The News Thread

[HamburgerBoy]

I think Beto is guaranteed to at least make a run and have a somewhat competitive primary performance (top ~4 for Iowa/NH/etc). I think any black candidate would be a safer bet for the general election to turn out more of Obama's voters that stayed home in 2016, but depending on various factors of how Trump is looking by 2020, Beto is probably viable to win either way. He's pasteurized and safe like Clinton was, which isn't great, but he's better looking and maybe not quite as "deep state" which could be enough to give him the narrow edge that Clinton lost by.

EDIT: Oh and 500k ex-felons potentially voting in Florida could turn that state permanently blue from here on out, which means the Rust Belt becomes mandatory instead of a nice bonus.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I think that most climate scientists are fully aware of the complexities and uncertainties that plague forecasts like this when we're talking about open systems (in fact, I'd argue that most scientists today are aware of the dynamics of open systems--see Onori and Visconti's 2012 piece on the shift from a homeostatic to an autopoietic worldview in biology). The difference between climate scientists and conservative economists, in this case, is that conservatives see uncertainty and tend to think "There's too much uncertainty to justify action"; whereas climate scientists see uncertainty and tend to think "There's too much uncertainty to justify inaction."

Regarding migratory patterns 6000 years ago: we don't live 6000 years ago. We live today, and today there's far less space in the world. Inhabitants of Florida could move north, but where the hell will they settle? Furthermore, as rising sea waters submerge more land, that means fewer national resources for feeding and housing a growing population (even if it's growing at a slower rate). Hazards like floods and wildfires are the more easily and empirically observable disasters, but there are more extensive systemic problems waiting down the line as more people are displaced. Some of these are already taking place, including impacts on agriculture (which is a mixed bag).

As to your earlier point, it's true that many developing countries are resistant to rolling back fossil fuel use. They've seen the U.S. and other developed countries exploit fossil fuels for centuries, and they deserve their shot at development. It's a complicated issue, but it's not an excuse for avoiding action altogether.

As Dak said, there's still plenty of space. Florida being distributed among the remaining 49 states is minor compared to exploding third-world populations and their migration here anyways. I don't really see the agriculture issue either outside of citrus fruits and etc grown specifically in Florida. We've got shittons of open land, and thanks to biotech our nutritional density has never been higher. The coasts themselves are valuable because they are coasts; we'll have to move docks backwards, build dykes or simply move coastal buildings backwards as well, but even in a worst-case scenario humans will be able to adapt to the flooding on an order of decades.

Environmental issues are one of the areas where I'm most sympathetic with liberals/the left and I don't really have a big issue with fazing out fossil fuels on its own merits. I'd definitely favor an economic shift that placed more tax burden on consumption (and the energy needed to make things to consume) than on income. I'm just saying that stopping climate change seems pretty much out of our hands at this point, and that the most devastating predictions made seem pretty mild compared to things like, say, historical plagues (which we've always recovered from rapidly). There's no point in committing to an action with measurable immediate negative effects (energy and food costs) and no chance of positive effects (stopping sea levels from rising).

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

i wasn't really complaining
i was just startled
like what the effing hell?? some guy from Texas running for president? it was weird
like, the president after Trump's prolly gonna be the democrat nominee,
but people are still saying the next republican nominee becoming president might be Ted Cruz
the people that know me face-2-face are are startled by the whole "beto for president" thing
my face-2-face friends are convinced ted cruz has a way-the-fuck better chance of being the next republican president than beto o'rourke being the next democrat president

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

lol seems legit, but if you were talking only about london rather than england as a whole then none of this applies to me, i'm nowhere near there haha

Yeah i meant London. I fucked up the quote i used in the movie thread anyway, it was suppoised to say "southeast or one of them northwest London sissy boys" ... i think or maybe it was "west London sissy boys"

 

[Einherjar86]

Probably in the vast tracts of uninhabited land or the many many empty houses to the north and northwest. The build-density of the DC-Boston corridor is not even remotely representative of the rest of the US.

You foresee no issues with this? It's not as though all this land is available and just waiting for people to move in. We've settled the country. The amber waves of grain aren't open territory for westward expansion anymore. If even half of Florida moves northwest, we're going to have a massive administrative issue concerning redistribution of the population.

Most agriculturally available land isn't immediately along the coastline, and most of what isn't, isn't even under high development:
https://www.farmland.org/farming-on-the-edge

I wasn't implying that arable land is under threat of coastal flooding. There are other threats to agriculture.

Specifically, as temperatures rise it might prove beneficial for certain crops; but increased natural disasters will impact crop yields. Furthermore, rising temperatures are more conducive to crop-killing pests, which are becoming increasingly prevalent.

The U.S. currently relies on foreign agriculture for numerous products, and many of these foreign regions are suffering due to effects from climate change. As they become less fruitful, the U.S. will have to turn to its own agriculture and consumption pressures will lead to the intensification of domestic farming. As farms come under this pressure and squeeze more produce from the land, we'll see more of those effects that we can observe overseas taking place here.

Finally, if you move coastal populations deeper into the heartland, you're going to see more and more devastating effects on agriculture and crop yields and farmland has to feed more people spread over less land, and there's more pressure on U.S. farms to produce more food.

These aren't ideal sources, but:

Florida will lose as many as 2.5 million residents, according to Hauer's data, and Texas will pick up around 1.5 million. Atlanta, Georgia may see as many as 250,000 additional residents—which doesn’t sound like a problem until you realize that the city is already struggling with water management and bursting at the seams. It isn’t the only city in this boat: Phoenix, Arizona; Riverside, California; and Las Vegas, Nevada can all expect an increase in climate migrants, and all are currently struggling with unrelated resource constraints. Rising sea levels could, in fact, simply move people out of the fire and into the frying pan.

https://www.popsci.com/sea-level-rise-refugee#page-5

The three U.S. counties with the largest concentrations of people living in flood zones are on the Gulf of Mexico. They are Cameron Parish, La. (population 6,401, with 93.6 percent in flood zones); Monroe County, Fla. (population 66,804, with 91.4 percent in flood zones); and Galveston County, Tex. (population 241,204, with 82.8 percent in flood zones).

These are all coastal communities, where flood risks should be well-known to all residents. But we also found inland counties where the share of the total population living in flood zones increased over the decade we examined. A number of those with the largest increases are bordered by rivers, such as Marshall County in western Kentucky, which sits between Kentucky Lake and the Ohio River. We also identified several hot spots where urban development has increased in coastal flood zones, including New York City and Miami.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...re-safe-from-flooding/?utm_term=.1e98549482b9

There is no shortage of housing:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/07/vacancy-americas-other-housing-crisis/565901/

Yes there is. Many of those houses aren't livable.

There may be "houses," but there will need to be a massive effort to make them appropriate for displaced families to live in.

There's somewhat of a neurosis in the approach to uncertainty of "just do something!", a neurosis which is blind to the fact that action can compound problems as much as it can alleviate them. Resources are scarce and finite, and we do not live in computer models which can simply be reset when they prove wrong.

What's the neurosis for burying one's head in the sand?

As Dak said, there's still plenty of space. Florida being distributed among the remaining 49 states is minor compared to exploding third-world populations and their migration here anyways. I don't really see the agriculture issue either outside of citrus fruits and etc grown specifically in Florida. We've got shittons of open land, and thanks to biotech our nutritional density has never been higher. The coasts themselves are valuable because they are coasts; we'll have to move docks backwards, build dykes or simply move coastal buildings backwards as well, but even in a worst-case scenario humans will be able to adapt to the flooding on an order of decades.

I respond to this more above, but it's also not just Florida. It's California, Louisiana, Carolinas, etc. A lot of land out west isn't readily available, even if it's open plain land.

I'm just saying that stopping climate change seems pretty much out of our hands at this point, and that the most devastating predictions made seem pretty mild compared to things like, say, historical plagues (which we've always recovered from rapidly). There's no point in committing to an action with measurable immediate negative effects (energy and food costs) and no chance of positive effects (stopping sea levels from rising).

It's not entirely out of our hands, and there are a lot of people working on solutions. There's a book called Drawdown that goes over several possible plans and average costs. Unfortunately, a lot of this information suffers from malicious media campaigns funded by fossil fuel companies.

That and, of course, I absolutely agree: it's nearly unimaginable to convince people how it might be possible to, say, drive less during the week. For many people this isn't possible. The solutions are outrageously complicated, but I'm not sure that means they're nonexistent.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

California is fairly mountainous despite being coastal; beyond the most immediate structures, the West Coast isn't really threatened by global warming, at least in terms of flooding. In any case, part of the reason so many people live in LA and not Central Cali is because of mankind. Diverting fresh water away from desert areas and towards more humid areas is well within our control. It's just that we've had it so good for the last ~80 years that the prospect of taking chances and embarking on major infrastructural projects scares people.

I'd check that Drawdown book out if it were on my usual Ebook websites.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's just that we've had it so good for the last ~80 years that the prospect of taking chances and embarking on major infrastructural projects scares people.

Yeah, that's a fundamental part of the problem.

California is facing problems other than flooding too. Wildfires have been virtually constant since 2000. I'm not saying climate change is causing wildfires, but many scientists agree that it's exacerbating natural disasters.

 

[Dak]

I'll split these into the two general concerns of peoplespace and foodstuffs for condensing responses.

You foresee no issues with this? It's not as though all this land is available and just waiting for people to move in. We've settled the country. The amber waves of grain aren't open territory for westward expansion anymore. If even half of Florida moves northwest, we're going to have a massive administrative issue concerning redistribution of the population.

Finally, if you move coastal populations deeper into the heartland, you're going to see more and more devastating effects on agriculture and crop yields and farmland has to feed more people spread over less land, and there's more pressure on U.S. farms to produce more food.

Yes there is. Many of those houses aren't livable.

There may be "houses," but there will need to be a massive effort to make them appropriate for displaced families to live in.

I agree that a sudden mass exodus would be a nightmare from every angle conceivable. But even with worst case scenarios that isn't the expectation. We know that large, non-climate driven movements of people can occur across a decade without significant disruption on the receiving end (budgets on the leaving end are another issue, but one to be less of an issue when the abandoned areas are being vacated to rising waters). Eight decades looks like sufficient time for a semi-orderly migration. Now, obviously houses available now won't be rental/buy-ready at that time, but housing stocks replenish. We could even trot out the broken window fallacy here if it pleases the Keynesians potentially on the board.

There's a lot of infrastructure problems in the US, and over-densification in areas that can't support it, but these problems can be addressed and tackled more effectively without the climate hysteria and blindness that is trying push it.

I respond to this more above, but it's also not just Florida. It's California, Louisiana, Carolinas, etc. A lot of land out west isn't readily available, even if it's open plain land.

This is almost a tangent but I must ask: What do you mean by "readily available"?

I wasn't implying that arable land is under threat of coastal flooding. There are other threats to agriculture.

Specifically, as temperatures rise it might prove beneficial for certain crops; but increased natural disasters will impact crop yields. Furthermore, rising temperatures are more conducive to crop-killing pests, which are becoming increasingly prevalent.

The U.S. currently relies on foreign agriculture for numerous products, and many of these foreign regions are suffering due to effects from climate change. As they become less fruitful, the U.S. will have to turn to its own agriculture and consumption pressures will lead to the intensification of domestic farming. As farms come under this pressure and squeeze more produce from the land, we'll see more of those effects that we can observe overseas taking place here.

This is far more of a survival concern than housing - I'm simply not inclined to be sympathetic to the stupid coastal construction buildup and cultural snobbery that has intensified over at least the last ~40 years. People's disinclination to live in "flyover country" and any subsequent pain from such disinclination is on them.

Of course as more land becomes less arable, more land may become arable. However, rate of change, and indeed pests and disasters etc are other mediating factors. I think it bears monitoring, with targeted responses as they occur. Now, this obviously doesn't immediately sound proactive, and of course an ounce of prevention is preferable right? The problem is we can't truly understand what prevention encompasses or what prevention is achievable.

What's the neurosis for burying one's head in the sand?

Saying "there's no potential problem whatsoever" would be burying one's head in the sand. I think monitoring is important. I think reducing pollution is important. But hackneyed economic/carbon/etc schemes etc to correct poorly understood complex and dynamic cycles/processes certainly have the potential to make human outcomes worse than even "burying heads in sand". I can imagine blood-letting doctors crying foul to patients that declined their services in the same way these climate cultist would-be technocrats insist on any number of "remedies".

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yeah, that's a fundamental part of the problem.

California is facing problems other than flooding too. Wildfires have been virtually constant since 2000. I'm not saying climate change is causing wildfires, but many scientists agree that it's exacerbating natural disasters.

Pretty sure that many scientists also agree that controlled burns of underbrush would also help to stop wildfires. The problems global warming causes right now are so minuscule that people can't even be bothered to prevent them.

 

[Einherjar86]

Pretty sure that many scientists also agree that controlled burns of underbrush would also help to stop wildfires. The problems global warming causes right now are so minuscule that people can't even be bothered to prevent them.

I think attributing cause is a highly problematic effort. Many scientists are wary of saying that climate change (or global warming) causes anything, from wildfires to coral reef loss. But they are convinced that climate change contributes to, and often exacerbates, the issues. In the case of using controlled burns to curtail wildfires, that's an adaptive measure, but it's not mitigative. In the short run, adaptive measures look more financially viable; but controlled burns will do little to prevent future wildfires. For that, we need to mitigate underlying factors, including the changing climate.

When you say "miniscule," I interpret that as meaning empirically negligible--out of sight, out of mind (so to speak). There are a number of factors involved in these phenomena, but climate change compounds their impact. I personally feel that as long as anthropogenic climate change isn't treated, we'll have to keep contending with its contingent effects in increasingly adaptive ways; and over time, these effects will continue to get worse.

And to circle back around, that's why I think media stories/warnings about climate change are important.

I agree that a sudden mass exodus would be a nightmare from every angle conceivable. But even with worst case scenarios that isn't the expectation. We know that large, non-climate driven movements of people can occur across a decade without significant disruption on the receiving end (budgets on the leaving end are another issue, but one to be less of an issue when the abandoned areas are being vacated to rising waters). Eight decades looks like sufficient time for a semi-orderly migration. Now, obviously houses available now won't be rental/buy-ready at that time, but housing stocks replenish. We could even trot out the broken window fallacy here if it pleases the Keynesians potentially on the board.

There's a lot of infrastructure problems in the US, and over-densification in areas that can't support it, but these problems can be addressed and tackled more effectively without the climate hysteria and blindness that is trying push it.

I think these are effective adaptive measures, but again they do nothing to mitigate climate change; and over time it's very likely that the problems to which we apply these measures will get worse. Flooding isn't only a problem along the coasts, and if/as storms continue to intensify (still a topic of debate), we're going to face increasing housing issues in the heartland.

Additionally, replenishing the housing supply means increased construction, which is a major contributor to GHG emissions, unless we adopt cleaner methods. So many of these issues are interconnected, and as long as we pursue adaptive measures while relying on energies that emit GHG, we'll be forced to continue pursuing those adaptive measures until they're no longer viable.

This is almost a tangent but I must ask: What do you mean by "readily available"?

It's not as though people can just move onto the land and build a house, or move into the houses in disrepair.

This is far more of a survival concern than housing - I'm simply not inclined to be sympathetic to the stupid coastal construction buildup and cultural snobbery that has intensified over at least the last ~40 years. People's disinclination to live in "flyover country" and any subsequent pain from such disinclination is on them.

You know the history of coastal buildup, and you know full well that coastal cities and towns appeared long before climate change was any kind of social or political issue. By the time the Keeling Curve was published in 1950s, coastal cities and towns were already enmeshed in the social and economic development of the country. It's not all cultural snobs living along the coasts; it's also low-income and blue collar workers who flocked to cities for work.

You accuse me regularly of not sympathizing with low-income people/families. Don't let your personal grievances get in the way of thinking rationally about how to deal with coastal flooding.

Of course as more land becomes less arable, more land may become arable. However, rate of change, and indeed pests and disasters etc are other mediating factors. I think it bears monitoring, with targeted responses as they occur. Now, this obviously doesn't immediately sound proactive, and of course an ounce of prevention is preferable right? The problem is we can't truly understand what prevention encompasses or what prevention is achievable.

Saying "there's no potential problem whatsoever" would be burying one's head in the sand. I think monitoring is important. I think reducing pollution is important. But hackneyed economic/carbon/etc schemes etc to correct poorly understood complex and dynamic cycles/processes certainly have the potential to make human outcomes worse than even "burying heads in sand". I can imagine blood-letting doctors crying foul to patients that declined their services in the same way these climate cultist would-be technocrats insist on any number of "remedies".

Targeted responses don't target--can't target--underlying factors. The way I see it, if nothing is done about underlying causes, those targeted responses will become less and less effective over time.

 

[The Ozzman]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...pletely-cashless-what-could-possibly-go-wrong

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

I think Beto is guaranteed to at least make a run and have a somewhat competitive primary performance (top ~4 for Iowa/NH/etc). I think any black candidate would be a safer bet for the general election to turn out more of Obama's voters that stayed home in 2016, but depending on various factors of how Trump is looking by 2020, Beto is probably viable to win either way. He's pasteurized and safe like Clinton was, which isn't great, but he's better looking and maybe not quite as "deep state" which could be enough to give him the narrow edge that Clinton lost by.

EDIT: Oh and 500k ex-felons potentially voting in Florida could turn that state permanently blue from here on out, which means the Rust Belt becomes mandatory instead of a nice bonus.

1st
i think "the narrow edge" that Clinton lost by is prolly misogynistic dudes who voted against the female candidate [i'm basing this theory on the fact that she managed to get the popular vote without the electoral college votes, which has only happened 5 times, IIRC,]

2nd
let me explain stuff
i actually live in Texas, so i know the name "Beto" from walking around in downtown Dallas through huge-ass-crowds of people where every 5th shirt was a "Beto for Senate" t shirt
so when i said "beto for president" i was making a sarcastic comment in response to that anti-beto vid that @arg posted
when i use the internet, it's typing on this forum and looking at Tessa Fowler's nipples
so i just kind of got really startled when i became aware of the fact that there were any people that were outside of Texas that actually apparently gave a shit about the Texas senatorial race
when i saw "beto for president" on one of those news scrolls at the bottom of the CNN screen,
i scanned through the articles here "beto for president" - Google Search
and then i was like "oh, shit, my sarcastic comment was accidentally predicting the future"

 

[Dak]

I think these are effective adaptive measures, but again they do nothing to mitigate climate change; and over time it's very likely that the problems to which we apply these measures will get worse. Flooding isn't only a problem along the coasts, and if/as storms continue to intensify (still a topic of debate), we're going to face increasing housing issues in the heartland.

Additionally, replenishing the housing supply means increased construction, which is a major contributor to GHG emissions, unless we adopt cleaner methods. So many of these issues are interconnected, and as long as we pursue adaptive measures while relying on energies that emit GHG, we'll be forced to continue pursuing those adaptive measures until they're no longer viable.

It's not as though people can just move onto the land and build a house, or move into the houses in disrepair.

I think methods will get cleaner in the US. Emissions per capita and per GDP have been falling since the 1990s. Relative slow-walking of responses as evidence becomes more clear and concrete technological solutions present themselves is the approach least likely to lead to running in the wrong direction. You're worried about an "end" of viability, I'm not. At some point corrections sort things out, one way or the other - the questions is the amount of pain involved, and how the pain is distributed. Technocratic schemes on offer do not currently appear to offer any concrete solutions, and the greatest threat of GHG increase is from developing countries, not developed countries that have been reducing emissions or at least emissions growth - while at the same time avoiding nuclear power, which if embraced would see a radical reduction in GHG from power generation. The fact that nuclear isn't embraced tells me some of what I need to know about the climate cult. It's not about solutions, it's about power and destruction.

You know the history of coastal buildup, and you know full well that coastal cities and towns appeared long before climate change was any kind of social or political issue. By the time the Keeling Curve was published in 1950s, coastal cities and towns were already enmeshed in the social and economic development of the country. It's not all cultural snobs living along the coasts; it's also low-income and blue collar workers who flocked to cities for work.

You accuse me regularly of not sympathizing with low-income people/families. Don't let your personal grievances get in the way of thinking rationally about how to deal with coastal flooding.

Of course coastal cities, particularly on the east coast, far predate assumed climate effects of industrialization. But the mass migration - globally - from interiors to coastal regions has only occurred since the publishing of the Keeling curve. This trend could be reversed by direct government interdiction, but there's less than zero political incentive to do so.

http://geology.wwu.edu/rjmitch/coastalpopulation.pdf

The US already has an agency that could begin to address flooding and the issue of the poor. Eastern NC has dealt with two massive floods in the last ~2.5 years. FEMA could have used emergency funds to start forcing relocation out of these areas. New Orleans and less famous parts of Louisiana could have already been abandoned. Etc etc.

Connected with comments about "livable housing", I'm a bit more skeptical. I've seen what the poor in both rural areas and inner cities live in, and it takes a lot for something to be considered "unlivable" for some. The poor could be moved to places in the midwest with similar or lower CoL, and even provided assistance funds for housing renewal etc for pennies on the dollar for what is paid to keep rebuilding for the rich in storm/flood vulnerable areas along the Gulf and East coasts. The poor aren't the real concern here. The concern for the wonks and the rich is that they can't translate their coastal real estate holdings into similar condensed wealth if things are re-dispersed across the country. I'm not sympathetic to that.

Shutting down coal and building nuclear power would address both GHG issues, power generation issues, and create more upper skilled jobs. Putting these plants in the north-midwest where there's less vulnerability to storm destruction would help drive migration of business and people to take advantage of cheap power and help fuel a shift towards more electric/less fossil fuel usage........but instead we get handwringing about carbon credits and calls for people to use public transit, plus random doses of more and more bureaucracy.

I'm interested in addressing cause as well as effect factors, but I don't see any legitimate responses or preventative efforts being pushed by the alarmists. Just lots of graft.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think methods will get cleaner in the US. Emissions per capita and per GDP have been falling since the 1990s. Relative slow-walking of responses as evidence becomes more clear and concrete technological solutions present themselves is the approach least likely to lead to running in the wrong direction. You're worried about an "end" of viability, I'm not. At some point corrections sort things out, one way or the other - the questions is the amount of pain involved, and how the pain is distributed. Technocratic schemes on offer do not currently appear to offer any concrete solutions, and the greatest threat of GHG increase is from developing countries, not developed countries that have been reducing emissions or at least emissions growth - while at the same time avoiding nuclear power, which if embraced would see a radical reduction in GHG from power generation. The fact that nuclear isn't embraced tells me some of what I need to know about the climate cult. It's not about solutions, it's about power and destruction.

I'm not a fan of "corrections sort things out"--sounds too much like "hand of the market" religiosity. The West has depended on the hand of the market for centuries, and it's the primary reason we're in the situation we are today.

That is not to say that capitalism is the problem and needs to change, only that entirely contingent processes (processes that could absolutely have been otherwise) within capitalism may need to change. Reductions of GHG emissions and pollutants that contribute to GHG are so tightly enmeshed with practices of industry that it seems next to impossible to divest ourselves of them, but there are ways and roadmaps for moving forward.

Of course coastal cities, particularly on the east coast, far predate assumed climate effects of industrialization. But the mass migration - globally - from interiors to coastal regions has only occurred since the publishing of the Keeling curve. This trend could be reversed by direct government interdiction, but there's less than zero political incentive to do so.

http://geology.wwu.edu/rjmitch/coastalpopulation.pdf

The US already has an agency that could begin to address flooding and the issue of the poor. Eastern NC has dealt with two massive floods in the last ~2.5 years. FEMA could have used emergency funds to start forcing relocation out of these areas. New Orleans and less famous parts of Louisiana could have already been abandoned. Etc etc.

And it's looking more and more likely that people will have to move, but that may not have had to be the case. The special interests that have suppressed the distribution of information (on both the left and right) have contributed to a prolonged sense of "nothing's wrong," and other forms of skepticism and/or denial. This is why I'm skeptical of continued skepticism/denial today--because I see it as part of a long, heavily-funded, media-manipulated trend.

Connected with comments about "livable housing", I'm a bit more skeptical. I've seen what the poor in both rural areas and inner cities live in, and it takes a lot for something to be considered "unlivable" for some. The poor could be moved to places in the midwest with similar or lower CoL, and even provided assistance funds for housing renewal etc for pennies on the dollar for what is paid to keep rebuilding for the rich in storm/flood vulnerable areas along the Gulf and East coasts. The poor aren't the real concern here. The concern for the wonks and the rich is that they can't translate their coastal real estate holdings into similar condensed wealth if things are re-dispersed across the country. I'm not sympathetic to that.

That's fair. Would you be sympathetic to people who say they don't want to ration water or reduce the amount of driving they do per week?

Shutting down coal and building nuclear power would address both GHG issues, power generation issues, and create more upper skilled jobs. Putting these plants in the north-midwest where there's less vulnerability to storm destruction would help drive migration of business and people to take advantage of cheap power and help fuel a shift towards more electric/less fossil fuel usage........but instead we get handwringing about carbon credits and calls for people to use public transit, plus random doses of more and more bureaucracy.

I'm interested in addressing cause as well as effect factors, but I don't see any legitimate responses or preventative efforts being pushed by the alarmists. Just lots of graft.

The new gov't report contains legitimate responses and possibilities for social and individual agency! The problem is the media doesn't report on it b/c doom and gloom makes for snappier headlines.

 

[Dak]

I'm not a fan of "corrections sort things out"--sounds too much like "hand of the market" religiosity. The West has depended on the hand of the market for centuries, and it's the primary reason we're in the situation we are today.

That is not to say that capitalism is the problem and needs to change, only that entirely contingent processes (processes that could absolutely have been otherwise) within capitalism may need to change. Reductions of GHG emissions and pollutants that contribute to GHG are so tightly enmeshed with practices of industry that it seems next to impossible to divest ourselves of them, but there are ways and roadmaps for moving forward.

And it's looking more and more likely that people will have to move, but that may not have had to be the case. The special interests that have suppressed the distribution of information (on both the left and right) have contributed to a prolonged sense of "nothing's wrong," and other forms of skepticism and/or denial. This is why I'm skeptical of continued skepticism/denial today--because I see it as part of a long, heavily-funded, media-manipulated trend.

GHG emissions occur even with zero human activity. Production just happens to contribute in addition to them, although less now - proportionally - than at times past. I can't really respond to "contingent processes of capitalism" because that could be anything. Government policy has a bidirectional effect on capital flows. Is that one of the contingencies? Movement of people is also a natural process which has and will occur even absent emergencies. Incentives could be constructed to drive a repopulation of inland areas. Those are not the incentives being discussed.

When I say things sort themselves out, I'm including worst case scenarios - if things get bad enough, enough humans die and enough capital is lost to set things back to a point where GHGs have to fall because GHG processes are eliminated as possibilities. Stone age living or whatever easy meme that gets the point across.

That's fair. Would you be sympathetic to people who say they don't want to ration water or reduce the amount of driving they do per week?

You'll have to explain this more; too vague for me to comment on.

The new gov't report contains legitimate responses and possibilities for social and individual agency! The problem is the media doesn't report on it b/c doom and gloom makes for snappier headlines.

I didn't see any individual level response recommendations on the Mitigation side, only the adaptive side.:

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/28/
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/29/

Many jurisdictions publish guidance to help individuals take actions to reduce the risks from natural hazards. For example, the city of Chicago suggests residents in flood-prone areas take the following actions before a flood:26

• Avoid building in a floodplain unless you elevate and reinforce your home.
  
  
• Elevate the furnace, water heater, and electric panel if susceptible to flooding.
  
  
• Install check valves in sewer traps to prevent floodwater from backing up into your home.
  
  
• Construct barriers (levees, beams, sandbags, and floodwalls) to stop floodwater from entering the building.
  
  
• Seal walls in basements with waterproofing compounds to avoid seepage.
  
  
• Keep an adequate supply of food, candles, and drinking water in case you are trapped inside your home.

Pretty shit list of recommendations. How about don't build, or rebuild in floodplains? That eliminates all of these save the last one, and a huge chunk of the current areas of FEMA spending and some of other budgets (eg Army Corps of Engineers). The last rec is a good recommendation no matter what, but lol tinfoilhat preppers and stuff.

Nuclear power is mentioned a grand total of 3 times in Chapter 29, when it should be a front line mitigation policy effort.

 

[Einherjar86]

GHG emissions occur even with zero human activity. Production just happens to contribute in addition to them, although less now - proportionally - than at times past. I can't really respond to "contingent processes of capitalism" because that could be anything. Government policy has a bidirectional effect on capital flows. Is that one of the contingencies? Movement of people is also a natural process which has and will occur even absent emergencies. Incentives could be constructed to drive a repopulation of inland areas. Those are not the incentives being discussed.

Yes, GHG emissions occur without human involvement--but not at the exponential rate at which they've increased since industrialization. Do you disagree with those measurements?

And yes, they're decreasing in some countries; in others they're increasing.

I'm not asking you to respond to anything about "contingencies"; all I was saying is that I'm not arguing for some dismantling of market-based economics. Capitalism doesn't need to be exactly the way it is. If you disagree with that, then we can talk specifics.

Repopulating inland areas is not a catch-all solution. You keep reiterating it like it solves all climate change-related issues. It doesn't, and the more people move inland the more we'll likely suffer from exacerbated effects over time.

You come off sounding like an expert on climate policy, but your suggestions don't always hold the water you think they do. They're only part of what need to be much broader measures.

When I say things sort themselves out, I'm including worst case scenarios - if things get bad enough, enough humans die and enough capital is lost to set things back to a point where GHGs have to fall because GHG processes are eliminated as possibilities. Stone age living or whatever easy meme that gets the point across.

I'm having a very hard time wrapping my head around this. You're saying that catastrophic scenarios--enough people dying, enough value lost, etc.--is a corrective that can inspire people to change?

That's not an incorrect sentiment, but it's not an attractive one either. You're all about preventative care and healthy lifestyles among individuals, i.e. "you won't need to the invasive treatment if you live healthy." Why don't you feel the same way about the environment? Why do you think an environmental corrective (i.e. disaster) is preferable to instituting calculated policies now so that catastrophe might be lessened, if not averted?

You'll have to explain this more; too vague for me to comment on.

You're not sympathetic to people who, in your eyes, demand a certain quality of living. I think that's fair. I'm asking what your sympathies would be if middle-income families were told they could only use (for instance) twenty gallons of water per day, or only drive a maximum of one hundred miles with any personal vehicles per week.

I didn't see any individual level response recommendations on the Mitigation side, only the adaptive side.:

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/28/
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/29/

Pretty shit list of recommendations. How about don't build, or rebuild in floodplains? That eliminates all of these save the last one, and a huge chunk of the current areas of FEMA spending and some of other budgets (eg Army Corps of Engineers). The last rec is a good recommendation no matter what, but lol tinfoilhat preppers and stuff.

Honestly, since Trump's been elected, I don't think tin-foil-hat-ing is so "lol" anymore (I know, I know, "it's all Trump's fault!!!").

I think the list is pretty comprehensive, compared with other research and studies that have been done. For example...

Nuclear power is mentioned a grand total of 3 times in Chapter 29, when it should be a front line mitigation policy effort.

You haven't done your research on the impacts of nuclear energy compared to other possibilities. These scientists have.

Nuclear energy is a major contender, and could potentially reduce CO2 emissions by over 16 gigatons by 2050. Pretty significant.

Nuclear energy is also controversial and scares people, and the scientists are sensitive to that fact. Nuclear power plants could be built far away from people, but with a growing population (so far) and shrinking coastlines, space is an issue. And a lot of people don't want to live next to a nuclear power plant.

Compared to nuclear, onshore wind farms have the potential to reduce CO2 emissions by 84.6 gigatons by 2050 (14.1 gigatons for offshore). Solar farms, just under 40 gigatons. Rooftop solar, 24.6. There are many other alternative energy measures that don't yield as much reduction, but added together produce a formidable number.

So yes, nuclear is an option, but I don't buy your argument (not really argument--more like opinion) that it should be a front line defense.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I think attributing cause is a highly problematic effort. Many scientists are wary of saying that climate change (or global warming) causes anything, from wildfires to coral reef loss. But they are convinced that climate change contributes to, and often exacerbates, the issues. In the case of using controlled burns to curtail wildfires, that's an adaptive measure, but it's not mitigative. In the short run, adaptive measures look more financially viable; but controlled burns will do little to prevent future wildfires. For that, we need to mitigate underlying factors, including the changing climate.

When you say "miniscule," I interpret that as meaning empirically negligible--out of sight, out of mind (so to speak). There are a number of factors involved in these phenomena, but climate change compounds their impact. I personally feel that as long as anthropogenic climate change isn't treated, we'll have to keep contending with its contingent effects in increasingly adaptive ways; and over time, these effects will continue to get worse.

Why wouldn't controlled burns prevent future wildfires? It's an established practice. Remove more flammable underbrush, reduce tree density to slow the spread and create barriers, and you've reduced the amount of fuel accessible to wildfires. Do that, and now it's much more manageable for the authorities to extinguish fires.

 

[Dak]

Yes, GHG emissions occur without human involvement--but not at the exponential rate at which they've increased since industrialization. Do you disagree with those measurements?

And yes, they're decreasing in some countries; in others they're increasing.

I'm not asking you to respond to anything about "contingencies"; all I was saying is that I'm not arguing for some dismantling of market-based economics. Capitalism doesn't need to be exactly the way it is. If you disagree with that, then we can talk specifics.

Repopulating inland areas is not a catch-all solution. You keep reiterating it like it solves all climate change-related issues. It doesn't, and the more people move inland the more we'll likely suffer from exacerbated effects over time.

You come off sounding like an expert on climate policy, but your suggestions don't always hold the water you think they do. They're only part of what need to be much broader measures.

I don't pretend to be an issue on climate policy. I'm not even interested in "climate policy". I think such a thing is myopic. There's broad issues that need addressing, one of which is climate change. Hyper-urbanism creates significant stressors in a variety of areas including the environment. A more dispersed population more evenly draws on resources. One argument against this is that more dispersion requires more redundancies which increase use of resources. For the most part, this isn't true with the possible or probable exception of energy usage. This is where nuclear power comes in (I'll address that below).

Greater dispersion and redundancies in infrastructure and services reduces the impact of disasters, attacks, etc. It provides greater resilience to communities and fosters more human-sized structures and organizations, and reduces inequality.

I'm having a very hard time wrapping my head around this. You're saying that catastrophic scenarios--enough people dying, enough value lost, etc.--is a corrective that can inspire people to change?

That's not an incorrect sentiment, but it's not an attractive one either. You're all about preventative care and healthy lifestyles among individuals, i.e. "you won't need to the invasive treatment if you live healthy." Why don't you feel the same way about the environment? Why do you think an environmental corrective (i.e. disaster) is preferable to instituting calculated policies now so that catastrophe might be lessened, if not averted?

All I'm saying is that I'm not concerned about the "end of viability", as in, an end to being able to respond to affect climate change. Worst case scenario we achieve what the environmentalists wanted all along - erasure of civilization. I am interested in prevention. I don't see bad policy as prevention, and most recommendations appear as bad policy - because good policy doesn't have the political or economic graft benefits and so are on unpopular (population dispersion, nuclear power, etc).

You're not sympathetic to people who, in your eyes, demand a certain quality of living. I think that's fair. I'm asking what your sympathies would be if middle-income families were told they could only use (for instance) twenty gallons of water per day, or only drive a maximum of one hundred miles with any personal vehicles per week.

What's the standard of living you're referring to that I'm unsympathetic to? "Lifestyles of the rich and the famous"? Or just lifestyles of the mundanes in the NYCs and Atlantas of the world? One lifestyle I'm somewhat familiar with is the OuterBanks retiree etc. in these parts. They build million dollerish homes with concomitant amenities (restaurants, etc) on an oversized sandbar jutting out into the ocean and then demand FEMA rebuild them and the infrastructure around them when they get torn up every 2-5 years. It's pretty when there isn't a hurricane - but we know the hurricanes are going to happen. It's not if, merely when. It's unsustainable, and I'm not sympathetic to their losses if the government made the unpopular decision to radically depopulate the Outer Banks (which they should do, as long as the government is underwriting the losses).

But to answer your question to some degree: Water usage is an area we could do a lot better on generally speaking, regardless of climate, but there's not the political will behind it unless a situation gets incredibly dire. Water usage is a prime point in dispersing the population buildup in SoCal and PHX. As far as travel, Miles per week isn't really an accurate barometer of how much energy is consumed/GHGs are created.

You haven't done your research on the impacts of nuclear energy compared to other possibilities. These scientists have.

Nuclear energy is a major contender, and could potentially reduce CO2 emissions by over 16 gigatons by 2050. Pretty significant.

Nuclear energy is also controversial and scares people, and the scientists are sensitive to that fact. Nuclear power plants could be built far away from people, but with a growing population (so far) and shrinking coastlines, space is an issue. And a lot of people don't want to live next to a nuclear power plant.

Compared to nuclear, onshore wind farms have the potential to reduce CO2 emissions by 84.6 gigatons by 2050 (14.1 gigatons for offshore). Solar farms, just under 40 gigatons. Rooftop solar, 24.6. There are many other alternative energy measures that don't yield as much reduction, but added together produce a formidable number.

So yes, nuclear is an option, but I don't buy your argument (not really argument--more like opinion) that it should be a front line defense.

Wind farms and Solar farms take up massive amounts of space, kill and displace wildlife, have their own negative climate effects, and have terrible EROI (Energy Returned On Invested). They are more politically popular though because of graft and public ignorance. Nuclear's EROI is the only real non-fossil option at this point:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492

There's two problems with nuclear power: Threat of meltdown (miniscule with modern codes and when not built in natural disaster prone areas), and waste disposal. The former creates much of the resistance at the electorate level, but the threat is overhyped to a degree far beyond shark attacks, terrorist attacks, etc. The latter is a practical issue that has to be addressed. The current model is to bury it, which comes with its own issues. With the dropping cost of space launch, I'm wondering what the feasibility is on the option is to send waste out of the galaxy. Since space is near infinite, it's not exactly comparable to clogging the oceans with trash or Near Earth Orbit with space junk.

Space concerns are simply a non-starter. The US uses a fraction of the total land mass for either people or agriculture. Obviously some percentage is uninhabitable in practical terms - stretches of the Rockies, parts of the Southwest, etc. But a return to patchwork townships/cityships would be able to handle the growing population with space in between for more localized production. More sustainable homes (with, where applicable, rooftop solar maybe as options) by way of better insulation, etc., can be a part of that. Reduced heat-island effects with smaller, greener cities. While energy usage might be increased by this, the transition from fossil fuels and combustion engines to nuclear and electric would reduce the impact of said energy usage in terms of GHG.

 

[arg]

1st
i think "the narrow edge" that Clinton lost by is prolly misogynistic dudes who voted against the female candidate [i'm basing this theory on the fact that she managed to get the popular vote without the electoral college votes, which has only happened 5 times, IIRC,]

2nd
let me explain stuff
i actually live in Texas, so i know the name "Beto" from walking around in downtown Dallas through huge-ass-crowds of people where every 5th shirt was a "Beto for Senate" t shirt
so when i said "beto for president" i was making a sarcastic comment in response to that anti-beto vid that @arg posted
when i use the internet, it's typing on this forum and looking at Tessa Fowler's nipples
so i just kind of got really startled when i became aware of the fact that there were any people that were outside of Texas that actually apparently gave a shit about the Texas senatorial race
when i saw "beto for president" on one of those news scrolls at the bottom of the CNN screen,
i scanned through the articles here "beto for president" - Google Search
and then i was like "oh, shit, my sarcastic comment was accidentally predicting the future"

Why do you vote democrat?

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

Why do you vote democrat?

i don't even really know anymore
it used to be because the republican party was crap, but the democratic party is crap, too

there's this ridiculously complicated yet totally standardized way of getting to the point of getting anywhere near having your name on the presidential ballot that by the time election day it's like having to choose between blue-bag cool ranch Doritos and red-bag nacho cheese Doritos
but what if you don't want Doritos at all??
what if you want Cheetos Frito's or Funyons?? what if you want Ruffles??

even hillary and trump and beto and ted cruz are freaking doritos
you can't have any felons become president, but what would happen if somebody became president right after finishing a prison sentence??
you're never gonna have a broke dude become president, but what if a min wage worker, or somebody eating off foodstamps suddenly became president??
what if people born outside of the united states could run for president, then we'd end up having to choose between Jerry Springer and Arnold Schwarzenegger
even barak obama wasn't really a black dude, he was a white-guy-with-a-sun-tan [i mean in terms of how he did things, my friends called obama "an oreo" you know, "black on the outside-white on the inside"]

my point here is that when election day comes the republican nominee is going to be interchangeable with the previous republican nominee and the democratic nominee will be be interchangeable with the previous democratic nominee with this back-and-forth thing going on where the person replacing trump is really almost guaranteed to be the democratic nominee [excluding impeachment] it's really just a question of whether it's going to be 2020 or 2024 and whether or not it's beto [which it might actually be]

the only real difference this last time was the fact that the dem nominee was female
a huge amount of people that voted for trump were misogynistic/"christian" dudes [even weirdly some actual females] who were just not comfortable with the idea of a female president [explaining why trump won the "red states"] and a huge amount of people voting for hillary were just "feminists" who really, really wanted a female president [explaining why hillary won the popular vote]

beto becoming president will just try to copy what obama did and ted cruz becoming president will keep what trump is doing