William Monfredo
EF3
As you know, I'm not a moderator, but sounds to me like a brand new thread is needed for posts along the lines I'm seeing here. 
Legislation to Create a National Disaster Review Board
- Thread starter Mike Smith
- Start date
Boris Konon
EF3
It is irresponsible *not* to ask about the costs of addressing AGW, or any other issue/problem for that matter, as resources and $$ are finite. Demonizing the other "side" b/c it happens not agree with you is counterproductive and leads to more divide, and thus even less gets done.
Neither side in this case is addressing climate change correctly b/c it is an all or nothing divide. We need stop looking at it as a partisan issue, remove how we "feel" about it, and actually *think* in an objective, practical, and reasonable manner.
John Farley
Supporter
I agree, but would add that it is also irresponsible not to ask about the costs of NOT addressing this issue or any other. Totally agree with your second paragraph - it should never have become partisan or political. But it did.
Boris Konon
EF3
It hard to avoid the "hot potato" issue here when wx even remotely comes up, let alone a a forum dedicated to storm chasing! I wish it could be separate, but it has infested literally everything, and now AGW is the scapegoat for all that bad happens, no matter what. That in itself is a major problem, so the fact it seeps into our discussion in the forum is no surprise.As you know, I'm not a moderator, but sounds to me like a brand new thread is needed for posts along the lines I'm seeing here.
I think it should be discussed civilly b/c just ignoring it has a plethora of downsides. Lack of discourse/communication has an insidious effect on a social level.
Jamie H
EF2
For me, at least, it's about looking far bigger than individual actions, and perhaps that's where some of the messaging gets lost, if not only because one side features businesses who have a vested interest in the status quo and DEEP pockets to fund all kinds of shenanigans. EVs, for example, not only help with a reduction in petrol and diesel use, but similarly reduce harmful particulates, which has significant public health benefits (London for example has had low emission zones for more than 15 years and had both economic and health benefits). Does that mean they are emission free in their construction? No. But they can help.
I very much disagree with your assertion that "you basically have to be ok with going nowhere, eating only home grown foods and never buying anything." That feels like scaremongering. Globalisation and capitalism aren't leaving us any time soon, so there will be no serious reduction in travel, car driving, or what foods people eat, though expect costs to keep rising.
What would make a change, for example, is the 0.003% of the global adult population, owning an average of US$123 million and a combined wealth of US$31 trillion, using private jets like taxis, creating emissions the equivalent of 3.7 million petrol cars being driven over the course of a year. There is a growing concentration of wealth among a small part of the population, who are insulated from any of the downsides of their behaviour.
There are scientists now asking whether we've gone past the warming tipping point, despite knowing about the changing climate for 70+ years. In that time, every reasonable attempt to reduce usage has been pushed aside in the name of profits and convenience, and us in the 'western' world have barely had to bat an eyelid at any negative effects. The 'developing' world has been looking at mountains of clothes on beaches, plastics washing up from around the globe, crop failures, water shortages, farmlands lost, and geopolitical instability, and have been shouting for years that things are becoming insufferable.
Anyway, I have gone off the rails again! But it has been good to see this discussion lasting without any name calling or shouting at each other. I am sure everyone here agrees with the problem, but we have differing views on the solutions. Sadly, with many of us struggling to survive in an economic system which features higher inflation and low wage growth, it's understandable why short-term, populist politicians are gaining votes, because people want change. There's just some level of irony that conservatives worldwide have managed to spin a message that they are on the side of the working person and the liberals are big city elites, when the opposite is generally true. And those populist votes are going to lead to policies which make it all worse.
There's a big bill to pay, coming soon, and those who have caused it will likely get off scot free.
Sean Ramsey
EF4
I'm enjoying the conversation myself, and discussions like this is what makes a place like ST so valuable and attractive.
I'm certainly not trying to scaremonger and have never been one to take anything to the extreme with opinion. Honestly, I'm not sure where the line is where everything moves back to normal and the problem is no one else really knows either. And, if someone does know they aren't doing a very good job at setting the parameters.
As far as politics goes, we literally just changed Presidents again because it's simply too expensive to live, and everyone feels it. Climate initiatives are currently too costly, too inefficient and un-economical to catch on sufficiently (and currently) in the marketplace. That's where the tipping point is that most on the left don't understand or maybe don't want to. Climate initiatives must stand on their own without subsidies in order to take hold and replace old methods of energy production, usage, etc. There's a lot that goes into that, but at the end of the day that's why the world isn't shifting.
Any policy that is implemented that doesn't generate a profit puts the burden on me, the taxpayer. This (among other non-revenue generating policies) is what causes inflation and makes it hard on the working people. Even the NDRB that Mike started this discussion about would be a tax increasing, inflation causing entity, needed or not. And as John mentioned, what's the cost of not doing anything? Could be a lot, but if people aren't able to afford food or housing going forward, ultimately things will self correct anyway.
I'm not the biggest Trump fan, but he understands these things. The market (what people spend their money on) decides what stays and what goes in the end. We're about to see the pendulum swing the other way for a while because of this.
William Monfredo
EF3
I too have enjoyed these conversations. I think it’s important to consider scale. Disasters occur mostly on a local / regional level (within a larger context, of course.) So, the solutions to what went right or wrong with an event will be mostly local and regional. That’s why world-wide averages don’t resonate with people, because they don’t live an “average.” And when something occurs in their neck of the woods, blaming a really big picture won’t solve their unique, local or regional problem. They might not want to change the world, just get their life back to normal as quickly as possible.
Last edited:
John Farley
Supporter
In response to Sean's post, through history all kinds of things have started out with subsidies then eventually become profitable. Likely it would work the same way with renewable energy, and in may ways it already is. And there are some things, like health care and old-age economic security, that will always need subsidies because they are important, life-and-death matters. Both of these points are relevant to the climate change issue.
Jamie H
EF2
That's a good point, as fossil fuel companies, despite their incredible profits, recieve far more in subsidy than clean and renewable companies do. I haven't delved into the report listed here, but it lists the US as providing more than double the subsidies to fossil fuels than clean sources. Until that changes, nothing will change.
It's a shame that countries like the UK and US failed to take the lead and become renewable powerhouses, as it only beholdens us to Gulf states, who are quickly buying up the world.