RealClimate logo


Forced Responses: Feb 2019

Filed under: — group @ 1 February 2019

A bimonthly thread on societal responses to climate change. Note that there is another open thread for climate science topics. Please stick to specifics as opposed to arguments about ethics, politics or morality in general.

462 Responses to “Forced Responses: Feb 2019”

  1. 101
    mike says:

    Hey Zebra –
    I haven’t really been reading much of the population control discussion, so I am late to the game and don’t know a lot of the background. My vasectomy plan was slightly tongue in cheek, but just slightly. Sort of the same with contraception including abortion down to age 10, it’s hard to figure out what should be done and where the cutoffs (pun intended) should happen.

    I am not really sure where you are coming from and what you think is desirable wrt global population. I think lower global population is desirable, but that getting to a lower global population is going to be difficult and probably miserable in many ways.

    I haven’t bothered to pay much attention to this topic or much of the discussion in forced responses thread because I am generally more interested in the climate science discussion.

    are you willing to give me your elevator pitch on population so that I have some basic sense of where you are coming from?

    Cheers,

    Mike

  2. 102
    mike says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_in_New_Zealand
    I read through this piece and I am quite impressed with the safety net in NZ. It seems generous, sensible and pretty progressive. I am sure it irks a lot of new zealanders.

    I also read that NZ has a very high rate of drug and alcohol abuse, but is apparently slow to implement one of the current progressive solutions to drug and alcohol abuse: drug courts.

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/01/29/419702/drug-courts-work-where-prisons-dont

    Here’s a quote from another news article about substance abuse in NZ: “expanding Drug Courts around the country won’t be easy. Existing drug treatment facilities are already full, with waiting lists months-long.

    Many regions have no drug clinics and specialists are limited.”

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/01/a-look-inside-nz-s-experimental-drug-courts.html

    Nigel – I think you are correct that our individual experience in our countries influence our ideas and impressions about various problems. I think you are conflating a generous safety net with a national substance abuse problem. I think apples and oranges. If you want to do something in NZ about substance abuse, I think a sensible person would push for national expansion of the drug court model that is in pilot mode and is quite limited. A sensible person would also push for an expansion of treatment options so that treatment facilities might be slightly less than full and have zero or very short waiting lists.

    I suspect that does not appeal to fiscal conservatives who are unable to give up their anecdotal impression that tightening up the safety net is the best way to reduce substance abuse problems.

    Finally: https://prospect.org/article/stop-worrying-about-food-stamp-fraud

    money or stamps? Matt Bruenig says it does not matter. There’s one opinion to review.

    I would appreciate it if you would provide links to studies or news stories that provide context to your posts.

    Cheers,

    Mike

  3. 103
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @97

    Please note I didn’t say I wouldn’t pay, simply that I’m not “happy” about it. Surely you are not exactly happy about it? :)

    I’m a big supporter of social welfare systems, stated clearly in other comments, but I get annoyed with the people who abuse the system. Of course anyone can become addicted to drugs and one has some empathy, but its still damn frustrating especially when the kids go without as a result. Hence the need to try and ensure our help gets to the kids as much as possible.

    “Meanwhile folks can’t seem to grasp why agreeing with the best course of solutions for AGW/CC are so intractable.”

    Please amplify your thoughts. Don’t keep us in suspense.

  4. 104
    nigelj says:

    Killian @99

    “Too large? What is too large? There were people throughout the Amazon, likely egalitarian, in the pre-C era. There are currently about 16,000 in Cheran, Mexico.’

    My original point was that larger populations would generally have more hierarchies and be a little less egalitarian. Cheran society has quite a large population compared to simple hunter gatherer tribes. It has small scale industry, shops, farming. a phone system etc, and so it looks like it has plenty of hierarchies to me.The wikipedia article talks about an “average annual wage” so it looks like there is some income disparity, so not entirely egalitarian.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher%C3%A1n

    Not knocking the community, and I’m aware of their struggles.

  5. 105
    nigelj says:

    Zebra says “What science-oriented people do is look for an underlying characteristic to explain that. You’ve hit on… all those young guys in those countries are desperate to get a used pickup truck, so they had vasectomies. Yeah, that’s the ticket.”

    Incorrect. Nobody is suggesting population fell in those countries because people got free vasectomies with some cash bonus attached. I’m sure everyone here is aware that population is falling in some countries because of the demographic transition is advanced in those countries, and / or cultural factors. But the experts think projecting the demographic transition forwards globally still gets us to about 11 billion by 2100, a long way form Zebras goals!

    If we want population to fall more quickly at global scale, it will obviously need something more. I suggest including specific government policies of free contraception, better healthcare etc. This is already helping in some African countries, so its a simple fact. I think you could add free vasectomies or with some incentive attached. Of course its not going to be easy, but its possible.

    The west is more challenging, and Zebra is more right about this. But each country is ‘different’ in terms of fertility and culture. I would contend that all the aforementioned government scale policies would have at least some value in some western countries.

    Hungary is at the other extreme. It has rapidly falling population, perhaps too rapid, and governments are encouraging higher fertility. One cant entirely blame them, although the problem could be solved if they would just allow a bit more immigration. And clearly they arent going to be paying for free vasectomies.

    But governments should not worry excessively about moderately low fertility. There will be good ways of looking after the elderly and prolonging the working age.

    But all this suggests to me it would be very hard getting fertility below about 1.5 globally, and there are limits as to how fast population will shrink, so 6 billion by 2100 looks like the outer extreme of what would be possible.

  6. 106
  7. 107
    Killian says:

    People, you realized I’ve lived 12+ years in Korea over more than 25 years, married into the culture, have taught in both public and private schools?

    It’s amusing to watch you talk about Korea… from a news article… when you could, you know, ask.

    To characterize young women’s lack of interest in marriage and/or children as mere career track thinking is laughably simplistic.

    LOL…

  8. 108
    Al Bundy says:

    Mike, it is interesting how you warped my ABSOLUTELY ZERO CASH giving to parents combined with providing basic necessities to CHILDREN into cash payments to anybody willing to have kids. Any more “up is downs”?

  9. 109
    nigelj says:

    Killian

    “People, you realized I’ve lived 12+ years in Korea over more than 25 years, married into the culture, have taught in both public and private schools?”

    No. I cant recall you saying this, but then I dont read every last detail of what everyone says. I know this might shock you, so have a lie down to recover:)

    “It’s amusing to watch you talk about Korea… from a news article… when you could, you know, ask.”

    Then start telling….

    “To characterize young women’s lack of interest in marriage and/or children as mere career track thinking is laughably simplistic.”

    Probably true (one cant rely on media articles) but would you care to elaborate for us non Koreans?

  10. 110
    Al Bundy says:

    Mike,
    I think the disconnect is that you may not believe that children have rights. That’s typical. Many people feel that an adult has the right to expose a child to mortal danger for any whim, such as a dorky belief that vaccines cause autism. Me? I think children have rights, parents have responsibility and NO rights, and society’s job is to protect children from parents like mine.

    Seriously, does a child of a fundamentalist have NO rights?

  11. 111
    nigelj says:

    Mike @102

    Yes the safety net irks the usual suspects.

    We do have high drug use in NZ, particularly metamphetamine (P), cannabis, and party pills. I’m not entirely sure why. I think its best that people avoid drugs if possible, not that I’m a saint in that respect.

    I have not followed the drug court issue closely, but I definitely 100% support the idea in principle. The focus has to change from criminalising drug users, to treating it all more as a health issue and with better rehabilitation publicly funded. Everyone benefits ultimately. The argument has been well made many times.

    The government has legisalation to decriminalise use of cannabis for medical use and it will probably pass. There’s bipartisan support for this. There is a plan to have a binding referendum on the complete legalisation of cannabis, but with age limits. I support these ideas, but it is opposed by the right wing.

    In fact I think all drug use should be decriminalised somewhat along The Portugal model. I’m much more cautious and reluctant about legalising the production and supply of the really hard drugs like meth and heroin. Public opinion is roughly along these same lines according to polls.

    “I suspect that does not appeal to fiscal conservatives who are unable to give up their anecdotal impression that tightening up the safety net is the best way to reduce substance abuse problems.”

    Correct to some degree. But quite a few are tentatively supporting the drug court idea. Its all in a state of discussion. We have the same political tribalism as America, but not to nearly the same degree.

    Perhaps I’m conflating the drugs and welfare issue, I dont know. I can only say families receiving welfare entitlements sometimes waste the money on drugs and its frustrating, but in no way does this mean I think they should be penalised in some way, or welfare reduced. Life is complicated, easy looking solutions can be a disaster. My philosophy is even although welfare systems get abused they do far more good than harm. All systems get abused anyway. Like I said perhaps food vouchers (food stamps) help ensure help gets to the kids.

    Of course the right wing in NZ oppose the welfare system and want lots of strict tests etc. Sigh. They are still sceptical of legalising drugs but less so than in the past and have accepted cannabis should be legalised for medical use. One small step forwards. I suspect its a knowledge thing that it is dawning on people that cannabis is no more harmful than alcohol and that is legal so we have a consistency issue. But like I said I think people should still avoid the stuff.

    If I think of any interesting links I will post them.

    We have banned any new off shore oil drilling. The right wing didn’t like that too much.

  12. 112
    Al Bundy says:

    Guys,
    This is dead simple. Benefits to parents generally benefit the rich and parents – if one has a 70% marginal Tax rate then a child tax deduction is way more valuable than if your marginal tax rate is 15%, and in any case the money is diluted.

    But if the kid gets benefits instead of the sperm and egg doners/potential abusers, everything changes.
    Children have the right of freedom of religion and the right to not die of measles. Parental “rights” is simply a green light to abuse. Kind of a duh thing, eh?

  13. 113
    zebra says:

    #101 mike,

    Still waiting for an explanation of why all those countries have low TFR even though they don’t follow your and other’s plans on payments and vasectomies and such.

    Come on, mike, you are a smart guy who likes to think scientifically. Give it a shot.

    “Where I am coming from,” so far, is that this topic makes people uncomfortable for various reasons– both as to how it affects the climate problem, and the TFR question.

    If you are only slightly tongue-in-cheek about the vasectomies plan, just explain how/why you think it is necessary.

  14. 114
    Hank Roberts says:

    > People, you realized …

    Somehow, I have’t kept up with all the details about you that you’ve posted here.

  15. 115
    mike says:

    Interesting article about transition from hg society to agrarian societies:

    https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/11/22/16649038/civilization-progress-humanity-history-technology

    Maybe this has all been discussed and is well known?

    Cheers

    Mike

  16. 116
    mike says:

    Nigel says at 102: “I get annoyed with the people who abuse the system. Of course anyone can become addicted to drugs and one has some empathy, but its still damn frustrating especially when the kids go without as a result. Hence the need to try and ensure our help gets to the kids as much as possible.”

    Is abuse of the welfare system a large problem in NZ? Data please? Links to supporting studies etc. please? Otherwise it looks like you are just grinding an ideological axe.

    I did a quick search and skim and come away thinking that NZ welfare system is getting a lot of press ink for being a bad system, one that has produced a lot of overpayment debt from recipients related to possible fraud. Here’s a story I looked at:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/94789628/new-zealands-welfare-system-is-no-longer-a-functioning-system

    It seems to indicate that children going without has a lot to do with inadequate levels of support that encourage “cheating” the system to put food on the table. Since NZ uses cash, not ebt food support at the current time, my guess is that the level of welfare support may be insufficient to cover average shelter, utility and food costs.

    In the US, we offer the EBT food support system and way less cash than is required to keep a roof over head for a family on TANF. Many, many homeless folks I have met manage to somehow pay for a good cell phone (which is their lifeline) and they receive their ebt card to purchase food. Many cannot manage to hang on to a car that they might live in, so urban areas commonly have tent cities springing up, being swept away, then springing up elsewhere.

    I think a lot of what I see in the US is driven by our staggering level of income and wealth inequality and that also plays out in a staggering CO2 footprint disparity as well.

    The solution to environmental problem should be tailored to simultaneously address poverty issues and the reverse is also true.

    What I see in the US is that substance abuse and profound mental illness also contribute to our homeless population, so we really have two big problems pushing people onto the street, but I see these as two mostly distinct sources of waste and suffering. We funnel addicts and profoundly mentally ill off the street and into the prison system, but there are always enough addicts and profoundly mentally ill folks living on the street to make the situation dicey for the poor homeless population that does not have addiction or profound mental health issues.

    I realize that is a complicated analysis and it is easily overcome by a pithy meme about how the “least among us” are actually gaming the system to pay for drugs and alcohol.

    When I listen to folks employ this kind of meme at the same time that they profess to being supportive of comprehensive assistance, I think about what MLK said about white moderates in his letter from the Birmingham jail: “I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice…”

    I agree with much you had to say at 105.

    Cheers

    Mike

  17. 117
    Mal Adapted says:

    Russell:

    And neither did population shrink durin the age of exploration: World population – see your own demographic history link- grew in the 16th century just as it did in the 20th.

    After I referred to Charles C. Mann’s 2006 book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, I noticed my link was to a 2nd edition published five years later. Having bought the 1st edition in hardback, I got the ebook of the 2nd. I’m going through his discussion of the various population figures he found. Counts have trended from lower to higher, as more (though still woefully scant) sources were scrutinized. Mann cites historian David Henige, who sharply criticizes all specific estimates as “numbers from nowhere”, but agrees that a 1491 population of “perhaps 40 million throughout the Western Hemisphere” is a “not unreasonable” figure. That’s close, Mann notes, to the figure provided by Bartolomé de las Casas in 1552.

    If it’s good enough for Henige, it’s good enough for me. So, it seems total world population in 1500 was about 490 million. If the impending epidemics, along with the resulting wars between native polities and with the invading Europeans, had caused a 90% decline in New World populations over the next century, that represents a little less than 10% of the world’s population. Subsequently, global population grew fast enough to hide the decline in the Americas at the century timescale. However, one might suppose the European colonists were unable to keep up with continent-wide forest regrowth for some decades, and that continued land clearance elsewhere may not have made up the CO2 difference in the interval.

    Now, getting back to Russell’s whataboutery WRT Diamondesque uproar: does a Whiggish view of history impel you to defend the morality of the European occupation of the Americas, Russell? In accordance with the mediocrity principle, I OTOH can distinguish neither angels nor demons in either hemisphere, throughout recorded time. We’re all human IOW, and human is as humans do. Regardless, Jared Diamond doesn’t appear to frequent this blog, so I wouldn’t expect him to initiate an uproar. Have you tried contacting him directly? I presume he’s got a full plate already, but perhaps he would care to discuss it with you.

  18. 118
    Mr. Know It All says:

    107 – Killian
    I had no idea you were in Korea. I have known that Korea had high suicide rates, but never knew why so I searched Al Gore’s internet and found this:

    https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120205222720AABKDU9

    Are the answers in that link fairly accurate in your opinion? I wonder how big an impact, if any, it has on population in South Korea?

  19. 119
    Killian says:

    Re #104 nigelj said My original point was that larger populations would generally have more hierarchies and be a little less egalitarian.

    You are moving the goal posts paraphrasing yourself. OK…

    Cheran society has quite a large population compared to simple hunter gatherer tribes.

    We don’t know that, actually. We don’t have a clear sense of the size of the many Amazonian tribes described by the first European navigators of the basin. Also, “tribe” is misleading in that there is typically a network of living groups in a network that people flow through in at least some, particularly as observed in Africa. However, in your point is likely largely correct.

    “It has small scale industry, shops, farming. a phone system etc, and so it looks like it has plenty of hierarchies to me.”

    Because you think so? Are strata and hierarchy the same? E.g., in Regenerative Governance I propose strata for decision-making at scale, but not hierarchy. Cheran employs one form of egalitarianism where neighborhoods handle small issues and the City Council handles city-wide issues. This is not hierarchy, this is strata. A small theft might be handled by the neighborhood fireside council, but a murder would be managed by the city police – all of whom are chosen in open processes. Same with the forest security force.

    Importantly, the city council is answerable to the neighborhoods rather than the other way around.

    The wikipedia article talks about an “average annual wage” so it looks like there is some income disparity, so not entirely egalitarian.

    Pay attention to the following words:

    Income has nothing to do with egalitarian decision-making.

    Again, income has nothing to do with egalitarian decision-making.

    Some “intentional communities” are Commonses and egalitarian, some are not Commonses, but egalitarian. And others are more a set of co-ops, which are often egalitarian, but have a scale of income. Etc. Commonses are what most would call economic systems, egalitarianism is what one might call a political system. You have conflated these much like so many conflate Capitalism and democracy.

    Not knocking the community, and I’m aware of their struggles.

    No, you read a Wiki about them without the requisite background knowledge to parse accurately what you read.

  20. 120
    flxible says:

    @113 – There are a complex variety of reasons for low FRs, the real question is why the zebra is so obsessed with the question and so totally unscientific about it.

  21. 121
    Killian says:

    Re #115 mike said Interesting article about transition from hg society to agrarian societies:

    https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/11/22/16649038/civilization-progress-humanity-history-technology

    Maybe this has all been discussed and is well known?

    Well, *I’ve* been talking about it and trying to get people to understand there are happier, healthier ways, but the outdated “nasty, brutish, and short” narrative of lives of pre-agrarian societies always gets thrown out by people poorly educated and/or biased on the issue.

    We now know how to do “agriculture” that mimics Nature very effectively so that walking out of one’s home can be a seemless transition into natural systems the further out you go, but already be in Eden-like conditions at the first step. The Food Forest/Forest Garden is an important piece of this as is switching to mostly annuals to mostly perennials. We can be foragers from around our own communities and so have the comforts of sedentary civilizations and the health, workload and leisure of the H-G.

    Those resisting this, well, I wonder at their sanity.

    As the bug populations tumble…

  22. 122
    Killian says:

    KIA, that is a real hodge-podge of answers, but if you read all of them, the overall impression would be reasonably accurate. The issue of education is fairly accurate. Korea scores highly on STEM internationally, but relatively poorly on the Arts/Lit side of things, Humanities.

    Several issues not mentioned add to all this.

    1. Every family expects their kids to graduate college. It’s a dense population. Something has to give, so grading for college entrance is graded on a curve, as are HS classes, I believe. So, yes, you can be an A student w/ a 95% avg and not get close to going to a SKY (Seoul U., Koryo U., Yonsei U.; add an E for all-women’s Ewha) school. A VERY high % of kids here go to university and virtually all graduate. (Wait… what?)

    2. Yes, your HS grades determine your university access, and it is nationally controlled. Your grades slot both your school *and* your major! So, if you’re a very top student who loves art history you might end up at Seoul U. studying law, like it or not. Very weird system.

    3. The HS hours are legit. HS kids, relative to pretty much anywhere else I’ve ever heard of, have no life. They have little ability to express themselves compared to even an uneducated American. A small example: You know how if you ask someone about a movie they saw you might get a mini-movie review, pretty in-depth at times? I have never – never – been able to elicit anything close to that from a Korean. Of course, I don’t ask for movie reviews from every person I meet here, but as an EFL teacher, I’ve asked a lot of people.

    4. HS students don’t do research, they don’t write reports, they don’t write essays, they don’t do projects. Do the math.

    5. The upside – or downside – of this is they are so burned out after HS many have zero motivation to study in university. Party U is kind of a national thing here compared to other countries as far as I am aware. but, no worries because…

    6. Everyone graduates. It’s virtually impossible to fail. The teaching is all lecture, so the profs have little awareness of their students’ real abilities and everyone understands no child is left behind, so… I couldn’t break down the real studiers vs the four-year slackers, but it’s got to be a lot higher than in the U.S. In the U.S. I believe something like 60% of people go to some form of college/uni and that around 60% graduate. Compare that to Korea where almost everyone goes to uni and almost everyone graduates. You can’t meet a middle class lifelong housewife who doesn’t have a degree, but has never worked or has not since her first child, and then often – usually? – a non-field job, often part-time.

    7. So, yes, the suicide rate is high. Honor is still important here. Seemingly small setbacks trigger suicides. The “outcast” thing is still a big deal. This is a formerly nearly 100% homogeneous society, so small differences are magnified and difference is not a good thing. This is changing a lot, but is still there. Trends here can become pervasive pretty quickly.

    7b. That said, the individuality in Korea today in terms of fashion and such vs. 1993 is a pretty massive difference. But behavior is far more homogenous.

    8. Work life is pretty much as described with a lot of dead time for some workers who stay at the office till late just to make the right impression. On the other hand, being worked to death is the flipside of that.

    Oops! Out of time.

  23. 123
    nigelj says:

    Mike @116.

    “The solution to environmental problem should be tailored to simultaneously address poverty issues and the reverse is also true.”

    I agree in broad terms, but I wonder whether the Green New Deal was the right document to include so many socio-economic provisions, because conservatives reading the environmental provisions will get down to the social provisions and probably get frustrated and will immediately forget the environmental stuff. It almost seemed you need a separate “economic new deal”. But it’s a nit pick.

    I think the strength of the Green New Deal is its bold, comprehensive on environmental goals, and gutsy and appears to be connecting with people. Theres nothing I really disagree with other than the funding issue.

    Welfare benefit fraud in NZ is reasonably low. I was using the term welfare abuse fairly loosely to mean some people who simply waste money buying things they dont really need, or gambling and using drugs, and so the children sometimes go without (and ditto with working people). Now you must know what I mean. Just because I criticise some element of the welfare issue doesn’t make me anti welfare or a closet Republican. We have to also avoid group think on social issues.

    But I think the solutions are things like food vouchers, and what Al Bundy is saying @112. Benefit “levels” overall clearly have to be adequate and not punative. This is not the place to go into it further.

    Inequality in NZ has increased significantly since the relatively egalitarian post war period. We have a “low wage” problem (probably more than a welfare benefits problem). Its a side effect of economic liberalisation / globalisation in the 1980s and is frustratingly difficult to resolve, but as I said we have a decent families assistance package for lower income people (where our discussion started!) and this has helped reduce inequality, and help us us avoid tent cities, so far at least. We do have a homeless problem relating to mental health issues.

    Regarding white moderates. I have fairly progressive ideals, but just remember to achieve anything means winning votes. Extreme agendas dont normally win votes.

  24. 124
    nigelj says:

    Killian @119,

    I’m not moving the goal posts. It was always about size.

    I would think it would be hard to run a modern urban society like that with the usual amenities if everyone voted on every decision. Hierarchies are inevitable. Strata and hierarchies look pretty similar to me. However its simply an observation that size appears to relate to hierarchies, and it is commonsense anyway.

    However its clear the cheran are designing their strata / hierachy to minimise these and minimise problems, and maximise community participation and egalitarianism and they appear to be doing quite well.

    But it highlights the relationship between environment, population size and social structures, however imho these are not the only things that determine social structure. (Which will frustrate the hell out of Zebra).

    Yes egalitarianism is not about income as such. However the hunter gatherer issue has included discussions about income inequality so it was on my mind. Again the size of a community seems to influence this.

    I have read other articles on Cheran society. Some guy did a Phd thesis, but I cant find it now.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/03/mexico-indigenous-town-banned-politicians-cheran

  25. 125
    Carrie says:

    110 Al Bundy inquires: “Seriously, does a child of a fundamentalist have NO rights?”

    Nope. None. No more no less than a Scientologist has no rights either. But they all do have an overabundance of Karma on their plate, that’s for sure.

    quoting:
    114 Hank Roberts says:
    13 Feb 2019 at 12:20 PM
    > People, you realized …
    Somehow, I have’t kept up with all the details about you that you’ve posted here.

    And yet you didn’t miss that post Hank. How odd, how strange. Not only didn’t you miss but you replied to it too. Thanks for your contribution. ROFL

  26. 126
    Mr. Know It All says:

    What is the current state of the art in mitigation that has any chance of becoming US law in the near future? That would, of course, be The Green New Deal.

    Well, we have good news. Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader (a Republican) is going to bring that up for a vote. Here is the latest on the Green New Deal, with a short video of Mitch saying it will be voted on in the Senate. Listen from 5:20 to 11:30 here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_x6-gpefyM

  27. 127
    Carrie says:

    re Killian, I don’t read every post either, but I know Killian is from the US (Chicago or Detroit region I think I recall), is married to an ethnic Korean lady, lives in Korea, and he is a fully qualified teacher who is employed as such. And he first got in “regenerative/permaculture” about 15 years ago in the States when living in the City… and not only that but he “teaches” it and is active in the movement for a long time. I can also work out he is very intelligent, honest, genuine, clever, visionary, thoughtful, very well read, skillful, articulate, creative, eclectic and talented. He’s also got a very functional memory capacity which is a clear sign of high intelligence. If your memory sucks then you suck too … that’s cognitive science for you.

    People with crappy memories don’t make it in climate science btw. They don’t make it in any field even robbery. LOL

    Like what is wrong with some of you folks? Can’t you read or is your memory capacity trashed or is it really a matter that you simply do not care that much about anyone but yourself and what you have to say next?

  28. 128
    Russell says:

    Mal, I last talked to Jared Diamond when he came to the Peabody Museum for a week a decade ago. Having also done research in Melanesia, I was able to engage him as to his travels , but I’m sorry to report that critical inquiry about methods & sources from outside of his clique tended to trigger his recollection of being late for something or having a speech to prepare.

  29. 129

    The bipartisan Energy Innovation AND Carbon Dividend Act to mitigate global warming is being considered right now, but we Conservatives can do even better.
    https://energyinnovationact.org/

    Right now in fact the bipartisan Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (EICDA) is being considered in congress and needs support. It is an improvement over previous attempts at climate change bills because the fees collected on carbon emissions will be allocated to all Americans to spend any way they choose. The government will not keep any of the fees collected, so the size of the government will not grow.

    I do support it in principle, as I see only one flaw. It is a Carbon Fee & Dividend bill and the dividend could be better used to improve its efficacy. We can actually direct those dividends to subsidize balancing the carbon cycle without growing government, if we use it to replace the current subsides in the farm bill. To explain why consider this:

    This problem is not only about emissions. This is a carbon cycle. Trying to fix this by eliminating carbon emissions is tackling the problem with one hand tied behind our backs. It won’t work, and several researchers have made the claim we already passed the point where that alone it actually can’t work.[1] There are two sides to this and BOTH must be improved, less emissions and more sequestration.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Carbon_cycle.jpg/400px-Carbon_cycle.jpg

    You need to go back to basics and rethink what causes Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to begin with.

    1) We are burning fossil fuels and emitting massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere as CO2 mostly but also some CH4 and a few other greenhouse gasses.[2]
    2) We have degraded the environmental systems that would normally pull excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.[3][4] (mostly grasslands[5])
    3) By putting more in the atmosphere and removing less, there is no other place for the excess to go but the oceans. They are acidifying due to absorbing just part of the excess.[6] (roughly 1/2)
    4) That still leaves roughly 1/2 of emissions that are building up in the atmosphere and creating an increased greenhouse effect.[7] (from ~280 ppm to 412+ppm CO2)
    So this leads directly to the way we must reverse AGW:

    1) Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many economically viable renewables as current technology allows. Please note that most current forms of ethanol gas additive are not beneficial because they further degrade the sequestration side of the carbon cycle and take more fossil fuels to produce than they offset.[8]
    2) Change agricultural methods to high yield regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.[9][10]
    3) Implement large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.[11][12][13]
    In short we need to reduce carbon in and increase carbon out of the atmosphere to restore balance to the carbon cycle.

    https://vimeo.com/189494582

    Consider this technically viable and economically advantageous option:

    A carbon market with verified carbon offsets

    1) It directly rewards farmers and land managers for sequestering carbon in the soil[14]
    2) It stimulates the economy (through the above)
    3) This market will reduce food costs for high quality nutrient dense food, rather than the junk food being subsidized by the government commodities markets now.
    4) It will improve food security for both rich and poor alike.
    5) The market is simultaneously AGW adaptive and mitigation strategy because carbon in the soil has many characteristics that improves yields, help reduce the effects of both floods and droughts, and also directly removes atmospheric carbon and stores it in the soil long term.[15]
    6) The agricultural solutions the carbon market would promote are needed anyway[16], so this is a simply way to fund it and kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
    7) This market solution has far less cost and would be far more effective than any political plan being considered including the bipartisan EICDA. Significantly better than the completely unworkable Green New Deal.
    8) The energy solutions the market favors are given no direct money since those technologies already exist. But gradually they will still take over due to having smaller carbon footprints and can out compete head to head this way.[17] If we need to speed this process we can though, as there will likely be excess unclaimed carbon offsets in the beginning as farmers retool their operations to fit this new paradigm.
    9) We can implement such a market right now without the need for new unknown technologies.
    10) This is not a redistribution of wealth scheme, but rather a public works project capable of gathering conservative political support as well as liberal political support. Farmers simply being paid for a service. The better they provide that service, the more they get paid. It’s specifically takes advantage of the best known economic motivator known to mankind, the capitalist free markets.

    If you want somebody to do something, pay them to do it, and they will!

    In short, the carbon emissions sources will be paying for land managers to sequester their carbon footprint back into the earth where it belongs. This is a paid service, not a liberal tax and spend scheme with an ulterior social agenda. Unlike previously tried carbon markets, there is no trading between emissions sources. They simply pay for the service of sequestering their fossil fuel footprint back into the soil where it belongs.

    But since most of the sequestration would be done by farmers, and everyone must eat, we all still reap the rewards in low cost food and regenerating soil fertility. This because it varies from the EICDA in that instead of dividends to everyone from a carbon tax of emissions, this would actually directly pay those balancing the carbon cycle for that service. Since the carbon farmers also still produce agricultural products, they greatly reduce costs for food production for everyone. It means we can also eliminate the current farm bill subsidies and save that cost. This means it would be billions less costly than the currently considered EICDA, while still being beneficial and fair to everyone and even helping the poorest members of society even more! This because poor pay a higher % of their income for food, and anything reducing food costs helps them relatively more.

    “If all farmland was a net sink rather than a net source for CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall at the same time as farm productivity and watershed function improved. This would solve the vast majority of our food production, environmental and human health ‘problems’.” Dr. Christine Jones

    And best of all? It’s already set up and ready to go at the local government level. Just awaits funding. Pass the legislation and even in the most conservative of States it goes off and running immediately.

    Carbon Sequestration Certification Program https://www.ok.gov/conservation/Agency_Divisions/Water_Quality_Division/WQ_Carbon/Projects/Carbon_Dev_of_Carbon_Offset__Verif_Protocols.html

    The other big holdup is the regulatory burden on agriculture that favors industrial producers over the local integrated small family farm.

    This regulatory burden MUST be removed in order for farmers to have the flexibility to do what is required to make their farms sustainable and capable of sequestering long term carbon in the soil at high rates and efficiencies.[18]

    As a farmer, what do you wish more people understood? https://qr.ae/TUneY8

    So yes, go support the bill! We can always try to hammer out some minor changes in how the dividend gets paid, the regulatory burden placed on farmers, and coordinate both sides of the carbon cycle later. It is even possible we keep the dividend but use the carbon market verified offsets like a credit. The important part is to begin to make changes to mitigate AGW before it is too late.

    Here are the links.

    Go HERE for the actual text of this bill.https://energyinnovationact.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Energy-Innovation-and-Carbon-Dividend-Act-2019.pdf

    WRITE your congressman to show support and add a LINK in your letter to this answer at Real Climate.https://citizensclimatelobby.org/write-your-representative/#/48/

    CALL your congressman to show support and request that A carbon market with verified carbon offsets be added to this bipartisan EICDA bill. Especially important if you have Republican representatives in Congress. https://citizensclimatelobby.org/call-your-representative-about-the-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/#/54/

    Please go HERE and support this bipartisan legislation if you are a community leader. https://energyinnovationact.org/endorse/

    Thanks for your time.

    I am an organic farmer. I am not afraid of change. I am the change.

    Relaxed. Researched. Respectful. – War Elephant https://www.quora.com/q/war-elephant

    Footnotes

    [1] Earth ‘Locked Into’ Temperatures Not Seen in 2 Million Years https://www.ecowatch.com/earth-record-temperatures-2020710545.html

    [2] Each Country’s Share of CO2 Emissions https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.XGVotVxKiUl

    [3] Land Degradation: An overview https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/?cid=nrcs142p2_054028

    [4] Global cooling by grassland soils of the geological past and near future https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.uoregon.edu/dist/d/3735/files/2013/07/Retallack-2013-grassland-cooling-q8ay9r.pdf

    [5] Mollic Epipedon https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-06668-4_5

    [6] Ocean acidification https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts-education-resources/ocean-acidification

    [7] ESRL Global Monitoring Division https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

    [8] Biofuels turn out to be a climate mistake – here’s why https://theconversation.com/biofuels-turn-out-to-be-a-climate-mistake-heres-why-64463

    [9] Soil as Carbon Storehouse: New Weapon in Climate Fight? https://e360.yale.edu/features/soil_as_carbon_storehouse_new_weapon_in_climate_fight

    [10] Farming a climate change solution https://www.amazingcarbon.com/PDF/Farmingaclimatechangesolution_Ecos141.pdf

    [11] Effect of land use conversion on soil organic carbon sequestration in the loess hilly area, loess plateau of China https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11284-006-0065-1

    [12] Restoring the climate through capture and storage of soil carbon through Holistic Planned Grazing https://www.savory.global/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/restoring-the-climate.pdf

    [13] Yellowstone National Park Carbon Cycle https://oliviaandjamesyellowstone.weebly.com/carbon-cycle.html

    [14] see [10]

    [15] Soil carbon, multiple benefits https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211464514000864

    [16] Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/

    [17] Production Cost Of Renewable Energy Now ‘Lower’ Than Fossil Fuels https://www.forbes.com/sites/gauravsharma/2018/04/24/production-cost-of-renewable-energy-now-lower-than-fossil-fuels/#62315a5f379c

    [18] Liquid Carbon Pathway unrecognised http://scseed.org/wb/media/Liquid_Carbon_Pathway_Unrecognised_Dr._Christine_Jones.pdf

  30. 130
    zebra says:

    #110, 112, Al Bundy

    Nope. Now you are getting away from science and talking about “rights”. Again, nobody wants to deal with the realities; they ignore biology and worry about global sperm shortages, and ignore the obvious behaviors of humans in groups.

    So, when the Noble Hunter Gatherers leave a newborn by the side of the trail to be eaten by animals, because the mother is already carrying a two-year old, does that child have “rights”?

    “Rights” only exist in the context of the societal norms and laws that have been established.

    So, the kind of society that you or I might like to be born into, given the choice, is irrelevant. We have to deal with what exists. And nobody wants to answer the questions like “why do ‘people’ have children?”. Too much science, not enough morality and righteousness, I guess.

  31. 131
    mike says:

    at big al: I believe children have rights. but from wikipedia: “As minors by law, children do not have autonomy or the right to make decisions on their own for themselves in any known jurisdiction of the world. Instead their adult caregivers, including parents, social workers, teachers, youth workers, and others, are vested with that authority, depending on the circumstances.[5] Some believe that this state of affairs gives children insufficient control over their own lives and causes them to be vulnerable.[6] Louis Althusser has gone so far as to describe this legal machinery, as it applies to children, as “repressive state apparatuses”.[7]”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_rights

    There’s the rub. I think this might be a wicked problem as it is clear that some children (and vulnerable adults) have their rights violated on a regular basis, but protection of and advocacy for children and vulnerable adults is complicated and often too slow to reduce significant harm.

    It’s hard to know how/when a child or minor is correctly asserting their autonomy due to the minority limitation.

    I am open to the idea of benefits being under the control of children/minors, but it’s not a realm of human activity that I have thought about much. Has it been tried anywhere?

    at Killian: Nigel moves the goalposts regularly and states thing with certainty without bothering to provide links or citations, then he changes position when his positions are shown to be sketchy and claims to be misunderstood. I don’t think he can do better. I am probably just going to ignore his mainstreamer/moderate chatter.

    Cheers

    Mike

  32. 132
    mike says:

    at zebra: “If you are only slightly tongue-in-cheek about the vasectomies plan, just explain how/why you think it is necessary.”

    I think the male contribution to global population problem (too many of us, right?) is generally overlooked and it means that the blaming and shaming that goes on with poor women who have several kids gives men a free ride to some extent. Also, countries like the US make contraception difficult and abortion next-to-impossible, maybe a vasectomy approach is being overlooked?

    If populations are going to reduce fertility rate there will be problems with demographics like some countries are experiencing. I assume that cultural issues are driving the lower tfr in certain countries and I think tfr is falling in the US as well right now. But I don’t pay a lot of attention to it because it’s a global problem and we don’t have a global solution we can embrace. Some populations still think large family is great. Some populations have a lot of women who don’t want a husband and/or family. Complicated stuff. If you have it all figured out, don’t tease me, lay out your solution.

    Cheers

    Mike

  33. 133
    Bill Henderson says:

    The proposed Green New Deal is a very hopeful giant step towards effective climate mitigation but, as preszently envisioned, it is a plan to fail.

    So four climate mitigation problems with the recently proposed GND:

    1) The climate science cited is too local and temporal and too IPCC – dated, now untenable IPCC, when Hothouse Earth is only maybe another failed decade away. Climate promises now to be fatal and not just costly or locally disruptive. Dangerous climate change must be the focus not just extreme weather and sea level rise. The present GND doesn’t come close to acting as if climate change could soon be fatal.

    2) The GND now is a BAU legislative endeavor. The hope is a Dem controlled White House and working majorities in Senate and House (not very likely) but government in Washington is already severely constrained to the point of gridlock and will remain so to a degree even with full Dem control. There will be an inner party winnowing down of ambition leading up to the election and then more winnowing down in bill formatting and horse trading for what finally becomes law. There is too much at stake for this faulty process in a far too slow political timeline given this is life or death.

    The GND is too much a one party plan when ideally it should be bi-partisan – a wartime style coalition in our parliamentary system. The GOP is the historical bad guy here but considering whats at stake and the urgent timeline, there should be attempts to craft a non-partisan GND. That would mean a much wider debate about what effective mitigation and transition could be. (Which to me would be very valuable if finally mitigation was considered with full debate transparently.)

    3) The GND now embraces a vision of decarbonization that isn’t working, that is pretend mitigation.. A decade of exponentially increasing renewables hasn’t been matched by the equivalent emission reduction. Fossil use has increased too. Building renewable capacity doesn’t necessarily mean less oil or coal burned (somewhere). In order to reduce emissions of a scale needed we need supply side – maybe draconian supply side regulation. The GND has so far entertained but stayed mum on managed decline when what is really needed is to read the Fossils the riot act. Climate change is life or death -no more criminality, no more bullshit, the fossil era is over (without CCS). No new infrastructure, end of subsidies, fossils really staying in ground.

    4) The climate problem is global; the US must be leader but emissions have to come down everywhere or were doomed and GND success in America with Russia, Saudis, etc continuing in fossil economy spells war. So we really need a green Marshall Plan or a GND that is global. The recently proposed fossil non-proliferation agreement signed on to by trading blocks etc could replicate the GND wider than just the US.

  34. 134
    nigelj says:

    Some extremely useful references on population growth and policies to influence that growth:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_planning

    https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/population-policies-strategies-fertility-control

    http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/strategy/196955

    http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/policy/WPP2013/wpp2013.pdf

    Obviously I haven’t read all of this, because the UN report is huge, but a couple of interesting things stand out: The historic decrease in family size in some countries has been partly a natural function of the demographic transition. So higher incomes, better healthcare and better womens rights have lead to security enabling them to have fewer children and obviously contraception has been helpful. Its notable that many women want to have smaller families, if conditions are suitable. Of course this is not universal, because of religious beliefs that sometimes encourage larger families.

    Governments have also had many policies to try to accelerate the demographic transition, and to try reduce population growth rates with additional mechanisms, such as easy access to contraception, highly accessible healthcare, financial incentives, financial penalties, one child policies, family planning services and education, and with some success in some places.

    However population growth is now below replacement levels in several developed countries and governments are trying to encourage larger families, but it isn’t working very well. The case of Sweden is a fascinating and reasonably representative example as follows:

    http://oecdobserver.org/news/archivestory.php/aid/563/Can_governments_influence_population_growth_.html

    It seems to demonstrate that boosting population growth is harder than cutting it. People in developed countries simply want smaller families. It will be interesting to see if people and governments come to simply accept low fertility rates as inevitable and start dealing with that as best they can. Obviously lower population growth has enormous environmental benefits.

    Current projections based on the sum total of current processes and policy trends are 11 billion by 2100 then stability. 6 billion approx. by 2100 appears to be the most optimistic projection as follows and assumes fertility around 1.5:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

  35. 135
  36. 136

    Z 130: “Rights” only exist in the context of the societal norms and laws that have been established.

    BPL: Wrong. Rights inhere in personhood and are given by God Almighty.

  37. 137
    zebra says:

    #132 mike,

    “the male contribution is overlooked”

    But mike, what I’m asking is what exactly you think “the male contribution” is.

    Let’s say we randomly make 20% of the male population sterile. How does that affect TFR? I’m not asking for the precise number, but a description of the mechanism that results in some downward change.

    This is why I keep asking you and some others whether you think there is a global sperm shortage. Maybe I missed out on some bio class, but I have always thought there was way more than enough.

  38. 138
    Hank Roberts says:

    Geophysical Research Letters:

    Nonlocal Effects Dominate the Global Mean Surface Temperature Response to the Biogeophysical Effects of Deforestation
    Johannes Winckler, Quentin Lejeune, Christian H. Reick, Julia Pongratz
    Pages: 745-755 | First Published: 31 December 2018

    Deforestation influences surface temperature also in locations that are not deforested

    Globally averaged, this temperature change may be stronger than the temperature change at deforested locations

    The surface cooling from changing surface albedo may mainly be nonlocal and thus underestimated in observation‐based estimates

  39. 139
    nigelj says:

    zebra @130

    “Nope. Now you are getting away from science and talking about “rights”.”

    This page is not ‘primarily’ about science! Its about climate mitigation, so its about technology, and good population policies, and resource use policies and ideas, and so rights are highly relevant and important!

    Of course science ‘informs’ this discussion.

    Why is this so hard to grasp?

  40. 140
    nigelj says:

    Carrie criticises us for not reading and remembering everything. Oh dear sorry for not being perfect! (sarc)

    https://thoughtcatalog.com/sophia-borghese/2014/09/14-things-secure-people-never-do/

  41. 141
    mike says:

    Nigel said at 123: “I wonder whether the Green New Deal was the right document to include so many socio-economic provisions, because conservatives reading the environmental provisions will get down to the social provisions and probably get frustrated and will immediately forget the environmental stuff.”

    Mike says: you may not know or remember that Obama tried a less ambitious cap and trade approach that had few social provisions when he was first elected and it went nowhere. Obama tried over and over to compromise to gather bipartisan support for the cap and trade environment bill and again on his health care initiative. I don’t think he got a single republican vote on his major legislative proposals, so when you or others suggest that the dems should moderate their proposals to win some right wing support, you are choosing to ignore recent history that makes it quite clear that the republicans will not engage and work in good faith on bipartisan legislation unless that means that the dems allow the republicans to control the entire process and scope of the legislation.

    Nigel also said: “Welfare benefit fraud in NZ is reasonably low. I was using the term welfare abuse fairly loosely to mean some people who simply waste money buying things they dont really need, or gambling and using drugs, and so the children sometimes go without (and ditto with working people). Now you must know what I mean.”

    Do you think that your loose definition of welfare benefit fraud is a significant problem in NZ? I looked for evidence that your concern about the waste of welfare benefits is a big problem and I can’t find that evidence.

    I did find this from an article about NZ drug testing of welfare recipients:

    “In New Zealand, welfare recipients are drug tested as a precondition for getting certain jobs.

    But Ross Bell, the executive director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation, said the program has fundamentally been “a waste of time”.

    “Of the many, many thousands of people who have been referred for drug tests, a very small minority are failing these tests,” he said.

    “Over a three-year period since this scheme’s been in place, we’ve tested about 95,000 beneficiaries. Only 450 failed the drug test.”

    here’s the link on that:

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/story-streams/federal-budget-2017/2017-05-13/federal-budget-2017-nz-welfare-orgs-warn-drug-test-dole-policy/8523738

    You talk about the problem of wasteful welfare recipients who gamble, drink and/or use drugs like it’s a big problem. It’s like during the 2008 financial meltdown if I said, wow, we have a serious problem with the banking system and someone was to say, yeah, that right. A bank in my town got robbed last year. We have to do something about bank robbers. I think, hm.. you may not be seeing the big picture there, buddy.

    Cheers

    Mike

  42. 142
    nigelj says:

    Scott E Strough @129

    Are you suggesting ‘all’ the dividend from a carbon fee go to farmers for soil programmes or just some of it, with some returned to the consumer as a dividend? Because if you are suggesting the former, it just has no chance of being passed into law. Its simply not politically viable, and the reasons are so obvious they don’t need to be stated.

    I certainly think some of the fee should go towards soil sequestration projects.

  43. 143
    nigelj says:

    Mike @131, I posted a reply but I managed to delete it by accident I think. Not sure if it went through.

    But briefly you claim I don’t back up my comments with links. This is absolutely false, for example @134 I posted 5 links. I didn’t post links on the social welfare issue because its too off topic to get into in depth. You don’t post links on every issue.

    Honestly I have responded in good faith and openly you are becoming complaining and tiresome. I think you are just in denial about what I’m saying.

    I have changed my mind on a couple of things. And so what? Is that a sin?

    And you are a backstabber. Putting me down in comments directed at Killian.

  44. 144
    nigelj says:

    Bill Henderson @133

    “The GND is too much a one party plan when ideally it should be bi-partisan – a wartime style coalition in our parliamentary system.”

    I agree, but I just cant see the Republicans agreeing to this too easily, because they have drunk so deeply on the climate denial coolaide and it’s in their dna now.

    “The GND now embraces a vision of decarbonization that isn’t working, that is pretend mitigation.. ”

    I disagree. The current system consists of relatively small subsidies of renewable electricity generation when new plant is needed. My understanding from media articles that appear well researched is The Green New Deal proposes government put huge money into renewable electricity using some form of deficit financing or federal reserve credit. I also understand the goal is to actively replace plant before its use by date (look at the time frames in the plan). Therefore both the nature and scale of difference is huge. See below:

    https://www.thebalance.com/green-new-deal-4582071

    We certainly need something like this although I personally think the money should better come from a tax increase on those who can afford this, and a carbon fee and dividend could at least form part of the scheme and would remove some of the deficit financing load.

    “In order to reduce emissions of a scale needed we need supply side – maybe draconian supply side regulation.”

    This is another option. I think it would be hard work politically, and what would happen if laws were passed simply making fossil fuels illegal, with some penalty? Presumably the fossil fuel companies and generators would move into renewable energy, but somebody would have to finance conversion to renewable energy so who? Have you thought that through? Because it could fall onto the public in a painful fashion with dramatically increased energy costs. The Green New Deal has a smoother funding mechanism less likely to lead to increased energy costs or economic destabilisation, and there are other options like carbon fee and dividend which would lead to higher energy costs but the dividend makes it a manageable transition.

  45. 145
    Carrie says:

    133 Bill Henderson says:
    “The proposed Green New Deal is a very hopeful giant step towards effective climate mitigation but, as preszently envisioned, it is a plan to fail.”

    Well I cannot argue nor disagree with any part of that Bill. Nice summary. Good for you to speak up about it.

    Re: …. the US must be leader …

    Well I’m not totally comfortable with this idea given the USA has been a primary recalcitrant since 1992 and the UNFCCC began. I think this idea / belief needs to be turned on it head once and for all.

    More progress would be made to rapidly address agw/cc issues if the USA was TOLD by the rest of the world what they needed to do … or else.

    The USA does not represent any useful positive leadership qualities beyond it’s abuse of power. I suppose that is an “argument” after all. Though I believe history and the facts are on my side here. :-)

  46. 146
    Carrie says:

    129 Scott E Strough, good stuff. Excellent job on your new website too.

    “Scott Strough, Retired Marine Engineer Currently a Lunatic Farmer and Agricultural Researcher”

    Love it! :-)

  47. 147
    Carrie says:

    #136

    Dear Lord, My God, Hosanna in the Highest, Please Save Us From Your Followers!

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2017/apr/13/god-save-us-all-from-the-dangers-of-this-intense-religious-fervour

  48. 148
    Carrie says:

    For my project I am using various principles:

    Principle 1: No till and/or minimal till with mulches used for weed control
    Principle 2: Minimal external inputs
    Principle 3: Living mulches to maintain biodiversity
    Principle 4: Companion planting
    Principle 5: The ability to integrate carefully controlled modern animal husbandry (optional)
    Principle 6: Capability to be mechanized for large scale or low labor for smaller scale
    Principle 7: As organic as possible, while maintaining flexibility to allow non-organic growers to use the methods
    Principle 8: Portable and flexible enough to be used on a wide variety of crops in many areas of the world
    Principle 9: Sustainable ie. beneficial to the ecology and wildlife
    Principle 10: Profitable ie. Must yield higher net profits than industrial high input Ag with all its synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to compete successfully.

    This research is self funded and through crowdfunding and the results will be available free for all. I would also ask humbly that anyone else interested in helping to try it out even in a small test plot themselves. The small scale I have been working on 5 years has had better than expected results. I am confident any gardener could use them.

    I am an organic farmer. I am not afraid of change. I am the change.

    https://redbaronfarm.quora.com/The-Red-Baron-Farm-Project

  49. 149
    nigelj says:

    mike @141

    “Mike says: you may not know or remember that Obama tried a less ambitious cap and trade approach that had few social provisions when he was first elected and it went nowhere. …so when you or others suggest that the dems should moderate their proposals to win some right wing support, you are choosing to ignore recent history ….”

    I dont know the Obama history in detail. But I didn’t say ” moderate the proposals.” I said put the social proposals “in a separate economic plan”, (so another document)”. It would make it all easier I think. Please read what people actually say, not what you think they are saying.

    “Do you think that your loose definition of welfare benefit fraud is a significant problem in NZ? ”

    I did “not” say loose definition of welfare fraud, I said welfare abuse (and defined it clearly as unwise spending where the children end up suffering). I also said its a factor with “working people” so I wasn’t singling out welfare beneficiaries. And yes it looks to be significant. Nobody has researched the numbers, but the anecdotal evidence is fairly compelling.

    “In New Zealand, welfare recipients are drug tested as a precondition for getting certain jobs.”But Ross Bell, the executive director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation, said the program has fundamentally been “a waste of time”.

    Correct. Only a very few applicatnts tested positive. But there are many welfare beneficiaries who dont apply for jobs, invalids beneficiaries etc. And I wasn’t referring just to drugs.

    I opposed the drug testing scheme anyway. If we must have that sort of thing it should be for everyone, not singling out beneficiaries.

    “We have to do something about bank robbers. I think, hm.. you may not be seeing the big picture there, buddy.”

    I’m not ignoring the big picture. Imho the banks, tax evasion, and white collar crime are more concerning than a few welfare beneficiaries and poor people getting up to mischief. In fact tax evasion is treated more leniently than welfare fraud and also costs the country more, which is all a total double standard:

    https://www.victoria.ac.nz/news/2017/08/why-is-tax-evasion-treated-more-gently-than-benefit-fraud2

    But abuse of welfare entitlements is still significant. It’s also stupid to ignore one problem because of another. And we wont convince conservatives of anything by pretending poor people never put a foot wrong, so perhaps you are ignoring reality :)

    It’s complicated. I dont like punative sorts of policies and a mean spirited approach either . The answer to a lot of this welfare and related stuff stuff might be a universal basic income. Still pondering that one.

  50. 150

    @nigelj,
    You asked, “Are you suggesting ‘all’ the dividend from a carbon fee go to farmers for soil programmes or just some of it, with some returned to the consumer as a dividend?”

    Actually no exactly either of those two. The dividend should go to those actively balancing the carbon cycle. So CCS, BeCCS and various other technologies are still on the table. But I think you’ll find their potential is many times smaller than agriculture’s potential. Infrastructure could also be built too, both food and energy suitable for the new balanced carbon cycle we would create…

    As for the rest of your claim saying “too obvious to be stated”, well please state the obvious. Because we apparently are working on two different visions of the future, and what is obvious to me is clearly not obvious to you, and vice versa.

    As for the

Leave a Reply

Comment policy. Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.