Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Climate Change "Debate"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Aeson
    replied
    The other area that woukd easily pay it is changes to healthcare. We can have better coverage at about 1/4th to 1/5th the cost either by nationalizing or applying antitrust laws against healthcare providers and drug manufacturers. That would save us something around $400bn a year.

    We currently have the worst aspects of both socialism and privatization in our healthcare system.

    Then all the millions of excess healthcare paper pushers can have jobs planting trees on their own regenerative homesteads that eventually would be profitable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    Originally posted by Aeson View Post

    We can fix the issue with CO2 radiative forcing, keeping us squarely in the holocene. That would likely give us centuries or millenia to figure out what to do about other slower developing or catastrophic random effects.
    I don't know why you think we can do that. You seem to think that if you spend trillions on something you get what you pay for. No. You don't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    Originally posted by Aeson View Post
    So you’re saying 2090 is in 10 years?
    RCP4.5 would lead to about 2.8°C (5°F) warming of global surface temperatures above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100.
    I don’t know why they were talking about 2100, but they were.
    Idk. It's not a good analysis IMO. I threw it up because it was suggested that we start spending hundreds of billions on combating climate change. It's just a reference. Climate change isn't costing that right now. So we need a better analysis.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aeson
    replied
    Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
    And I was only using that study as a reference. Let's say that we dedicate $200b+/yr to combating climate change. They say that's going to save lives. I don't think so. Where is that money coming from? Are you going to cut SS or Medicare? Are you going to add that to the deficit? And you can't just raise taxes without consequences either. Higher taxes reduce economic growth. All of that puts lives at risk. People depend on all of that.
    National defense budget.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aeson
    replied
    Originally posted by Kidicious View Post

    The climate is never going to be FIXED.
    We can fix the issue with CO2 radiative forcing, keeping us squarely in the holocene. That would likely give us centuries or millenia to figure out what to do about other slower developing or catastrophic random effects.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    And I was only using that study as a reference. Let's say that we dedicate $200b+/yr to combating climate change. They say that's going to save lives. I don't think so. Where is that money coming from? Are you going to cut SS or Medicare? Are you going to add that to the deficit? And you can't just raise taxes without consequences either. Higher taxes reduce economic growth. All of that puts lives at risk. People depend on all of that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aeson
    replied
    So you’re saying 2090 is in 10 years?
    RCP4.5 would lead to about 2.8°C (5°F) warming of global surface temperatures above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100.
    I don’t know why they were talking about 2100, but they were.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    Originally posted by Aeson View Post

    You posted the link that put the cost of (a fraction of) climate change damages BY 2100 YOU MORON. I simply addressed your argument.
    The bottom line conclusion: by the year 2090, impacts on those 22 economic sectors in the U.S. would cost about $224 billion more per year if we follow the RCP8.5 pathway than if we achieve the RCP4.5 pathway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    Originally posted by Aeson View Post

    So the sooner we fix the climate the cheaper it will be to do so. Thanks for admitting that.
    The climate is never going to be FIXED.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    Originally posted by Aeson View Post

    Consumption is almost never compounding at 8%
    Um yes it is. When you don't consume you save. Those savings are compounded. Consumption is a choice. When you chose to consume it's because it's more valuable to you than making compound interest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aeson
    replied
    Originally posted by Kidicious View Post

    And for those that have to pay for this that don't invest in stocks it will cost whatever they would consume which is MORE valuable than stocks.
    Consumption is almost never compounding at 8%

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    Originally posted by Aeson View Post

    So what you’re saying is Trumps wall at $10bn + $1bn/y maintenance will cost the US taxpayer $40 trillion by 2150?
    That's still $10b today

    Leave a comment:


  • Aeson
    replied
    Originally posted by Kidicious View Post

    Then why did you start talking about 2100? That's ridiculous. So many things are going to happen before then. Talk to me about 10 years or less.
    You posted the link that put the cost of (a fraction of) climate change damages BY 2100 YOU MORON. I simply addressed your argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    Originally posted by giblets View Post

    Can we take the $100 trillion the US currently has in wealth and have $10 quadrillion in 2100? No, we can't. The output of one worker in 2100 is not equivalent to the output of 100 workers in 2020. That some people who are a small part of the overall economy can get a 6% return on investment until they retire isn't meaningful on the level of an entire society.
    That's not the proper way to look at it. We need to look at it on an individual level because that's where the decision is made. We don't live under monarchy. We have to decide collectively what is best for us individually and what is best for our families. This is what decides elections and policies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    Originally posted by Aeson View Post
    He’s still applying cost of capital and inflation on the cost of addressing climate change, but not on the cost of not addressing climate change. Any damage that happens along the way is compounding as well. It’s not like everything is fine and dandy until we hit 2100.

    And the damage continues to accrue and worsen for centuries or millenia (or until there’s nothing left to damage)

    And of course his own source states it’s only considering a fraction of the total costs.
    Then why did you start talking about 2100? That's ridiculous. So many things are going to happen before then. Talk to me about 10 years or less.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X