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. 151
    All Bundy says:

    Carrie,
    Memory and processing are antagonistic. Einstein had a horrible memory. He’d literally forget that he “needed” to get out of his pajamas and into his work clothes. Memory needs to be diffuse and inexact so as to not bog down creativity. The barely bright crow about memory. The beyond brilliant just remember a few keystrokes that will not only replace memory but also improve the retrieved data, courtesy of whomever was brilliant enough to update humanity’s memory.

    Zebra, I didn’t answer your thingy because I wasn’t interested enough to take the supreme effort to remember the question. I have a horrid memory. Do you agree with Killian’s sock puppet that that makes me stupid? However, since you’re praising me indirectly, ask again, explicitly, and I’ll take a stab.

    And guys/gals, this whole FUBAR we’re in has its origins in the truly obsolete concepts of “country” and “district”. Seriously, read 1984 for comprehension and analysis (liberal)instead of memory and regurgitation (conservative)
    Patriotism is a mental illness and districts don’t do anything productive – they’re just a guarantee that stuff will devolve into a me me me me give me and my district free stuff. We need world government that bubbles up naturally, instead of the current winner take all and might makes right. Seriously, WhyTF would anybody want the USA to lead anything? A desire to fail? The enemy is not government, but USA capitalist theory and conservatives. Private capitalistic ” free” enterprise is incredibly harmful and inefficient, so much so that the only way they can pretend to be non-stupid is to compare themselves to totalitarianism.

    Conservatives are scientifically proven to be almost a standard deviation dumber than liberals, and in the USA conservatives spend their lives eliminating any vestige of IQ they might have. Sad.

    So, no. The goppers will never agree to anything that doesn’t have shoving cash into the rich’s pockets as the primary goal. The path forward is to destroy the house of cards they’ve built with their scientifically proven stupidity.

    Fortunately, conservatives are adamantly stupid, so burning them will be easy, once I get traction.

  2. 152
    zebra says:

    #136 BPL,

    “God Almighty”

    Well OK then, I guess I was wrong about the concept of “rights” being unscientific. /s

    I would discuss this further but I am trying to follow the request by the moderators. I would only point out that such concepts are commonly used by the anti-science, Creationists, Denialists, and so on, in nonsensical rhetoric. And such rhetoric is used to combat efforts to improve the human condition, which many of us claim as a goal…

  3. 153
    mike says:

    Nigel: you have repeated some version of this on several occasions:

    “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.”

    Can you provide any links to studies or news stories that support your concern about your loose definition of welfare fraud?

    The links between welfare systems and our fundamental economics are closely linked to our consumption and emissions. Income and wealth inequality are linked to consumption and emissions. Most of of us here, including you, appear to be supportive of income redistribution so that the impacts of emission reduction are not completely devastating to the poor folks on the planet. This discussion is related to the discussion of population and it is about how we can respond to global warming.

    Can you provide a link or show any evidence to support your right wing talking point about drugging, drinking, gambling welfare recipients?

    Cheers

    Mike

  4. 154
    mike says:

    to Zebra

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

    The male contribution to the problem of too many human beings on the planet is ejaculate that contains viable sperm cells. Many, probably most, human beings enjoy sexual activity and when a fertile male and female have sex, sometimes they end up inadvertently planting a fertilized ovum in the female’s uterus.

    Zebra: “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.”

    I think that having 20% of the male population firing blanks allows for human beings to engage and enjoy sexual activity with a reduction of the chance that a consensual encounter to engage in a pleasurable human activity will produce a fertilized ovum planted inadvertenly in a womb. That is the mechanism that I think results in a downward change. I have the anecdotal, first hand experience that I began having fewer children, but not less pleasurable sexual activity, after I had a vasectomy. It’s an anecdote, but it worked for me and my partner.

    “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.”

    I agree with you, I don’t think there is a global sperm shortage. There are men with low sperm counts who would like to be parents and that can be an emotionally painful situation. It may be that environmental degradation is increasing the incidence of males with low sperm counts and that is worrisome in some global sense, but I still think that there is not a global sperm shortage.

    I haven’t read many of your comments in the past, so I am unfamiliar with any framework for population that you may have expressed in the past.

    Cheers

    Mike

  5. 155
    James says:

    Carrie – 127. Sheesh! A devoted disciple – sock puppet. He’s not that great.

    Get a room.

  6. 156
    Mal Adapted says:

    Russell:

    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.

    Cool, but I thought you were a theoretical and applied physicist. Perhaps Diamond’s memory of a prior engagement was triggered by critical inquiry from someone outside of not just his clique but his disciplines? Or was it by being harangued by a proponent of Whig history, who founded the first conservative college newspaper in Cambridge? I wish I’d been there, if only so I could judge for myself ;^).

  7. 157
    Mr. Know It All says:

    129 – Scott Strough

    From your energy innovation act:

    “SEC. 11. NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW.
    Nothing in this legislation shall preempt or supersede, or be interpreted to preempt or supersede, any State law or regulation.”

    That clause might give it a chance to pass since states that don’t want to participate will just pass a law to exempt themselves, although that really would not work since all products from other states will increase in price so they would want the dividend. It really isn’t bi-partisan since it only had one R out of 14 sponsors. It’s just a carbon tax that will result in price increases for every product we buy – hurting po’ folks more than anyone else.

    z, n, K, m, etc.
    Looks like the conversation about population control continues on. If you really want it, tell a D representative to sponsor population policy legislation punishing those who have more than 2 children. Puuuuhleeeasssse do it prior to 2020! :)

    141 – mike

    Drug tests are required by most employers in the USA. They are required by the feds for all commercial drivers. And there was recent discussion about requiring them for welfare recipients. I don’t see a problem with it for welfare recipients if those who work have to take them. Sadly, the failure rate in the USA is fairly high:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/business/economy/drug-test-labor-hiring.html

  8. 158
    Russell says:

    138:Hank

    It isn’t just land albedo changes that have distant effects:

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-deeper-blue-deep-blue-sea.html

  9. 159
    Al Bundy says:

    Back in the 60s, kids tried and failed to steer the world towards sanity. Perhaps they failed because they were too old. Sexually active folks just don’t cause that maternal switch to flick. But this time it’s little kids. Maybe, just maybe.

    —–

    Nigel,
    Your willingness to learn and grow is the opposite of “sin”. Frankly, it’s the reason I respect you.

    —-_

    On “drug” testing. It’s not just a joke, but an abomination. The only substance current tests check for is weed (though they pretend to check for other stuff that can’t be checked for unless you show up right after getting drunk or stoned. It’s a pureTWitchhunt for folks who care enough about their health to avoid horridly toxic (but profitable) alcohol and cigs.

    And seriously, only a total asshole would say the poor should live without anything to alleviate the misery inflicted on them. When the rich stop getting inebriated, then they can crow ineffectively about the poor. Seriously, go scrub toilets 12 hours a day and then talk about “drugs”

  10. 160
    Killian says:

    Re #123 nigelj said I think the strength of the Green New Deal is its bold, comprehensive on environmental goals

    It is neither of those things. Regenerative Governance is. The GND was stolen from the Green Party, btw, but I am not hearing them, nor Stein, getting any credit.

    Regardless, it’s slower suicide, nothing more. To characterize it as any sort of huge/large/massive change is inaccurate. Compare it to Regen. Gov., e.g., which I consider *necessary.* The GND is a good first step, at best. However, remember what I have said about momentum. You build out a massive new infrastructure, you are stuck with that for at least a generation.

    Can we afford another generation of high consumption? That’s what you’re going to get. Build out the means for consumption, you will get consumption. And that equals ever greater degradation of the planet.

    Another thing is these build-outs are not for everyone. Congress is not funding building out South America, Central America, SE Asia or Africa. But those places want the same standard of living, by and large. Given our wealth is built from their resources, their desire seems legitimate and should be honored. It won’t be, but it should be. But what if the entire planet gets the same GND as the U.S.? The rise global consumption would be incredible.

    But nobody is thinking about this. This is why OECD consumption must fall more than non-OECD should rise.

    The GND is suicidal.

  11. 161
    Carrie says:

    155 James, get a life. I’ve no time for small minded people or stupid small minded adhom comments like Hank made because Killian spoke the bleeding OBVIOUS about himself and Korea.

    153 mike, and what will nigelj and all the others do when people use the Carbon Tax F&D to go buy drugs with it? Or neglect their kiddies and spend 12 hours at the Casino instead?

    151 All Bundy, yeah memory, whatever. Knock yourself out.

    157 Mr. Know It All “I don’t see a problem with it for welfare recipients”

    Then apply that same standard to everyone .. Politicians, their Aides, Bankers, Stock Brokers, Corporate Board Members and their staff, Company Financial Officers, and of course YOU TOO …. if YOU don’t do drugs you got nothing to fear right? Just show up once per month for your urine test and you can be on your way.

    Tough luck if some slips you a Marijuana cookie at the party. You’ll still need to do the Court Ordered Rehab bro and pay the fine or the 6 months in jail for lying to Federal Officials in your form!

    People are really quite dumb often and fail to think things through, so don’t feel bad you are not alone here. :-)

  12. 162
    James says:

    Nigel, 149.

    “The answer to a lot of this welfare and related stuff stuff might be a universal basic income. Still pondering that one.”

    I like it, but expect a tough fight. I think it would be a lot more palatable if people “earn” that income though, perhaps by behaving civilly, and performing civil acts and or good deeds. Though there’s always the ungrateful leeches, most people need to feel they’ve earned their income fair and square. This can happen in all manner of ways, say from a long “acceptable acts” list (acceptable meaning those acts that truly benefit society, writ large or small, from trash pickup to minor road repair to home delivery for the home bound etc. – a scaled back and much less official version of today’s official employment where a company essentially owns you for a certain amount of time), but each job determined by the individual‘s choice. Probably greater acts of civility would earn greater remuneration. It’d be totally up to the person. Would have to regulated, however, so that one or a group of people don’t take more of these opportunities then they are entitled to and begin to form businesses/monopolies.

    It could be a tricky slippery slope though. We sorely need civility in society, but at the same time we DON’T want to introduce another China version social credit score rating system that’s more like blackmail.

    See https://www.google.com/search?q=%E2%80%9Celon+musk%E2%80%9D+universal+income+OR+guaranteed&prmd=nvi&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwijofLlgsLgAhUXHzQIHZLDAikQ_AUoAnoECA0QAg

  13. 163
    Russell says:

    156 Mal

    My first appointment here was as Field Director of a Peabody Museum project that entailed colllecting rocks for archaeologists all the way from New Caledonia and the New Hebrides to Guatemala and Hispaniola.. and like Jared I was also a Visiting Scholar at AMNH in New York.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/22/world/in-guatemala-a-rhode-island-size-jade-lode.html

    http://research.amnh.org/users/gharlow/Jade_in_Middle_AmericaDIST2.pdf

  14. 164

    @157 Mr. Know It All,
    Don’t confuse the EICDA and my proposed conservative improvements of it by changing the dividend from being paid to all and instead being paid to farmers sequestering carbon in the soil.

    You claim that “hurting po’ folks more than anyone else” is actually wrong on both versions though. In the EICDA as written now, the dividend is split equally and paid to everyone. So everyone gains in income what ever costs get increased, but have a choice to pick items that have a small footprint and won’t rise as much. For anyone on a budget, it allows them to collect a full dividend and yet if they really need it, to spend it on things that have not risen in price.

    On my improved version a similar thing happens but concentrated on food items instead of everything. And has the advantage of offsetting an equal or greater amount of farm subsidies already present. Meaning the net cost to tax payers is negative. Since everyone eats..everyone benefits from higher quality low cost food.

    So your criticism is wrong regarding both the EICDA and my proposed verified carbon offset market. The only thing I see that could potentially cause a net increase in cost to consumer would be those luxury items with a very very high carbon footprint and also certain imports with very high carbon footprints, because those items will cost more, but the extra revenues benefit the average US citizen.

    But for the rest of us we still get to choose and that choice allows the market forces to balance the carbon cycle. If something with a high carbon footprint costs too much, then we can choose something with a smaller carbon footprint that is cheaper, yet still get the full benefit of the dividend. Or in the case of my proposed upgrade, double the benefit at 1/2 the cost.

  15. 165
    Killian says:

    Re #124 nigelj said Killian @119,

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

    Yes, you did, but not worth the back-and-forth.

    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.

    It is a modern urban society.

    Hierarchies are inevitable.

    Because you say so. yeah, you put out a lot of that.

    No, they are not. They are a choice.

    Strata and hierarchies look pretty similar to me.

    Yes, I know.

    However its simply an observation that size appears to relate to hierarchies, and it is commonsense anyway.

    You have two choices according to your own logic: Accept stupidity and suicide, or live differently. Luckily, since “Can’t be done!” seems to be the only thing you say about innovations in sociopoliticoeconomic systems, my entire premise is to move to small communities across the board.

    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.

    Yet you persist with, “Can’t be done!”

    the cheran?

    Yes egalitarianism is not about income as such.

    No, it’s not about income *at all.*

    However the hunter gatherer issue has included discussions about income inequality so it was on my mind.

    By people who are not educated on the topic.

    Again the size of a community seems to influence this.

    Again, says who? All those scholars who still believe in “short, brutish” lives for H-G-G’s? The one’s who still think the Amazon only had a few million pre-Culumbian inhabitants? The one’s still don’t believe much of the Americas and all of Australia was virtual Garden of Eden in the pre-Columbian era?

    Meh…

  16. 166
    zebra says:

    #154 mike,

    If you are interested in my take on population and minimizing harm to humans (H), see comment #1.

    The “design” principle I try to follow in this is to work with nature and human behavior as much as possible rather than trying to coerce (in a broad sense) or convert.

    So, I look for individual factors that affect CO2 (and other environmental issues, of course) that are independent of environmental consciousness/concern (E). Population (P) is obviously one, and I have given examples that show, for example, that there is a non-linear relationship between P and CO2. More bang for the buck, as it were, segueing to the topic of your comment, heh.

    But, it seems to me that people are reluctant to think in that kind of design mode, as evidenced by trying to discuss population reduction, as well as in discussing H reduction. You, and others, seem to dismiss the populations that do have low TFR, and focus on coercion (again, in a broad sense) and conversion (choosing not to have children to “save the planet”).

    So, if we look at your mechanism, it seems to be motivated by something other than meeting the goal, since it clearly provides very little bang for the buck. You want to pay males for whom fertilization would be inadvertent $7,000 dollars because it might reduce a small fraction of births? When we can observe very low fertility rates with no such intervention?

    Does not compute.

  17. 167
    Killian says:

    Re #117 mal adapted expressed maladapted thoughts on population. He might want to try again.

    https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/02/02/587502/Americas-killing-indigenous-people-European-colonization-climate-change-plants

    From 1492, when Christopher Columbus first set foot on the Bahamas, to 1600, European colonists killed an estimated 56 million native inhabitants of the Americas either through direct warfare and societal collapse or by the imported diseases, such as smallpox and measles, which the indigenous people were highly susceptible to, said a study conducted by a team of scientists from the University College London (UCL).

  18. 168
    Ray Ladbury says:

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

    A noble sentiment. However, at various times, rights–and even personhood–have been denied to various groups–women, minorities, LGBTQ…–based on that same divine revelation. And we have some today contending that the personhood of an undifferentiated zygote supercedes the right to bodily autonomy of women…that a person’s right to bear arms supercedes the rights students to study in a safe environment…and on and on.

    For far to many, God is merely a scapegoat for their own bigotry–and they justify their prejudice in terms of scripture dictated by the bigotry of past generations.

  19. 169

    z 152: such rhetoric is used to combat efforts to improve the human condition

    BPL: Denying that people have any rights will not improve the human condition.

  20. 170
    Hank Roberts says:

    https://ozanvarol.com/how-to-change-a-mind-yours-or-someone-elses/

    As a former scientist, I would have cautioned you to rely on objective facts and statistics. Develop a strong case for your side, back it up with hard, cold, irrefutable data, and voila!

    Drowning the other person with facts, I assumed, was the best way to prove that global warming is real, the war on drugs has failed, or the current business strategy adopted by your risk-averse boss with zero imagination is not working.

    Since then, I’ve discovered a significant problem with this approach.

    It doesn’t work….

    … To avoid admitting we were wrong, we’ll twist ourselves into positions that even seasoned yogis can’t hold.

    The key is to trick the mind by giving it an excuse. Convince your own mind (or your friend) that your prior decision or prior belief was the right one given what you knew, but now that the underlying facts have changed, so should the mind….

    … Schadenfreude might be your favorite pastime, but it has the counterproductive effect of activating the other person’s defenses and solidifying their positions. The moment you belittle the mind for believing in something, you’ve lost the battle. At that point, the mind will dig in rather than give in. Once you’ve equated someone’s beliefs with idiocracy, changing that person’s mind will require nothing short of an admission that they are unintelligent. And that’s an admission that most minds aren’t willing to make…

    … here’s the problem. When your beliefs are entwined with your identity, changing your mind means changing your identity. That’s a really hard sell.

    A possible solution, and one that I’ve adopted in my own life, is to put a healthy separation between you and the products of you. I changed my vocabulary to reflect this mental shift. At conferences, instead of saying, “In this paper, I argue . . .,” I began to say “This paper argues . . .”

    This subtle verbal tweak tricked my mind into thinking that my arguments and me were not one and the same. Obviously, I was the one who came up with these arguments, but once they were out of my body, they took a life of their own. They became separate, abstract objects that I could view with some objectivity.

    It was no longer personal. It was simply a hypothesis proven wrong.

    Build up your empathy muscle ….

  21. 171
    Nemesis says:

    @Al Bundy, #159

    Well said. I heard somebody shout “Don’t use that herb!”, while the planet went down the toilette.

    Btw, what do you think, how many tons of coke do these folks in high places use?

    Doesn’t matter anymore anyway. The war on drugs will soon turn into war for water and food.

  22. 172
    nigelj says:

    Scott Strough @150

    In response to your concerns: My understanding is various carbon tax ideas have been floated in America and elsewhere with the money generally going towards either the governments coffers, or various climate related projects. Some proposals have required they be revenue neutral at request of the GOP, so other taxes be cut. But as far as I’m aware none of these ideas are gaining much political traction, and obviously they are quite harsh on consumers (think about the protests in Paris).

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/07/24/bipartisan-carbon-tax-is-good-news-in-a-month-of-political-ugliness/#3c57b57b5dd4

    One proposal that looks like its capable of gaining political traction is a carbon fee and dividend, with all the dividend going to the public. Some Republicans appear to support this notion and legislation has at leasst been considered as below. It’s inherently revenue neutral.

    https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/

    https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/blogs/2019/2/3/bipartisan-carbon-fee-and-dividend-bill-now-before-us-congress

    Having said that, I would repeat my suggestion that a “half way house” might be possible, with half the income from the tax going as a dividend to the public and half into climate projects. I would think this 1) makes good functional sense and 2) is not significantly harsh on consumers.

    In fact I think most of any allocated funds should go into negative emissions strategies of various sorts. This is because the carbon tax itself would incentivise things like more wind farms, and negative emissions strategies really do need a subsidy.

    I suspect we need some sort of combination of negative emissions strategies, because none appear to be magic answers taken alone. But I would say this in favour of your ideas. One huge advantage of enhanced soil sequestration of carbon is the land is just sitting there, billions of hectares of it. All it requires is a change of farming methods and these appear viable to me.

  23. 173
    nigelj says:

    James @162, I agree there will be a fight about a universal basic income, and in theory it’s good for everyone who can work including the unemployed to do something useful, like community work, but the problem is this creates the need for government make work schemes or alternatively monitoring people. This gets quite complicated and creates another bureaucracy.

    The whole idea of a universal basic income is to reduce complex government social welfare bureaucracies, and just give everyone a basic income and they can live how they wish, working or not working. No complicated job testing etc. However some compromise will probably be needed to keep everyone happy.

    The one problem with a UBI is a fixed income level (say $10,000 picking a random number) is not going to work for both single people and families, so you then get complexity coming back into the system with a top up payment, hence I’m still pondering it. But a UBI does recognise the unpaid contribution of stay at home mums, and has a raft of advantages.

    A UBI is an interesting idea and it may be possible to make it work. If AI really does start to replace huge numbers of jobs, a UBI could become essential, or levels of hardship would be off the scale.

  24. 174
    nigelj says:

    Kilian @160

    Just briefly I think the Green New Deal is comprehensive in that it has quite a list of worthy environmental and social goals (I still maintain the social goals should be in a separate plan). Where I agree it does fall short is environmental / economics goals. So reducing our use of resources, some form of zero growth economy, different forms of governance.

    But it’s one person’s ideas, and it was never likely one person would cover all the bases or get everything right. It’s going to evolve mark my words. The GND is still far better than a couple of complicated sounding policies like cap and trade that most people cant relate to. I mean in a messaging sense its connecting with people.

    “You build out a massive new infrastructure, you are stuck with that for at least a generation.Can we afford another generation of high consumption? …. And that equals ever greater degradation of the planet.”

    We can’t afford another generation of high consumption. The question is how much should we reduce consumption, and how much are people likely to reduce their consumption? Fair questions are they not?

    Mineral resources are limited, but not quite as limited as the deceptive media headlines say. I cannot see the majority of people making huge cuts to their consumption, so its hard for me to suggest they should. I’m a realist, so I think as previously stated a significant build out of energy infrastructure looks inevitable, and reductions of consumption of about 25% would look intuitively plausible to me. But I would say even just moderate changes will have quite a large flow on effect that will surprise us.

  25. 175
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @161

    “and what will nigelj and all the others do when people use the Carbon Tax F&D to go buy drugs with it? Or neglect their kiddies and spend 12 hours at the Casino instead?”

    It is unlikely that people will buy drugs. They are getting money in the hand but also facing higher petrol costs so have to make rational choices.The more probable outcome is some will stay with petrol powered cars but others will switch to electric vehicles or more fuel efficient cars. Given the cost of fuel will rise there will be an incentive to put the money into energy efficiency, and the more the tax is increased the stronger the incentive becomes so the less likely people will stay with using petrol powered cars etcetera. We cannot know for sure until we try as with most policy ideas, but expert studies say carbon fee and dividend will work. Here is just one example:

    https://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-report/

    Your answer to the climate problems appears to be we should all abandon the current socioeconomic system and radically reduce consumption. You have certainly endorsed Killian about 10 times. At the very least such a thing wont happen overnight, and we will need at least some renewable electricity generation, so a carbon tax pushes things in the right direction. Its not incompatible with your goals.

    There is no reason why a carbon tax and dividend would alter how parents treat their children. They are getting money in the hand. It’s not reducing incomes. Separate issue.

  26. 176
    nigelj says:

    Zebra says “You, and others, seem to dismiss the populations that do have low TFR, (eg S Korea) and focus on coercion (again, in a broad sense) and conversion (choosing not to have children to “save the planet”).

    Yet South Koreaa government has used coercion! “South Korea’s birth rate has been dropping since the 1960s. Following a baby boom after the 1950-53 Korean war, the government launched a campaign encouraging women to have no more than two children.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/03/south-koreas-fertility-rate-set-to-hit-record-low

    There are other factors but somewhat unique to Korea or at least not happening everywhere “The status of women in South Korea, a deeply patriarchal society, is a major driver of the trend, along with worsening job prospects for young people and rising property prices. Women are getting married and having children later in life, if at all, for fear of being denied promotions and facing discrimination at work.”

    It only took me a couple of minutes put this post together. Do your homework better Zebra :)

  27. 177
    Killian says:

    Re #112 James, et al.,

    I suggest you get your judgement and moralizing out of our social planning. Pay attention to the studies that show your concerns are not real. They are ideological claptrap and/or a failure to educate yourselves.

    1. Welfare Queen myth.

    Nope.

    2. Free money = lazy.

    A. Not free. Comes from taxes.
    B. No evidence RBI creates laziness, particularly when not used as welfare thus is truly universal.
    C. People like to work, they just don’t like meaningless work nor to work more than is actually necessary.

    Educate yourselves:

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/freedom-learn/200906/play-makes-us-human-iv-when-work-is-play

    Definition of Play

    In an earlier essay, on the *definition of play*, I elaborated on the idea that play is structured activity that is (a) self-chosen, (b) self-directed; (c) imaginitive, or creative; (d) intrinsically motivated; and (e) produced in an active, alert, but not distressed frame of mind. To the degree that any activity has these characteristics, we experience it as play. Work, at its best, can have all of these characteristics to a high degree. Let me explain.

    (a) Work Can Be Self-Chosen.

    Play is what we choose to do, not what we have to do, so the more we experience a sense of choice about our employment the more we experience it as play. If you feel that necessity requires you to work at such-and-such a job, then it will be hard for you to maintain a playful attitude about that job. The more you feel free to leave a job, the easier it is to experience the job as play. Play, by definition, is something that you are always free to quit. If you can’t quit, you have no sense of choice, and the activity is not play.

    Read the whole thing. A UBI is not a morality issue or ethics issue, it allows people to more often self-select work.

    Think!

    The person making 50k a year is not going to quit their job if they’re now making 62k. H
    They might take a vacation and be a better employee. Or start a side business. Or spend more time at home.

    A person living on welfare with 2 kids is not going to be too much better off at 12k a year. Maybe none. But maybe that differential pays for child care so they can now take that job paying 18k a year for a very significant net gain.

    People generally as lazy as your biased logic is.

  28. 178

    K 165: much of the Americas and all of Australia was virtual Garden of Eden in the pre-Columbian era?

    BPL: Yeah, right. Because people are naturally good, right?

  29. 179
    mike says:

    carbon tax? Can that work? Has it been tried anywhere?

    LMGTFY:

    “In 2008, the British Columbia Liberal Party, which confoundingly leans right, introduced a tax on the carbon emissions of businesses and families, cars and trucks, factories and homes across the province. The party stuck to the tax even as the left-leaning New Democratic Party challenged it in provincial elections the next year under the slogan Axe the Tax. The conservatives won soundly at the polls.

    Their experience shows that cutting carbon emissions enough to make a difference in preventing global warming remains a difficult challenge. But the most important takeaway for American skeptics is that the policy basically worked as advertised.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/business/does-a-carbon-tax-work-ask-british-columbia.html

    “The British Columbia carbon tax could be considered a “fee and dividend”, although there are some differences.[19] Rather than entirely or mostly being returned as a dividend to households, 73% of the carbon tax is used to reduce corporate and small business taxes. Unlike most governments, British Columbia’s electricity portfolio largely consists of hydroelectric power and their energy costs, even with the tax, are lower than most countries.”

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

    It looks like right-leaning political parties might embrace carbon tax or carbon fee and dividend as long as the fees generated are used to reduce corporate and small business taxes. That is the sort of accommodation that is required to get the right behind carbon tax or fees: give 73% of the dividend to corporations and small businesses.

    Canada has passed a modest carbon tax that levies a cost of $20 per ton beginning 2019.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/26/canada-passed-a-carbon-tax-that-will-give-most-canadians-more-money

    other countries also have carbon taxes or fees: Sweden, Norway, Netherlands.

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

    It’s being tried. Persuading the right-leaning parties to support these things requires buying them off through weighting of benefits to corporations. Then the corporations and the marketplace will allow the benefits to trickle down to common folks according to right wing theory. The history of income and wealth inequality suggests that the trickle down benefits fail. If you want right wing support then you have to make the rich richer. I think that is the price of bipartisan support for global warming political action.

    Cheers

    Mike

  30. 180

    My understanding is various carbon tax ideas have been floated in America and elsewhere with the money generally going towards either the governments coffers, or various climate related projects. Some proposals have required they be revenue neutral at request of the GOP, so other taxes be cut. But as far as I’m aware none of these ideas are gaining much political traction, and obviously they are quite harsh on consumers (think about the protests in Paris).

    No, in most cases, implemented or proposed, the money is to go back into the economy directly. The BC tax, referenced above, originally used the tax system to rebate carbon tax on an annual basis. I’m not sure what it currently does, exactly; I know it has been tweaked, and this page meantions a tax credit:

    https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/planning-and-action/carbon-tax

    As of 2018, the tax, which had been capped at $30/ton, increased by $5, and will increase to $50/ton, in harmony with the Canadian federally-mandated amount that just came into force.

    The Citizens’ Climate Lobby is an organization highly active in both the US and Canada, and are working specifically to enact carbon taxes in both countries. Their proposal, with which the bipartisan proposals now or soon to be before Congress are pretty well aligned, calls for the tax to be revenue neutral, both to avoid political repercussions and because the overwhelming consensus of economists is that this is the most efficient scheme. The American version, however, calls for a direct monthly rebate, so that the tax moneys are never comingled with normal tax revenues.

    The CCL home page:

    https://citizensclimatelobby.org/

    The info page for the House proposal:

    https://citizensclimatelobby.org/

    Returning to the BC case, here’s an explainer from BC that explicitly contrasts the French debacle:

    https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/01/11/BC-Carbon-Tax-Success-Explained/

    Mike, #179–

    Yes, the Canadian tax starts out at $20 (in those provincial jurisdictions that did not already have a higher rate, such as BC, or Quebec), but it increases $5 every year up to $50/ton.

  31. 181
    mike says:

    at Zebra: ok, I read your comments at 1. I am not sure that I understand what your mechanism is for reducing population. Let’s say we reached an agreement to reduce population to 1 billion, or 1.5 billion, or 3 billion by some certain date. Fine. How do we get to a reduced population by that certain date?

    cheers,

    Mike

  32. 182
    nigelj says:

    Mike @179, British Columbia’s carbon tax is clearly not ideal. A corporate tax cut is madness, because this totally undermines putting a carbon tax on a corporation. It’s the worst form of political compromise.

    Last time I checked trickle down had become more of a trickle up.

    Carbon fee and 100% dividend does overcome some of these problems. I think it’s still a compromise solution and wont fix everything but its a reasonably good policy.

    Do you think The Green New Deal will escape without compromise? It’s a simple fact we live in a democracy and compromise often comes with that territory, much as I hate it.

  33. 183
    Al Bundy says:

    One of the best results of UBI is that it will inevitably improve working conditions. Instead of, “Clean out moldy apartments for next to nothing in winter without heat or die”, you get, ” We’ll pay you well and ensure the rentals are heated”. And yes, I’m referring to the new book (that I haven’t read yet)
    “Work or find out whether you die of exposure, starvation, or disease” is ever so against everything every respected spiritual leader leader has taught. And it means that income is redistributed upwards.

    Workers must be given the power to engage in negotiations as equals, power-wise, compared to the prospective employer. When one side dictates terms and the other has no choice but to accept (knowing that to walk away just means having to pound pavement in the hope of getting the same “deal” elsewhere), well, that’s an inhumane society.
    Imagine how much creativity will be unleashed. I’m an example since I’ve cobbled together my own version:
    $525/mo Section 8 rent assistance
    $300/mo survivors pension from Service Canada
    $187/mo EBT (food stamps)
    And perhaps $170/year in electrical assistance

    Consider that without my “UBI” there wouldn’t be a hope in Hades that I would ever again produce much of value. Yeah, I was a superstar programmer, but that was in the “character” days. The only job I could get now, and have held off and on in the last few years, is essentially worthless stuff like telemarketing. This is especially true because I came out of the closet (no, not that closet, one that is far more distained)

    Most people crave work, but they also crave agency, respect, and fairness.

    And those who don’t? Imagine how much effort and expense every company wastes trying to keep those anchors off their boat. But those same hiring managers might insist that anchors MUST work (somewhere else, preferably for a direct competitor)

  34. 184
    nigelj says:

    Video : “Johan Rockströmat: We the Future
    5 transformational policies for a prosperous and sustainable world.”

    https://www.ted.com/talks/johan_rockstrom_5_transformational_policies_for_a_prosperous_and_sustainable_world

    Some serious modelling going on here based on the UN sustainable development goals.

  35. 185
    Mr. Know It All says:

    [off-topic]

  36. 186
    Carrie says:

    174 nigelj says: “But it’s one person’s ideas ….”

    Every time you say something, almost every time, you get it totally wrong. Even the simplest of things. Painful.

  37. 187
    Carrie says:

    175 nigelj says: “It is unlikely that people will buy drugs.”

    Please go talk to the sheep, tell them al about your clever ideas and notions. Leave me out of it. It’s too painful to watch.

  38. 188
    zebra says:

    mike,

    (You posted this on UV by mistake I assume):

    at Zebra: ok, I read your comments at 1. I am not sure that I understand what your mechanism is for reducing population. Let’s say we reached an agreement to reduce population to 1 billion, or 1.5 billion, or 3 billion by some certain date. Fine. How do we get to a reduced population by that certain date?

    Mike, my comment #1 doesn’t deal with “how to get to a reduced population”. It deals with factors that would reduce harm to humans from anthropogenic climate change (and other environmental degradation of course). But you offer no input on that; you try to change the subject– when we were talking about “how to reduce population”, you changed the subject to “what was I saying about population.”

    Here’s what I said when we were talking about your approach to reducing population:

    You, and others, seem to dismiss the populations that do have low TFR, and focus on coercion (again, in a broad sense) and conversion (choosing not to have children to “save the planet”).

    So, if we look at your mechanism, it seems to be motivated by something other than meeting the goal, since it clearly provides very little bang for the buck. You want to pay males for whom fertilization would be inadvertent $7,000 dollars because it might reduce a small fraction of births? When we can observe very low fertility rates with no such intervention?

    Does not compute.

    So, if you want to continue that discussion, why don’t you address what I said?

  39. 189
    James says:

    Nigel – 173. Right, that’s the term I was looking for, Community Service. I get the complications. Maybe it could be like an extension of Social Security. After awhile, like SS, it would just be understood that that’s the way it is. Would have to make sure that business doesn’t get up to their old tricks of inflation and price raising to gobble it up though. Also, insure that families don’t start having lots of kids to try to maximize the payout. So some sort of oversight would be necessary. I can see those things happening. Where would the money come from? They can start with the trillion spent/wasted annually on more military junk in the US. Other countries could try other things to see what works best.

  40. 190
    Steven Emmerson says:

    nigelj@182 wrote:

    Do you think The Green New Deal will escape without compromise? It’s a simple fact we live in a democracy and compromise often comes with that territory, much as I hate it.

    This is a bit tangential, but, assuming the country in question is the US, then evidence suggests that the government is closer to an oligarchy than a democracy. See this peer-reviewed paper for details.

    I wonder if this bodes ill for a carbon tax.

  41. 191
    Killian says:

    Re #178 Barton Paul Levenson spouted K 165: much of the Americas and all of Australia was virtual Garden of Eden in the pre-Columbian era?

    BPL: Yeah, right. Because people are naturally good, right?

    1. Neither your religion nor your ideology belong here.

    2. The reference was to the managed, physical state of the continents because of human intervention, well-documented at this point.

    3. Playing “gotcha” is for school children, not adults on publicly viewable climate blogs.

  42. 192
    Killian says:

    Re #177 I said People generally as lazy as your biased logic is.

    Should have read, “People are not generally as lazy as your biased logic is.

  43. 193
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @186
    “But it’s (the green new deal) one person’s ideas ….”
    “Every time you say something, almost every time, you get it totally wrong. Even the simplest of things. Painful.”

    This is a false and totally unsubstantiated statement. And the point is that The Green New Deal is not the work of the Democrats as a whole, its from one group and was presented by one politician Ocasio-Cortez. But you seem determined to miss the point and prefer a nit picking criticism.

  44. 194
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @187 says “It is unlikely that people will buy drugs.”

    “Please go talk to the sheep, tell them al about your clever ideas and notions. Leave me out of it. It’s too painful to watch.’

    Carrie clearly doesn’t like my comments on carbon tax and dividend, because she has repeatedly opposed carbon taxes. She never explains in detail where the reasoning, facts and supporting internet links are wrong in her view, and instead resorts to empty rhetorical sophistry, and personal invective. Looks like she is unable to really find fault with carbon taxes, and just doesn’t like them for some unexplained emotive or philosophical reason.

  45. 195
    nigelj says:

    Al Bundy @183, yes a UBI means all those benefits and little “add ons” would be cancelled and its just the UBI, so a UBI will therefore encourage work. If only the right wingers could work it out. A UBI is a commonsense, fiscally sensible, and humane solution.

    In NZ we currently have about 4% unemployment. The numbers that don’t want to work and / or are simply unemployable are thought to be about 1% by experts. I would say this is so small it’s not worth worrying too much about, and having complicated policies. A UBI solves it quite simply.

    I do worry about unwise spending where the kids suffer. Amazes me that some of you appear to dismiss this.

  46. 196
    Al Bundy says:

    Nigel,
    “People” are diverse. They also have two “selves” that are usually in opposition: the experiential self vs the remembering self. In your “drugs” example the classic scenario is your remembering self waking up with a hangover and promising to your diety that you’ll never get drunk again
    That evening your experiential self hijacks your body and heads to the bar for just one… A bit later, just one more.
    Repeat inner loop until closing time.
    Repeat outer loop until you die.

    Folks will “choose” eviction because cigarettes aren’t optional.

    Wish all you want. You can evict people, deny them everything, even torture them by putting them in a cage for years, and you will achieve exactly nothing except the torture of a fellow human

    Oh, yes, you’ll also bake the planet. Prisons and courts are way carbon intensive, as is providing “drugs” in the grey or black market.

    Weed can be grown with negligible impact if grown either outdoors in summer or indoors in winter in a residence. Note that the latter is also essentially free. So, no worries about some poor piece of scum having fun on “your” dime. That is, if it is legalized and inexpensive home grow systems proliferate. (But seriously, the gall of poor people, thinking that they have the same rights as their owners to choose their own lifestyle)

    Or you can do it the way it’s done today, clandestinely.
    Hmm, it looks like the link is going to fail. Justin Case says, google marijuana carbon footprint. You’ll learn that when Colorado entered the grey market (stately legal, federally way illegal) electricity use went up 2%.
    https://phys-org.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/phys.org/news/2017-10-problem-carbon-footprint-cannabis-farms.amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews%2F2017-10-problem-carbon-footprint-cannabis-farms.html

  47. 197
    nigelj says:

    Al Bundy @196, I know all about drugs. I was addicted to smoking for years, and finally managed to give up for good over 10 years ago, but it was really hard work. I totally empathise with drug addicts, and I didn’t mean to sound judgemental.

    But this does NOT change the fact that people use money for drugs (and gambling, flash clothes etc) and sometimes the kids go without, so now why are you in denial about that?

    “Wish all you want. You can evict people, deny them everything, even torture them by putting them in a cage for years, and you will achieve exactly nothing except the torture of a fellow human.”

    Agreed. And I never suggested this. The solutions for the drugs and related issues should be trying to target social welfare assistance to the kids, good access to drug rehabilitation, and legalising the softer drugs. We have free doctors visits for children for example.

  48. 198
    nigelj says:

    Zebra consistenty calls for smaller population but consistently fails to suggest specific government policies that would achieve this. He insisted Mike first accept free vasectomies are not terribly cost effective as a condition for progressing discussion towards his own policy views.

    I will accept free vasectomies are not the ideal option and would not be cost effective population policy, although they have some other advantages and may be desirable for other reasons.Now could Zebra please state what his population policies are? And how they differ from mine?

    Bet he won’t.

  49. 199
    Carrie says:

    Do seek genuine action to tackle AGW/CC and more in the United States?

    Are you going to be one of the million?

    “I’m running for President!”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7DRwz0cAt0

  50. 200
    Carrie says:

    194 nigelj says:

    “Carrie clearly doesn’t like my comments on carbon tax and dividend, because she has repeatedly opposed carbon taxes. She never explains in detail where the reasoning, facts and supporting internet links are wrong in her view, and instead resorts to empty rhetorical sophistry, and personal invective. Looks like she is unable to really find fault with carbon taxes, and just doesn’t like them for some unexplained emotive or philosophical reason.”

    You’re more than “slippery as an eel” You’re also a liar, a gaslighter and unbelievably misinformed on every subject upon which you speak. Based on your own words and imho of course.

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.