate change denial will enrich them is nuts.  The impact of climate change will be to bury stock invested retirement plans.  

      The first to go will be the insurance industry, because the costs will be so massive they will fail and even the reinsurance scheme (Lloyds) won't be sufficient to temper it.  They will have to massivley disinvest to pay claims.  This will begin a chain reaction that will kill bonds and then stocks and there will be no recovery, ever.

      The entire global economic system hangs in the balance, Laurence.  This needs to be stated at every opportunity.   Thank you again.

  •  US is missing an economic opportunity (16+ / 0-)
    Great post.  Another thing to keep in mind is that not only is climate change a pending economic disaster, but the U.S. is missing a great economic opportunity by not aggressively working to address climate change.  Tackling climate change will require a fundamental reworking of our energy and fuel systems through the development of green energy technologies.  Such development could create massive amounts of new jobs, especially in the Midwest, where currently under-utilized industrial capacity could be retooled to develop solar, wind, energy efficiency, and battery technology.  Unfortunately, much of that development is instead occurring in China and Europe, because the U.S. has failed to take the steps necessary to move beyond coal and oil and toward clean energy.

    http://www.winningprogressive.org
     

    Winning Progressive - When Progressives Vote, Everyone Wins

    by Winning Progressive on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:06:45 PM PDT

    •  Battleground: Prop 23 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, jamess

      In California, proposition 23 is supposedly to "save jobs" against the scourge of environmental regulation - but studies show it would actually be a job-killer.

      That's why I've been phonebanking to GOTV against prop 23. The OFA phonebanking tool is great - just put in a zip code, and it will give you names and numbers of Democrats in that state. If you go with California (eg, 90210), you are free to get in an anti-23 plug after you do the script. Or you can do any Senate battleground state, because the Republican candidates are 100% deniers (the ONLY significant party in the world which is that anti-science!)

      (Note: for calling CA, it definitely helps to be able to speak Spanish - maybe a sixth of people speak it.)

      Senate rules which prevent any reform of the filibuster are unconstitutional. Therefore, we can rein in the filibuster tomorrow with 51 votes.

      by homunq on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:43:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  we have wars to fight (0+ / 0-)

      to keep us safe.

      we can't affford renewable energy investments.

      the free market will take care of it.

      i'm so depressed...

      big badda boom : GRB 080913

      by squarewheel on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 06:39:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Don't worry, be happy! (13+ / 0-)

    America is much like an obese person who doesn't want to diet (cut carbon) or exercise (grow clean energy).  Along comes Dana Milbank of the WaPo to tell America: if cap and trade is too hard, take a little pill instead -- try geoengineering! Never mind those nasty side effects.

  •  US oil use is economic crisis NOT global warming (3+ / 0-)
    US oil use costs country $400B per year in oil trade deficit.  US oil use costs country $500B per year in military costs.  US oil use has cost US $3T in war costs above yearly military costs.

    THAT is an economic crisis.

    This is all due to US energy inefficiency, 50% less energy efficient than Europe, Japan etc.

    If US solves THAT real economic crisis it also solves the global warming crisis since cutting US energy use cuts US global warming emissions by 50%.

  •  Tipped and Rec'd (7+ / 0-)

    Oh wait... I can't do that here on the front page.

    Would if I could.

    "Trying to hold back the revision of history is always a good thing." -- Peter Christopherson

    by jethrock on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:20:36 PM PDT

  •  It is an economic crisis, to be sure (4+ / 0-)

    The problem is that some powerful interests (e.g., the oil companies) will clearly be losers if the issue is addressed. Conversely, those interests that stand to lose the most by not addressing climate change are weak, and/or not united, and/or don't yet comprehend the full extent of the risks. On this side are also those interests which stand to gain from addressing climate change -- e.g., green energy companies. However, the yelping of the denialists notwithstanding, these interests don't come close to matching the clout of the clingers to the status quo.

    How to address this? Perhaps we need to spend more time working... well, not at the grass roots, but at the corn roots. And the soybean roots. And the grapevine roots. Let's get the agricultural companies moving on this issue; they have too much at stake not to be pushing harder on it.

    Even though our dream is not yet completed... we are not quitters... and we are not through. Ty'Sheoma Bethea

    by Nowhere Man on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:22:41 PM PDT

    •  bio-algae has some serious potential (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, billmosby

      scientists say -- it just takes the right mix:

      http://pubs.acs.org/...


      Algae - like a breath mint for smokestacks
      By Mark Clayton, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / January 11, 2006

      If he could find the right strain of algae, he figured he could turn the nation's greenhouse-gas-belching power plants into clean-green generators with an attached algae farm next door.

      "This is a big idea," Berzin says, "a really powerful idea."
      [...]

      After the CO2 is soaked up like a sponge, the algae is harvested daily. From that harvest, a combustible vegetable oil is squeezed out: biodiesel for automobiles. Berzin hands a visitor two vials - one with algal biodiesel, a clear, slightly yellowish liquid, the other with the dried green flakes that remained. Even that dried remnant can be further reprocessed to create ethanol, also used for transportation.
      [...]

      One key is selecting an algae with a high oil density - about 50 percent of its weight. Because this kind of algae also grows so fast, it can produce 15,000 gallons of biodiesel per acre. Just 60 gallons are produced from soybeans, which along with corn are the major biodiesel crops today.

      http://www.csmonitor.com/...


      Where's the Note?    -- SEIU

      by jamess on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:59:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Looks like more time will be needed.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jamess

        ..to either find the right mix or to cut through the hype, or both.  I'm growing more disappointed in algae because a year or so ago so many researchers in that field were promising so much, right around the corner. I wonder if it's going to end up being a much longer slog than I thought back then.

        Moderation in most things. Except Reactors. IFR forever!

        by billmosby on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 05:43:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  from what I've read (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden, billmosby

          several species are high oil producers,

          but they also take fertilizers -- which creates CO2

          that is why that Abstract, was pointing toward

          using wastewater, as fertilizer -- to negate that extra CO2 cost.

          it does sound a bit of a balancing act.

          I like the concept -- having a CO2 sponge.


          Where's the Note?    -- SEIU

          by jamess on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 05:49:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Balance, yes. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            neroden, jamess

            That would be a good use for wastewater. From what I read, most of the algae systems need a lot of light, plus the CO2. So you'd have to bring the water, sun, and a power plant together somewhere, unless you just use atmospheric CO2. But that is much less concentrated than it is power plant stack gas, I wonder if that would limit the production of oil? I wish I had more time to read up on this stuff.

            Moderation in most things. Except Reactors. IFR forever!

            by billmosby on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 05:56:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Add Joe Manchin to the anti-cap and trade crowd (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sherlyle, jethrock

    May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

    by msmacgyver on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:24:39 PM PDT

  •  It's not the desasters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    That cause the most economic damage.  Climate change causes a small, but noticeable, decrease in the rate money moves through the evonemy.  For any one person this is small but taken together, and throwing in a load of debt on top of it, and you have the current economic mess.  The sad fact is that until we deal with climate change the evonemy isn't going to get better. Unfortunately, we have politicians who think that if we just wait a couple more years everything will get better on it's own, and they can take credit for it.

  •  This is one of my major pet ...... (7+ / 0-)

    peeves.  The evidence is overwhelming at this point and since we have dragged our feet for ten years while Bush and then the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats balked at any suggestion that we do anything about it while there was still a fortune to be made in petrochemicals and coal, we have a vanishing chance of correcting it.

    I hate to sound pessimistic, but the figures don't look good for the next several hundred years.  My guess is that we may come up with a temporary way the rich can survive and even thrive - for a time - but it won't be pretty and in the end they will go down with the ship.  Humans are too much, in the long run, like protozoans in a culture.  We can't stop increasing and we can't stop consuming as much as we possibly can get our hands on.  In the end the bacteria win that one, at least until they run out of resources and die.  

    I would like our species to stick around at least until the earth is made uninhabitable by an expanding sun or we find a way to migrate into space (although I don't see that happening any time soon, and time is of the essence in this situation).  I would like to be proven wrong and shown that we can develop a world-wide sustainable civilization, but then I hear Palin, Angle, O'Donnell, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Beck, etc., as well as some politicians from outside the U.S.  talk and I start thinking that there is very little hope of such a thing happening!  

    I for one, am going to try to enjoy the time I have left here on Earth and will give thanks to whatever powers be when I see a hummingbird, fox, or spider building a web, that they, my fellow creatures, are still there for me to see.

  •  Did some volunteer work today at my (7+ / 0-)

    local school and worked with a gal who is a good worker and loyal volunteer who called herself kind of jokingly, "an anarcho-capitalist" who claims to have studied global warming extensively and thinks it's all just a cycle and that anthropocentric C02 changes can't be proven.

    She says the discussion is dominated by the "paleoclimatologists" who are just statisticians and are wrong.

    This is what we're up against: not just knee-jerk Palinistas but so-called informed types.

    I used to think that crises would work to effect change, but instead there is more digging in with the heels and more reaction and more stubbornness, I'm afraid.

    People have just tuned a lot of this out, and I don't know what the hell is coming next.

    Oh, make me wanna holler /And throw up both my hands--Marvin Gaye

    by Wildthumb on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:31:44 PM PDT

  •  Rethugs are ignoring the devastation of climate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    change and we need to broadcast the urgency.  That is why this needs to be at the top of the program at Stephen Colbert's "Keep Fear Alive" rally in D.C. on 10.30.10.

  •  The west is drying rapidly. Damage will be severe (4+ / 0-)

    We are recreating the conditions that led to hundred year droughts that forced the Anasazi to abandon their civilization across the southwest.

    Paleoclimate studies combined with numerical modelling reveals that catastrophic drying of the west is a strong possibility with climate change.

    look for my DK Greenroots diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:33:04 PM PDT

  •  blah blah blah (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    Nothing will EVER be done.  Unless ... unless ... the Chinese force us to make changes!

    Otherwise, my kids are screwed.  And there kids will be really screwed.

  •  does (3+ / 0-)

    anyone think yet another logical argument would win against human apathy and corporate greed? I don't either.

    "I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being" -Abraham Lincoln

    by joojooluv on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:35:22 PM PDT

  •  BTW, I'll have a Climate Zombies piece up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder

    in the next hour or so regarding Republicans of the Gulf Coast who deny climate science.

  •  excellent post. the media ignore (5+ / 0-)

    that climate change affects economy,  health care, natural resource supplies like water (that also affect economy), and national security.

    In terms of ordinary Americans suffering from our economic crisis now, we are also getting hit to foot the bill for health care impacts now, and other external costs from fossil fuel industry.

    Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

    by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:37:41 PM PDT

    •  Media frames everything in terms of (0+ / 0-)

      GOP or Dem. They rarely really report on anything of real import in a matter that is relevant to anyones life.

      Papers/telly are now staffed with models and idiots, not journalists.

      I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson

      by Lucy2009 on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:52:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  5 degrees isn't an economic crisis (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, mightymouse

    From what I've read, 5 degrees is game over.

  •  It almost looks unsolvable. (0+ / 0-)

    That's what it looks like.

    to some extent energy costs going through the roof in 2007-8 really doomed the global economy.

    The past year is like the throat clearing cough before the actual death scream of civilization.

    Read My New Book: The Jolly campaigns and High Times of Banastre Tarlton Esq.

    by Salo on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:38:47 PM PDT

  •  together, S.E. Cupp & Dana Loesch comprise a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    single (t)wit: a single straw(wo)man for Maher's tv shows not unlike the Dele-Witch.

    For human societies, deteriorating climate change is absolutely economic in the last instance.

    "calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni),Warning-Some Snark Above

    by annieli on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:38:53 PM PDT

  •  why is there an ad (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Salo, Laurence Lewis, divineorder

    for right wing merchandise below this post?

  •  I don't believe for one minute (8+ / 0-)

    that the powers in the economic, corporate, or political
    world believe the crap they spout.  It is for show to
    keep the fossil fuel industry pumping money in their
    coffers.  Muddy the message and keep the people under
    their thumb; spread the fear of more lost jobs (keep
    unemployment high) and it's really quite easy.  As long
    as they believe they'll survive in their gated
    communities, they'll play this as long as they are able.

    •  That's my guess (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maryabein

      That Swedish bloke, or was he Danish, the "sceptic"  just flipped.  He must have secured his portfolio.

      Read My New Book: The Jolly campaigns and High Times of Banastre Tarlton Esq.

      by Salo on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:46:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You Can Gain a Billion Dollars for a Few Years' (4+ / 0-)

      or months' work at the top of the economy. Nothing short of an asteroid can hurt your interests faster than you advance them at that speed.

      That's the reason we need most of incomes to be taxed away starting at a very few times the national median. The New-Deal thru Vietnam War rates would hit 50% at around a quarter million dollars today.

      It made the whole top end much poorer than today and therefore far more dependent on the long term health of the economy and their world.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:49:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Clarification needed here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    "To get below 500ppm ... would cost around 2% of GDP."

    My understanding is that this doesn't mean cutting GDP by 2%  -  but rather that 2% of GDP needs to be shifted to carbon reduction/clean energy technology.  In other words, no reduction in GDP and living standards.

    Am I correct here?  

    Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity. -- Alvy Ray Smith

    by John Q on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:45:55 PM PDT

  •  "The Economy" and "The Nation" Don't Matter. (4+ / 0-)

    The big money in both population and economy need climate destruction to accelerate indefinitely. They also need to finish breaking governance for the people.

    They gain more than hurt by the damage to the people and much of the economy in the meantime.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:46:53 PM PDT

  •  Cupp is a ding-dong. I saw that episode, and (4+ / 0-)

    her reasoning is amazing!!

    What if the most dire predictions come true???  We are all fucked if this isn't addressed beforehand.

    I have some doubts about how awful it will all be, or how quickly it will happen, etc, etc..... BUT....I'd surely rather be safe than sorry!!

    The worst that will happen if catastrophe doesn't actually happen is we'll have great new energy sources that don't rely on countries in the Middle East that hate us. They won't pollute the air, water, soil that we need for survivial.

    Seems like a win, win to get these precautions in order, NOW. How about we stop bombing folks in Afghanistan/Pakistan and instead use that money to preserve life in the U.S.

    I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson

    by Lucy2009 on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:47:08 PM PDT

  •  Input-side reductions are a non-starter. (0+ / 0-)

    It does not matter who says what, how loudly they say it, who listens, who doesn't listen, what laws get passed in what countries, or what the United Nations says.

    Every single joule of easily-extractable hydrocarbon fuel will be extracted and burned by someone.

    All of that CO2 is going to end up in the atmosphere, no matter what we do.

    So the real question is not "how do we reduce global carbon emissions?" Because there is no way, short of somebody taking over the world, to make that happen. It's a fool's errand. The real question is, "given that the atmosphere will contain x% CO2 by 20yy, what do we do about it?"

    Prevention cannot work. Corrective actions are all we've got left. It's really unfortunate that those who are in the best position to drive that effort not only gave up on it years ago, but have a policy to actively discourage such research, because it might undermine the arguments for global emissions reductions... which won't happen.

    --Shannon

    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

    by Leftie Gunner on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 03:56:43 PM PDT

    •  Quibble (0+ / 0-)

      Hydrocarbons are much more valuable as feedstock than fuel. If the fuel demand is slowed or shifted, some of those hydrocarbons will be put to better use, with reduced carbon load.

      It will all be extracted, just a matter of not wasting it on fuel.

      •  Even if the difference in CO2 concentration (0+ / 0-)

        between those two uses is significant in terms of the climate models, with proper weighting of prediction-by-model, (a thousand reasoned guesses are never equal to one case of jumping in and finding out)...

        does it really matter, policy-wise?

        Given the physical suitability of hydrocarbons to be fuels, and the fact that we're at the far end of a century of engineering refinement based on those fuels, I think that the safest bet is that that's going to continue to be the primary use of hydrocarbons.

        That being the case, I don't think that the shifts in usage will make a significant dent in the argument that an emissions-limiting approach is doomed to failure.

        --Shannon

        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 06:24:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  They fought the reduction of (0+ / 0-)

      ozone depleting chemicals as well and lost. That was completely saved by reducing emissions.

      From the looks of this diary, it appears that the negative feedback of economic disaster is probably going to limit emissions eventually. I used to think it would be just through loss of life, but the economy is a powerful regulator. It will still not be pleasant. Any proactive measures we take now will minimize the eventual pain.

  •  Not to mention the wars, some b/t WMD armed natio (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    ns. Mushroom clouds? Nuclear winter?  Pandemics of engineered diseases?  

    Couldn't possible an economic problems....  Nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you! Drill Todd Drill! Also!

  •  One person's misdirection... (0+ / 0-)

    You complain if people point out the incredible cost of fighting global warming -- and then engage in the left-leaning misdirection:

    It's so freakin' horrible that we don't need to give a damn about the human consequences of our pet solutions.

    We don't have to care whether cap and trade burdens the American economy while having more or less zero effect on the climate thanks to the huge increases in greenhouse emissions by third-world countries.

    Stakes are too high to have to care.

    And gee -- too bad for all of those people who will never find work and their children.  Overpopulation is a problem we need to solve anyway and the stakes are too freakin' high to think about how they'll work and fit into the future.

    I wonder why so much of the public isn't listening.  Maybe if I think about it real hard I'll begin to understand.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:15:42 PM PDT

    •  forehead slap. (4+ / 0-)

      There's more than one way to respond to climate change.

      Attacking climate change head on can be a major stimulus for the economy, put tens or even hundreds of thousands to work, and be a money maker for the US.  Money isn't being 'destroyed', it's being 'spent' - which means someone else is getting it.  We just need to make sure America is on the 'getting end', rather than waiting and buying all of the technology we need from overseas.

      If you feel insulted by anything I've said, find out if it was intentional. I'll let you know if you ask.

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:27:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes it can, but it isn't necessarily so. (0+ / 0-)

        To accomplish that will require a concerted effort, not just incantations that good things will trickle down, and I'm afraid we've seen a lot more of the latter than the former.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 05:20:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  investing in industry creates jobs. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden

          "Trickle down" is the inane idea that reducing investment and cutting taxes on the wealthy will create jobs.

          •  Crabbed defnition of trickle down. (0+ / 0-)

            It applies perfectly well to anybody who chants -- Oh yeah, and if you do these things I want, there'll be jobs.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 07:57:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  When I use a word,.... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neroden, Ezekial 23 20

              'Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.
              "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

              try looking up "trickle down" before you redefine it:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              •  I'm not redefining anything. (0+ / 0-)

                My use is entirely appropriate.  It is my intent to point out that progressives and environmentalists tend to sound like the old supply-side economists when they talk about jobs, hence the use of trickle-down.  The only difference is the underlying set of policies to which the term is applied.  That may matter to a partisan like you, but to an independent to me, it doesn't matter for squat.

                The fact is that many people pushing green solutions throw in jobs as a trickle-down benefit of what they are doing -- while the primary contractors, etc, friends of theirs, get rich.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 04:54:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Oversimplification (0+ / 0-)

      "It's so freakin' horrible that we don't need to give a damn about the human consequences of our pet solutions."

      It's not that we don't care about the human consequences of solutions. It's that the human consequences of doing nothing are far, far worse.

  •  Why doesn't anyone point out that (4+ / 0-)

    all that money being spent by someone is going into someone else's pockets?  Money thrown at 'fixing' climate change is being received by someone, it's not just being thrown onto a fire.

    Hell, most pubbies should be embracing climate change as yet another way to actually funnel money from the taxpayers into corporate pockets.

    If you feel insulted by anything I've said, find out if it was intentional. I'll let you know if you ask.

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:21:11 PM PDT

  •  Yes. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    Thank you...

    It looks like Britain is going to start rolling us back. The Royal Society (Britain's version of the National Academy of Sciences) has 43 members who are climate skeptics. They are softening their stance on climate change. Download a version of this thoroughly cooked English cuisine here.

    Please consider donating to HEAL Africa.

    by rb137 on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:22:02 PM PDT

  •  Backwards economy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    That's the cost of not addressing climate change (so far.)  Our economy has been moving in retrograde compared to other nations that are embracing more sustainable methods.

    Forget about all the environmental and economic costs that will result from climate change (not that they aren't real.)  The thing that really needs to be pushed to regressives (conservatives) is that we are being left behind economically by our rivals because we refuse to recognize the direction others' economies are headed.  Our position as an exporter is weakened by our reliance on outdated methods and infrastructure.

    Over the past 20 years we've let one of the great economic opportunities escape...more than that, as a nation we've driven that opportunity away.

     

    This election is like going into a job interview with a resume that only says how much the other candidates suck.

    by Celtic Pugilist on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:29:36 PM PDT

  •  Unfortunately, it's still not obvious enough. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    When it is it'll be too late.

  •  On the other hand, we have here, on this website, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    billmosby, Blubba

    people who oppose the world's largerst and fastest growing source of climate change gas free energy on the grounds they have obviously never opened a science book in their entire lives.

    That would be nuclear energy.

    Glenn Seaborg, Democrat, Nobel Laureate, Science Educator, Diplomat, Science Advisor to Every President from Harry Truman to Bill Clinton, Discover or Co-discover of 10 elements in the Periodic Table, knew exactly what to do about climate change.

    If we'd listened to him, as opposed to anti-nuke mystics, we would have this problem under control.

    It should, of course, be obvious, but somehow it's not.   I have zero respect for anyone who deigns to give a rat's ass about climate change and doesn't enthusiastically endorse nuclear energy.

    •  we all suffer grievously (4+ / 0-)

      not to be respected by you.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:40:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whatever. The fact is that opposing the world's (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Blubba

        largest, by far, source of climate change free energy and then pretending to give a rat's ass about climate change is disingenous, and frankly, fraudulent, pernicious, and extremely dangerous.

        It's rather the equivalent of creationism.

        Rejecting the [i]science[/i] of Seaborg, Bethe, Wigner because one has never opened a science book, and then having the gall to complain about disrepect for science is frankly laughable.

        •  the fact is (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          badger, neroden, Celtic Pugilist

          your facts aren't facts

          http://www.reuters.com/...

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          enjoy your obsession.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 05:49:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fact is that citing the POP press is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Blubba

            pure garbage.

            I didn't, by the way, say that nuclear power could save the pathetic lives of anti-science consumer types who think their cars run on solar power.

            What I did say is that nuclear power is the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy.

            I note that 50 years of mystic bull about solar and wind has done doodly squat to fight climate change.

            Combined, they don't produce a single exajoule of energy in this country.

            Now, the EIA is not exactly the pop press, but let's see if you can compare something called "numbers":

            Is your position that 0.097 + 0.548 > 8.427?

            It is?

            Why am I not surprised?

            China doesn't give a rat's ass about what consumer Americans think.   They just announced a $120 billion dollar investment in nuclear energy.

            I suppose we will soon hear from anti-nukes about how the Chinese are, um, ill informed and poorly educated.

            Um, um, um...

            Just two of their new reactors will produce more energy than all the solar PV plants on earth.   They have 24 under construction, one started this month and another came on line last month.   They will have 80 in the next ten years.   In fact, it is easily shown that the 40 year old Oyster Creek Nuclear Reactor, easily produces more energy than all the wind turbines in Denmark, in a single, relatively small building.

            You claim to give a rat's ass about climate change, but one of the world's preeminent climate scientists - that would be Jim Hansen - has a far more serious assesment than the dumb reporter at Reuters:

            Only a Carbon Tax and Nuclear Power Can Save Us.

            Jim Hansen is generally acknowledged as one of the world's preeminent climate scientists, whereas Reuters quoting bloggers have no such gravitas.

            Now, being a climate scientist does not make one an expert on nuclear power, but somehow I suspect that Jim Hansen can judge the value of the mathematical inequality stated above, far better than the dumbass Reuters reporter.

            There are many tens of thousands of publications in the scientific literature on nuclear energy and climate change.   If one wants to claim a respect for scientific values, one could not do better than to demonstrate that one has actually read a few of them.

            •  Well, nukes got bigger subsidies. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laurence Lewis

              I will point out that whichever form of energy gets bigger subsidies is likely to have more construction.  Saying "oh, there are more nuclear plants" without mentioning that is disingenuous.

              -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

              by neroden on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:30:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh bull. Germany and Spain have nearly gone (0+ / 0-)

                broke subsidizing the solar scam, to the tune of billions upon billions of Euros, and the entire enterprise in either country can't produce as much [i]energy[/i] in a year as a single nuclear reactor.

                The feed in laws in those countries have required consumers - many of whom are not rich bourgeois brats but are, in fact, poor people - to face the some of the most costly electricity in Europe.

                Denmark has the [i]highest[/i] electricity prices in Europe, and France some of the lowest.

                Every single anti-nuke who complains about nuclear subsidies is full of shit and any claim dribbling out their mouthes about subsidies is inherently fraudulent selective attention.  

                The return on investment for nuclear technology in terajoules per dollar has been enormous.   Nuclear technology produces more than 5% of the world's primary energy.  

                The last 5 days of oil, gas, and coal subsidies - which engender no set of complaints from anti-nukes, who have very, very, very, very, very, very, very selective attention - doesn't equal the last 50 years of nuclear support.   Much of this subsidy is represented by damage to human flesh, mostly lung tissue, but many other tissues are damaged, generating huge health costs.

                The difference between oil, gas and coal and nuclear is that nuclear has an extremely low external cost, and these highly subsidized forms of fossil fuels do not.

                The external cost of solar (and wind) are largely missed, mostly because they have failed, despite huge unjustifiable subsidies, to do anything useful in the fight against climate change.

    •  I'd love to have it too. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, Blubba

      But we'd have had to start (or rather, not stop) about 30 years ago on construction of light water reactors and research and development on closed fuel cycles for it to have made a difference. A few former formidable foes of nuclear energy have changed their minds on it, but by now they and their organizations have so thoroughly scared about 3 generations off of the technology that it makes no difference.  Too late and too out of favor, nuclear energy won't be making any more contribution to CO2 emission reduction than it already has and is in the U.S.

      The story is different in a lot of other places around the world, and I'm content with that.

      Moderation in most things. Except Reactors. IFR forever!

      by billmosby on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 05:07:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  nuclear has the biggest subsidies (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden

      With same level of subsidy wind and solar and conservation would be huge. I agree there isn't really a choice given the amount of time we have but wind and solar are ultimately less destructive.

      The end result will be a mix. Just don't anoint nuclear as cost free.

    •  Blah blah blah, magic nuke worship (0+ / 0-)

      Solar energy has been shown to be sufficient to power the entire earth several times over, is safer and cleaner than nuclear energy, is actually cheaper to construct, and is actually renewable, unlike nuclear.

      Economic crowding out applies here.  If you're willing to match every nuclear dollar one-for-one with a solar dollar, I'll back your nuclear schemes -- but in general nuclear power has been fighting to steal renewable energy money.

      -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

      by neroden on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 08:28:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is rich: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, neroden

    Cupp's cutesy claim was that we can't afford to address climate change. It's about people's mortgages, she blithered.

    Uh, climate change is going to be worse on anyone's mortgage more than what the big banks in America have done to our mortgages?

    Talk about grasping for straws.  It truly does give cover for kicking the can down the road.

    Funny how Republicans are all concerned about their grandchildren when it comes to deficit spending on social programs.  But when it's a climate change issue -- something that really will impact their grandchildren, they pretend it isn't a problem; or it's a problem we can't afford to fix.

    HylasBrook @62 - fiesty, fiery, and fierce

    by HylasBrook on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:36:45 PM PDT

  •  Climate change is also a national security issue! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, neroden

    Don't forget!

  •  thank you Laurence Lewis (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Lady Libertine

    for this excellent report,

    and excellent "common sense" analysis.


    It's penny wise, or pound foolish, time.

    Just ask the CIA long-term geo-political planners,
    what they think about the many threats of Climate Change.


    Where's the Note?    -- SEIU

    by jamess on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:44:53 PM PDT

  •  Cap-n-trade (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, neroden

    is not the only option

    take a gander at the cap-n-dividend bill

    http://cantwell.senate.gov/...

  •  With Issa, etc. getting ready to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, neroden

    'McCarthy' climate science, and declare it, (on Fux Newz, of course) 'all a lie', we may not have anyone credible left to refute the lies of the Koch brothers, etc. We may see a real 'brain drain', as harrassed scientists head out for saner pastures. (Remember what Einstein did when the Nazis came to power?)

    May you live in interesting times--Chinese curse

    by oldcrow on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:47:05 PM PDT

  •  We can't afford this and we can't afford that... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, neroden, mightymouse

    We can never afford anything...

    Unless, we want to buy the ticket for that concert or sports event or PPV we want to... or to buy SE Cupp's books for 17 bucks in Amazon.com.

    This "cannot afford" talking point makes me sick, because Republican Administrations burn the house down and then Democrats cannot do sh*t, because "we cannot afford"?!

    This is a very neat trick. Let's say Mother Earth gives us 50 years in Global Warming and that the Obama Administration leaves a surplus to a Republican President in 2017. Do you think Republicans will do anything about it when "we CAN afford it"?

  •  That Cupp person was on MSNBC last week (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    on The Dylan Ratigan Show, which I know some Kossacks hate.

    But when Cupp brought out Republican talking point after Republican talking point, Ratigan schooled her on how wrong she was about all but one of them.

    She seems to be being groomed as a new "serious" Republican spokesmodel. Perhaps because she is a brunette and wears glasses. (Nothing against brunettes who wear glasses -- I am one.)

    "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain

    by Brooke In Seattle on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:52:35 PM PDT

  •  Judged by progress to date, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    I'd say dealing with this is very important, but don't hold your breath- it has little effect on CO2 emissions unless you do it long enough, lol!

    Moderation in most things. Except Reactors. IFR forever!

    by billmosby on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:55:54 PM PDT

  •  My company is doing alternative energy research (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, neroden

    .. on four unrelated projects, each funded by a different entity, none on them based in the United States. Most of the funding comes originally from oil. Our research will help those countries grow their alternative energy manufacturing.

    At least the new wind project in Mass. is being developed in America.

  •  Real Estate is the key (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    Coastal home and business owners are the key missing link in the environmental block.  They stand to loose billions as the weather gets wilder, and they might already be looking very nervously at the actuaries calculating flood insurance policies for the next decade.

    Coastal landowners have a lot of political muscle as a group.  Further, they don't need to care about the environment in order to get active;  they just need to care about their investments.  Show them the money and they will come on board.

  •  the height of outrageous lying (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, neroden

    is how these denialists are always worried about how the "average" person can't afford to do something about climate change.

    they are the ones who are exactly most at risk.

    like these shills care.

    big badda boom : GRB 080913

    by squarewheel on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 06:40:10 PM PDT

  •  Al Gore (0+ / 0-)

    Bought a 9 million $ home on oceanfront property in southern California this summer, doesnt make sense ?

    •  He can afford it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, Spekkio

      I fact, he probably bought a parcel high enough up to  become more valuable as the coast erodes back.

      It is a dishonest straw-man argument  to frame the global warming case as saying we need to suffer for mother Earth and thus  Al Gore should live as a monk.

      Climate change has a cost that will degrade out quality of life. By investing wisely we can greatly reduce that cost and continue to live well.

      For instance, water shortages in the Southwest aren't just a cost, they will cause real human suffering in a degraded environment, increased food costs, lost property values and jobs and displaced population.

      Similarly, deprivation and starvation in the developing world means wars and terrorism which most likely will kill Americans.

  •  Excellent presentation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    To deniers: "It's the economy, stupid."

  •  Bill's been dropping the ball recently (0+ / 0-)
    Three weeks ago he let some conservative(s) make some unjustified comments on global warming, then the next week he lets Crupp slide by with this nonsense without even challenging the notion. I couldn't believe it. I've been planning to write a diary about this, that's how shocked I was and I'm a big fan of Bills

    Most of what we can do to reduce emissions is free or low cost. At worst people might need to spend more to buy cleaner tech but usually they'll save money long term. Any cost now is preferable to the cost of cleaning up afterwards

  •  Not emissions. (0+ / 0-)

    the thing to tax or restrict is not emissions, which occur all over and are hard to monitor.

    Tax or restrict the extraction or importation of fossil fuels. (Of course, a global solution would need only restrict extraction, but the USA would be significant first step.)

    Corporations are people; money is speech.
    1984 - George Orwell

    by Frank Palmer on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 09:32:25 AM PDT

  •  Great Diary Thanks for This! (0+ / 0-)

    I feel pretty lonely these days in America thinking that stopping Climate Change is the #1 most important issue facing the country!

    Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value.

    by Gethsemani Sam on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 10:07:39 AM PDT

  •  Are you going to review Cupp's new book? (0+ / 0-)

    If, and only if, you can snag a free copy?

  •  chain of life (0+ / 0-)

    Everything in this world is interconnected, like the food chain when we were taught at school. Therefore, global warming/environmental issues are associated with economic crisis and everything that revolves around us.

    We help Americans move to Asia for jobs and prosperity. Learn more at http://www.pathtoasia.com  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site