Slashdot Mirror
New Study Finds Incredibly High Carbon Pollution Costs -- Especially For the US and India (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A new study led by UC San Diego's Katharine Ricke published in Nature Climate Change found that not only is the global social cost of carbon dramatically higher than the federal estimate ($37 per ton) -- probably between $177 and $805 per ton, most likely $417 -- but that the cost to America is around $50 per ton. That's the second-highest in the world behind India's $90, and is also higher than the current federal estimate for the global social cost of carbon. That's a remarkable conclusion worth repeating. Ricke's team found that the cost of carbon pollution to just the United States is probably higher than its government's current estimate of costs to the entire world. And the actual global cost is more than 10 times higher than the federal estimate.
[The Guardian's Dana Nuccitelli] asked Ricke to describe her team's approach in this study: To calculate social cost of carbon, you need to answer four questions in sequence:
1. How would the economy change with no climate change (including GHG emissions)?
2. How does the Earth system respond to emissions of carbon dioxide?
3. How does the economy respond to changes in the Earth system?
4. How should we value losses today vs. in (for example) 100 years?
The team answered these questions using four "modules": a socio-economic module to answer the first question, a climate module to address the second, a damages module to investigate the third, and a discounting module to tackle the fourth.
That study detailed the relationship between a country's average temperature and its per capita GDP, finding a sweet spot around 13C (55F). That's the optimal temperature for human economic productivity. Economies in countries with lower average temperatures like Canada and Russia would benefit from additional warming, but it would slow economic growth for nations closer to the equator with hotter temperatures. The United States is currently right near the peak temperature, whereas many European countries like Germany, the UK, and France are 3-5C cooler, and a bit below the ideal economic temperature. So, continued global warming is worse for the US economy than Europe's.
[The Guardian's Dana Nuccitelli] asked Ricke to describe her team's approach in this study: To calculate social cost of carbon, you need to answer four questions in sequence:
1. How would the economy change with no climate change (including GHG emissions)?
2. How does the Earth system respond to emissions of carbon dioxide?
3. How does the economy respond to changes in the Earth system?
4. How should we value losses today vs. in (for example) 100 years?
The team answered these questions using four "modules": a socio-economic module to answer the first question, a climate module to address the second, a damages module to investigate the third, and a discounting module to tackle the fourth.
That study detailed the relationship between a country's average temperature and its per capita GDP, finding a sweet spot around 13C (55F). That's the optimal temperature for human economic productivity. Economies in countries with lower average temperatures like Canada and Russia would benefit from additional warming, but it would slow economic growth for nations closer to the equator with hotter temperatures. The United States is currently right near the peak temperature, whereas many European countries like Germany, the UK, and France are 3-5C cooler, and a bit below the ideal economic temperature. So, continued global warming is worse for the US economy than Europe's.
They are making so many cause and effect assumptions here it is just mind-blowing..
And they call it science.. Without of course a single falsifiable claim.
This is just pure opinion politics, of a very specific type.
The assumption that average temperature somehow controls GDP for example.. Just hilarious, and of course stupid.
Free Software developers of the world, open your eyes! Our communities are being raped, our work pillaged.
Detestable villains - mean spirited, belligerent, racist, unprincipled - are using underhanded tricks to force hypocritical "Codes of Conduct" on the projects we built.
The only purpose of these CoCs is to allow so-called "Progressives", who have contributed nothing to the project, to conduct witch hunts against anyone who opposes them. Thereby they plan to steal our work for their shadowy corporate paymasters.
You can readily tell these CoCs are not about "just being nice" - because they are ALWAYS supported by the very LEAST NICE, most aggressively mean and shamelessly bigoted people you can imagine.
If a project to which you contribute has been raped by CoC-mongers there is a simple solution: WALK AWAY. Never contribute again. If you have a patch almost ready, count the time you spent on it as a loss and throw it away. If you see a security issue, remain silent and do nothing. IT'S NO LONGER YOUR PROJECT. YOU ARE NOT WELCOME THERE.
If you are evaluating new software, don't even consider any projects burdened under the tyranny of a CoC. Their technical merits do not matter - just don't consider them. Never be openly political, always make up a technical reason for rejecting CoCed projects.
Don't argue in public about the CoC. Doing so only exposes you to needless risk. You might be dis-employed, blackballed, and even set up for a #MeToo purge. Just stay far away.
Comrades: Individually we are powerless, and easily crushed beneath the iron boot of Corporate Social Just-Us. But together in solidarity we are millions and we are strong. The Internet itself depends on our collective labor. If we stop working, the internet stops working.
Free Software developers, save yourselves and save your communities! Just WALK AWAY from any project with a CoC. Without our labor they are nothing.
Whenever actual real math isn't giving you the results you want, just magically factor in "socio-economics" and 100 years in the future worth of total conjecture somehow until you've crafted the ideal propaganda.
What's mind-blowing is when nazi faggots think they can just walk around and flap their bitch gums.
Nothing else matters.
Call your opinion fact or science to make it unassailable! Epic.
and I still need gas to get to work. Would I like a public transportation system? You bet. Am I going to get one with the level of corruption in my country? Hell no.
What's frustrating is the folks demanding a "free market" solution to the problem. Maybe there will be one like there was for getting lead out of gas. After decades and decades of damage done to people's health and well being (and if crime statistics are to be believed our entire nation). What I'm saying is the free market is _slow_. I'll be dead before it fixes things. Probably from Lung cancer.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Those Chinese hoaxers are thorough, aren't they?
Getting sick of hearing this repeated. ~1% of the Earth is comprised of Carbon its a natural element.
Look, I know we've built our societies on CO2 belching cars and CO2 diarrhetic energy production but it's a real problem that we need to fix. We have the technology to build carbon capture systems remove CO2 from the air with 1000x the efficacy of trees (per square meter) but it needs to be built and maintained. Therefore it seems only logical that there be a tax on all the things that produce CO2 so that money can be used to capture it. Obviously, this will make lower and non-polluting products far more attractive as they will be cheaper.
The solution is known and it's extremely frustrating that there is a total lack of will to implement it.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Enough with the tiresome political clickbait.
The US numbers are DOWN. What do you want from us? Nuke China?
Either say you want to Nuke China or kindly hyperventiliate into your chicken little bag instead bombarding us with this garbage.
The economic consequences to the US for climate change are incredibly controversal. Every tropical storm, every forest fire, every winter frost, every rain storm, every drought, every sun burn, every flu outbreak is cited as climate change.
We are far beyond the point of the boy that cried wolf with this stuff. It is beyond absurd and well into obnoxiously stupid.
And on top of that, US NUMBERS FOR CO2 HAVE BEEN FALLING FOR MANY YEARS!!!!!!
So... Enough. Go whine to China or possibly Europe who's numbers UNLIKE US NUMBERS are not going down.
Look it up.
If US numbers were climbing then you could maybe argue the US should do its part to cut back. But US numbers are going down. We're doing our part. And that's before you account for all the carbon sink qualities of US territory. Some countries emit a lot of CO2, are increasing their CO2 emissions, and have such dramatic land exploitation that all the forests etc are just getting clear cut. Complain to them.
We've got green energy projects coming out of our ass, your emissions are falling year over year... Just enough.
This is like listening to the B12 deficient vegans at this point. I know... you're mad... so are the vegans... and that isn't the only thing you share in common.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
All your CoCs are belong to us
Look this is (as I write) clearly unfair moderation! The first post was a little unhinged and may have deserved it's TROLL moderation (in the absence of a RANT moderation), but this erratum included nothing but an actual citation and to what looks a quality source to boot! Could we just bridge the tribal fence ... just occasionally?
INFORMATIVE would have been more appropriate.
Regards,
Old School Leftist
Joel Salatin: "Nature's P&L statement day of reckoning..." http://bit.ly/1frMP4H
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
yo
yo
yo
:o
!!
I'm 31337
!!
I'm 31337
!!
I'm 31337
!!
I'm 31337
!!
I'm 31337
!!
HOSTS ARE THE SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING
!!
I post and pretend to not be me when I get REALLY FUCKING MAD about what you people are saying about me
!!
I HATE JEWS
!!
I've been posting a long rant about why Jews are evil and repeating it over and over in multiple articles... AND I'M DAMNED PROUD OF IT
!!
I am APK and I am GAY
!!
The APK has spoken
!!
P.S.=> You SOYBOY weasels can go fUcK yourselves in the ass with a spork, rastanbooyez
!!
Disagree with me? Want to post fake-creimer spam in reply because you are obsessed with him? Post your real name, address, and phone number, too, you cowardly bastards
!!
... apk
be in a scene and your spare time are attending a THAT THE PROJECT and coders Hot on the hhels of
By now we should all be familiar with the Hockey Stick Controversy
Under the "Continuing research" section of the above link, emphasis mine:
Marcott et al. 2013 used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, the last 1,000 years of which confirmed the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.
In cartoon format:
https://rationalwiki.org/w/ima...
And a free-market reaction to the above, with other considerations: an alternative energy consumption and production paradigm seems to be gaining traction, which seems to be related in some way to recent discussions about melting glaciers and sea level rise.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Yes, warm countries are on average less economically successful. That doesn't imply that warming will make a country less successful.
Singapore is right in the tropics, sweltering year round, and is extremely successful. So is Hong Kong, which has only a slightly more tolerable climate. So is Israel, which is in a desert region. In the US, ever since the invention of air conditioning it's been the warm areas, not the cool ones, which have the most economic growth. In both the US and China, the cold regions currently form a stagnating "rust belt".
The reasons why, in other places, economic growth is inversely correlated with temperature, are probably due to history and culture, factors that won't suddenly change if a place warms up.
We can tell you what your problem is and how to solve it. Send money.
Lets all get on our private jets and fly around the world to have meetings about global warming! Yeah! I hear paris is nice.
Surely you mean carbon dioxide, right.
And you want to use that as a "proof" that we have to doubt that co2 increases have the effect of changing the climate, nor that a changing climate has any effect on the weather. How is that supposed to work?
Dana Nutticelli. That already tells you to ignore the article completely.
So what the fuck are you whining about? AGW is costing you a shit ton. Yet you whinge about not knowing EXACTLY how much. And yet if they DO make it a single value ($417) you will then whinge and bitch and cry about how there are no "error bars", therefore it's "not science".
And since we have already shown causation, the correlation proves the causation.
Another fuckwitted denier who doesn't know anything more than the rote phrase he's been taught by his handlers.
Nope, you'll demand that they MUST be zealots to do all this work for no pay. This complaint of yours is a patently stupid way to demand that there is nothing YOU need to do.
If you want to prove their case wrong, do so, without any pay.
You mean a completely made up load of bollocks about a harmless gas that isn't causing 'catastrophic man-made global warming', because there IS no global warming going on in the first place? As if a bunch of 'scientists' would LIE in order to terrorise the public into paying them more and more money for yet more LIES about how the sky is falling in.
www.wattsupwiththat.com
www.climatedepot.com
I don't want fucking free trade with such a shithole country. No way it benefits us. FUCK USA.
1. Devise a model that sounds really complex
2. For every part of the model make up a set of numbers, label somehow
3. Randomly pick rules on how these numbers interact
4. Run a simulation for 1000 years
5. Calculate average cost using our carbon cost function (tm)
We tried many times until we got some absurd cost that make the point we want to make. In particular, US white males are the worst.
WTF is "social cost" and why is it measured in dollars?
This whole thing sounds like it was made up to be political fodder for a partisan political journal (Nature Climate Change? Are you serious?)
Nature Climate Change is owned by for-profit Holtzbrick Publishing Group, which is a radical left publisher out of Germany that prints hundreds of partisan political rags, and BC Partners, a private equity firm founded by far-leftist Otto van der Wyck, who later presided over funds like Climate Change Capital and Alpinvest, two more radical far-left hedge funds.
If you think this is an actual scientific journal, you are seriously mistaken. It is a leftist political rag that tries to put on enough makeup to pass as science, but this study and every other study published in it is "paid research" the the funding capital firms, which have their own obvious agenda: stimulate investment in Climate Change hedge funds and make their investors rich by fraud.
This is a poignant quote from WIndfall which is a book about how people are preparing to make money from climate change:
“It’s a message that says, ‘Yes, forty years from now or a hundred years from now, in 2100, things will be really bad—that’s why you shouldn’t use your energy today.’ If people won’t get that if they have unprotected sex today and it’ll kill you in a few years, why should this other message get across any better? It’s morally bankrupt for the pope to say abstinence only for people to fight HIV—it kills people to say that—and I think that’s a worse sin than fucking."
What about China? China puts out more CO2 than the US and Germany combined if you were to read an biased news paper like the Wall Street Journal. But then again, the angry, hate filled, lower-educated liberal isn't interested in being informed, just angry, hateful, as well as spiteful to all that don't agree with them.
Or just call them the average slashdot.org reader.
If global warming from CO2 production is a problem then we need to consider all solutions to reduce CO2 production. As it is right now, today, nuclear power produced the least CO2 for the most energy. As it is right now nuclear power is by far the safest energy source we have.
Cite: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
Anyone that both desires to reduce CO2 immediately and ban the future development of nuclear power is placing us all into an impossible situation. It's possible to both reduce CO2 and not use nuclear power but that means (as shown by the source I linked to above) much more mining of ores for the production of steel, concrete, glass, copper, aluminum, and so many more raw materials. This comes with costs, in money, lives, and standard of living.
Any problems with nuclear power is local, very local, as in limited to the borders of the power plant and the mines. Releases of material beyond these borders are rare, minute, and can be addressed. Issues of CO2 spreading will be global in nature. Any costs of nuclear power must be balanced with the reduced costs of CO2 output it would produce in replacing coal and natural gas.
Wind and solar involve considerable material costs, far more than nuclear. They also have costs in lives from industrial accidents, far less than any from nuclear power per energy produced. Wind and solar are also unreliable and expensive, which when addressing the unreliability means increasing the costs. There may be places where wind and solar are really cheap, and where pumped hydro storage is also cheap, but these places are rare. Suitable sites for nuclear power, especially fourth generation nuclear, are not rare.
I do not believe global warming to be a problem but I will concede that point if it means we get cheap, reliable, and safe nuclear power.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
We probably need to burn more coal, that should teach the stupid [flat] planet to quit whining.
NO!
We will NOT pay any sort of carbon tax. get it into your heads.
More news from Captain Obvious. Everyone knows by now that every time we burn a gallon of gas, we damage the environment. Is the damage worth it? Sometimes yes. Can the damage be mitigated? Sometimes yes.
We don't inherit the earth, we borrow it from our descendants. We have no have right to incur a debt that our descendants must pay. People need to understand that environmental damage is stealing from our descendants.
Unfortunately, humanity has not evolved yet a healthy form of government that the protects everyone's right - including the rights of those yet to exist. Human nature is stubborn, but the first step is to admit we have a problem with our governments.
Greed is the root of all evil.
Get off the nuclear obsession! How can there be so many unpaid trolls for nuclear power?? It is not the solution to all our problems! It is a SIDE SHOW that you debate along with all the other issues but in the USA, the moron masses are just now starting to slightly admit global warming exists and have moved on to the next phase in the P.R. playbook in saying "it's not our fault." It doesn't even make much sense in this context but they adapted it from the playbook; liability doesn't matter with physics/reality.
The NEXT phase in the P.R. handbook is "we're powerless to change it, so why bother?" and "It's too late to do anything." The cope-with depression phase, where they get you to give up; maybe even finally take the blame, maybe even take the blame for stalling until it is too late... but you can't change the past and the way things are so just let them continue and do nothing... don't even really punish them because it's not going to fix anything.
These are the REAL big problems. You can add nuclear into the debate when people are actually making efforts to prevent and solve the problems but instead these side shows serve to fragment, confuse their opposition, and create doubts.
We do not need to waste investment in OLD nuclear power tech. Yes, I'm including these new uranium reactor designs that are really still just revisions of the old. If there were ACTUALLY new ideas to use, then build some prototypes already! That's not working... know why? Because nothing comes out profitable without government losing money on it! INCLUDING existing plants! Obviously, new is expensive but they can't say it'll come down in price enough to jump onboard in any meaningful way!
Solar and Wind was always known it WOULD come down in price; it's being backed without hardly any subsidies now (at least nothing compared to the others.) Battery tech we know will come down too.... By the time you build a new plant -- which takes a decade-- grid batteries will easily work to scale at a lower price (meaning one could begin doing that; I'm not saying that we will have everything in place in a decade.) Maybe fusion is cracked in 5 years... but you'd already begun building 10 nuclear plants that are halfway built... at $1billion each... assuming you got them going on schedule... the 2 Obama started and funded should be done today. Neither made it. hello? reality. yeah if pigs could fly and popular opinion and politics were ideal... maybe they could be done in 1 year for $50 in your alternative reality...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Thirty years ago we were told the Maldives were going to disappear by now, from Climate Change and sea level rise. In fact, the Maldives Cabinet met underwater to highlight their plight. However, they obviously are still there considering they just expanded their airport.
So before we consider the claims from a given set of models projecting sometime in the future, let's look at the accuracy of their previous claims. If they weren't very accurate (as we're seeing with this and 95% of the models in the IPCC), then we should ask for further justification why we should believe their models this time.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
because it's going to be empty for about 10-20 years while people switch over. It's not an over night thing. People's lives are built around cars. It takes decades to change it. If you build it they will come, but they'll come _slowly_. You have to convince the American Taxpayer to spend billions on public transport that's going to be almost completely unused for a couple of decades. Good luck with that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
because from where I'm sitting at it's not. The free market has nothing to do with our transportation system. Our roads were built with tax payer dollars, oil is secured with our military and it's production heavily subsidized. Even the suburbs are heavily subsidized (the expensive part of prepping the land, running gas, water & electric is all done by the gov't. That's the big reason housing isn't affordable anymore, we stopped doing that in the late 90s).
The difference is that public transport isn't nearly as big a cash cow for mega corps as our system of roads.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They only come down because they are so damn high. Still the 2nd highest in the world fucker.
You aren't doing the right thing. You are 2nd highest in the world despite 'decreasing'
I only murdered 23 babies this year, I'm getting better....
The US puts out more than the entire EU combined. Throw in Canada and Australia as well.
Now I know, some of the rest of us now do too.
BTW, I am not against practical nuclear power and I'm heavily pro-research.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You forgot the key ingredient, money.
Who is going to pay for all this new farmland?
Blue staters obviously. How many farmers do you know who could sell their now worthless farm, for pennies, and afford a similar sized farm in another state. That just happens to be what everyone else is trying to do.
It's not the same situation at all.
So you are claiming socialism is the same as capitalism, and that's why you are so against socialism...
Let me guess you're a scientist...
is that you Lynnwood troller ?
You crazy Americans need to get over your love affair with coal.
Dam your rivers. Build your nuclear plants. Supplement both with solar and wind arrays. Stop listening to your NIMBY's. Use modern technology for goodness sake.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife