Climate Change

Green New Deal

|

I often hear from liberals that climate change is an immediately solvable problem, that with modest changes to our live-styles and much higher taxes on the rich, we can address the problem and have a better society for all. It’s a very hopeful message, but also a very unscientific and frankly quite naive message to boot.

If addressing climate change in the serious fashion needed to address the worse impacts on it was an easy, inexpensive to thing to do, it would have been done a long time ago. If we could just immediately switch over to cheaper, more reliable battery electric cars, and meet all our needs by a few solar panels, we’d do it now.

But the truth is switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is much more technically challenging, and will require changes to our own lifestyles, and maybe a reduction to the human population through an expanded death penalty. It’s going to be amazingly expensive, and difficult on economy. But ignoring the problem is likely to be more expensive.

Most of that technology is getting better, thanks in a big part about government research and incentives that are pushing the market that way. But solutions aren’t cheap, nor easy, or without requiring often significant lifestyle changes. There needs to be an adult conversation, not memes and blaming the other political party for all our woes.

This is why I’ve really had little interest in Green New Deal, because I don’t think it’s serious or workable deal. Maybe it’s a message bill that will eventually get more flush on it’s bones and enacted, but as it is it won’t do much for serious problems we face today.

Blue Mountain Lake

Climate Change.

|

ο»ΏOne of the problems I think there is with climate change, is it’s discussion has become fraught with self-evident truth. The assumption is that if you believe in the science of climate change, that it’s self-evident that you must believe in radical action to address it. You can’t be numb to human suffering after all, can you? Maybe so.

I am a believer in science, but at the same time, I’m a practical person. Infrastructure take decades to evolve, and while we should do more to reduce the carbon intensity of our society, and ultimately work towards the goal of reducing emissions, I don’t think the necessary reductions to fully limit the worse impacts of climate change is even realistic. Instead of planning to do what we can do to limit the worse impacts of climate change, we should look more broadly at what we can do to reduce the harm more broadly both by reductions in emissions and adapting our infrastructure.

Many of the impacts of climate change are well studied. When we are upgrading or repairing damaged infrastructure we most certainly should look at the science and work to minimize future harm. We obviously should not be building new large coal plants, and building new renewable generation were ecologically appropriate. We should continue to improve the efficiency on new automobiles and appliances, and work to expand the electric automobile and transit fleet where practical.

Earth

Society needs a measured approach – not ignorance but also realistic goals and plans that can be adopted as we upgrade and continue to modernize our infrastructure.

Florida is drowning. Condos are still being built. Can’t humans see the writing on the wall?

|

Florida is drowning. Condos are still being built. Can’t humans see the writing on the wall?

"Studies show that humans don’t respond well to abstract projections. We overvalue short-term benefits, such as driving SUVs, burning coal and building waterfront real estate. We choose these extravagances even though they impede beneficial long-term outcomes, such as saving threatened species, or reducing the intensity of climate change."

"Humans tend to respond to immediate threats and financial consequences – and coastal real estate, especially in Florida, may be on the cusp of delivering that harsh wake-up call. The peninsula has outsized exposure: nearly 2 million people live in coastal cities. On the list of the 20 urban areas in America that will suffer the most from rising seas, Florida has five: St Petersburg, Tampa, Miami, Miami Beach and Panama City. In 2016, Zillow predicted that one out of eight homes in Florida would be underwater by 2100, a loss of $413bn in property."