61–70 of 223 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tragedy of the commons is another name for the failure of private property and markets to account for externalities. For a real theory of the commons without leaving mainstream economics cf. Mary Ostrom's Governing the Commons. Otherwise, all of anthropology.
Elinor Ostrom. Nice podcast on some of these things: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/11/boettke_on_elin.htm...
It's so crazy to me that everyone in vulnerable places--Tokyo and Houston in the article for example--are happy to spend hundreds of millions, even billions, to put a bandaid on their local climate change problems. It seems like they all acknowledge the reality and danger of climate change and are willing to spend money on it. In TFA Houston wants $400 million to build a reservoir. They seem to acknowledge that thing…
yet everyone there still drives everywhere spewing carbon into their own air with every trip This. Every single person who claims they believe global climate change is a very serious, and man-made, problem absolutely should be taking personal steps now to address it. Telecommuting is a thing. Home-solar is a thing. Electric cars are a thing. Quit telling _others_ to solve the problems, and start doing it personally,…
This being effective seems contrary to everything we know about economics. If even a huge portion of people voluntary lower consumption or energy usage, it frees up that energy to be consumed more cheaply by other people and so the overall consumption is hardly impacted. Historically this is the case.
If you don't price an externality into the market with a tax or credit or it's useless.
Put another way: if you're seriously concerned about global climate change, and do not support pigouvian taxes or other policy that will actually have an impact, you're not seriously concerned about climate change - and I can't take your concerns seriously because you don't. You're just concerned about projecting the appearance that you care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adaptation without mitigation will not be effective as the impacts worsen. Uncapped emissions and business as usual scenarios will cause outcomes that we will not be able to build ourselves out of. We must reduce emissions and push for sustainable infrastructure and solutions, now. We must adapt and we must also mitigate. Only through the combination of both efforts and through our determination and willingness to le…
Nah, the problem is self-limiting. If global warming reduces the carrying capacity of the environment, people will die. Dead people don't use resources; their bodies are returned to the environment by decomposers, where they will provide fertilizer for trees and other plants, which will grow even more abundantly because of the enhanced CO2 levels. Eventually the earth reaches a new equilibrium at a somewhat higher te…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yet everyone there still drives everywhere spewing carbon into their own air with every trip This. Every single person who claims they believe global climate change is a very serious, and man-made, problem absolutely should be taking personal steps now to address it. Telecommuting is a thing. Home-solar is a thing. Electric cars are a thing. Quit telling _others_ to solve the problems, and start doing it personally,…
Changing economic behavior with public campaigns has a pretty much zero success rate. Anyone remember Pres Ford's "WIP" buttons (Whip Inflation Now)? It had the hubris that inflation could be stopped if only people would just stop raising prices. Even as a kid, I laughed at the absurdity of that campaign. Of course it had zero effect. Something that will work is to tax pollution, i.e. a carbon tax. Making it more exp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, the problem is self-limiting. If global warming reduces the carrying capacity of the environment, people will die. Dead people don't use resources; their bodies are returned to the environment by decomposers, where they will provide fertilizer for trees and other plants, which will grow even more abundantly because of the enhanced CO2 levels. Eventually the earth reaches a new equilibrium at a somewhat higher te…
It seems that we could be headed for a mass extinction, whether or not humans manage to survive thousands of years longer. We aren’t going to entirely destroy life on the planet, which will eventually recover great diversity (speciation to fill new ecological niches in some new stable equilibrium) within a few million years after we’re gone, but it will look significantly different than what we are familiar with. Tha…
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-ends...
I used to think that we were, and when I read that article, I kept looking for flaws in its logic or counterexamples in other press. But ultimately, it interviews a real expert, and his logic is correct: we're drawn to flashy apex predators at the top of the food web, but these species spring in and out of existence all the time, and when it comes to the fossil record, they're barely a blip. If we were actually in a mass extinction, we would be worrying about cockroaches, ants, and seaweed going extinct, not tigers and rhinos. And of course, we wouldn't be here to observe it.
That's not an argument to completely fuck up the environment, since, like I mentioned, we'll be the first to go and most people have some sense of self-preservation, let alone preservation of the human species. It is a reminder of just how insignificant we actually are on a planetary scale, and of how our cognitive biases often lead us to think that we are more important or more powerful than we actually are.
It's so crazy to me that everyone in vulnerable places--Tokyo and Houston in the article for example--are happy to spend hundreds of millions, even billions, to put a bandaid on their local climate change problems. It seems like they all acknowledge the reality and danger of climate change and are willing to spend money on it. In TFA Houston wants $400 million to build a reservoir. They seem to acknowledge that thing…
In part because the Carbon Industry is huge and powerful, and holds power over most of the worlds major governments.
I mean Rex Tillerson, the former head of Exxon Mobil is currently the US Secretary of State.
The rest is because the machine of Late Capitalism is built on a presumption of endless growth with no consequences. The crisis that's barrelling down on us is so __alien__ to the established way of thinking that it's literally impossible for these economies to react with anything other than stupor and paralysis.
It's so crazy to me that everyone in vulnerable places--Tokyo and Houston in the article for example--are happy to spend hundreds of millions, even billions, to put a bandaid on their local climate change problems. It seems like they all acknowledge the reality and danger of climate change and are willing to spend money on it. In TFA Houston wants $400 million to build a reservoir. They seem to acknowledge that thing…
When one of the super volcanoes burps its going to screw up a lot of things, and it would be nice to have some options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, the problem is self-limiting. If global warming reduces the carrying capacity of the environment, people will die. Dead people don't use resources; their bodies are returned to the environment by decomposers, where they will provide fertilizer for trees and other plants, which will grow even more abundantly because of the enhanced CO2 levels. Eventually the earth reaches a new equilibrium at a somewhat higher te…
It seems that we could be headed for a mass extinction, whether or not humans manage to survive thousands of years longer. We aren’t going to entirely destroy life on the planet, which will eventually recover great diversity (speciation to fill new ecological niches in some new stable equilibrium) within a few million years after we’re gone, but it will look significantly different than what we are familiar with. Tha…
Your GP said "we must" do some things. No, there isn't a single obvious best answer. We don't know what the longer term effects will be and whether building protection will be enough or not - or enough to pay for their useful life. We don't have accurate science for that. Even if we did, we've still got hundreds of years to prepare, and importantly, future money to spend on it, which is cheaper than spending money today because of the time value of money. Every solution costs money and it's no obvious which one is cheaper.
Where did you get the mass extinction and "entirely destroy life on the planet" ideas? I know there are frequent extinctions of insects and large mammals, but that's been going on for centuries and is nothing to do with global warming. Global warming might exacerbate that but again, I don't think we have clear predictions of whole food chain collapses.
EDIT: I see you've toned down your comment from a strong belief to a suggestion of a possibility, so the main motivation of my reply doesn't really apply now.
It's so crazy to me that everyone in vulnerable places--Tokyo and Houston in the article for example--are happy to spend hundreds of millions, even billions, to put a bandaid on their local climate change problems. It seems like they all acknowledge the reality and danger of climate change and are willing to spend money on it. In TFA Houston wants $400 million to build a reservoir. They seem to acknowledge that thing…
Unfortunately, a global carbon tax would put the billion dollar Climate Change Bureaucracy Industry nearly out of business. And people act like we haven't seen this kind of perverse incentive structure--bureaucratic inertia--before with the War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terrror, etc.: they all end up focusing on self-preservation rather than their apparent objectives.
It's so crazy to me that everyone in vulnerable places--Tokyo and Houston in the article for example--are happy to spend hundreds of millions, even billions, to put a bandaid on their local climate change problems. It seems like they all acknowledge the reality and danger of climate change and are willing to spend money on it. In TFA Houston wants $400 million to build a reservoir. They seem to acknowledge that thing…
They did it to create jobs. In the same way the US is said to have a "military industrial complex", Japan has a "construction industrial complex", wherein the government builds a whole lot of infrastructure the country can't really justify or even maintain. Flood control, rail lines, airports, etc. It's all stuff an industrialized country needs, but the Japanese take it up to eleven in an effort to stimulate the economy.