Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Jo498]

That the earth was warmer in the past is a moot point. Of course it was. Even with global warming we will still be in a "cold" period in geological terms as long as the polar ice caps remain. But most of the US gulf coast, half of the Netherlands or Bangladesh becoming inundated, most of the US southwest and parts of California completely unable to sustain even a fraction of the current population due to drought etc. would have an impact exceeding World War III. (And southern Siberia or so becoming the world's breadbasket would also be non-negligible for such a devastated world.)
I am looking forward (I might be too old to live to see it, though) to when the ones now "coldly" balancing risks and changes of climate change and claiming it might be beneficial overall (and that of course the benefits of wasting fuel and poisoning the world for our current level of luxurious life in the west tops everything else) to keep telling this to 50 Million displaced Americans because of floods in the gulf regions and SW desertification...

[The new erato]

Not to mention what will happen when the already dry parts of Africa and the Middle east becomes even less hospitable to those already living there....

[Madiel]

Well, for starters there's some reasonable evidence that the Syrian civil war was triggered by a massive drought.

[Karl Henning]

. . . and I can show you how to spend all the money you want without draining your bank account.

That would be really, really useful!

[Florestan]

Okay, fine then. Pumping millions of tonnes of gases into the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever. Not only are they invisible, they're completely inert and have no physical or chemical properties of interest or relevance. They might as well not exist.

Also, you can eat as many calories as you want with no impact on your weight and I can show you how to spend all the money you want without draining your bank account.

If you address all the above as an oblique criticism of my previous comment, then you are criticizing a non sequitur: I have previously stated in plain English that anyone whio denies global warming is either an idiot or has vested interests in doing so. (Search GMG if in doubt)

Regardless, it is an objectively verifiable fact that physicists were confidently telling people that the key points of physics were settled, and at the time they were just filling out the details, just a few years before Max Planck came up with the quantum theory and blew their whole settled physics up.

And regardless still, if it were true that the key points of science are settled, and now [the scientists] are just filling out the details --- then it would amount to declaring that in a few years / decades time scientists will have reached the absolute limit of knowledge and there will be nothing more to be known besides what we already know, except a few details here and there. And here we go again, pointing back at the time when the physicists were confidently telling people that the key points of physics were settled, and they were just filling out the details, just a few years before Max Planck came up with the quantum theory and blew their whole settled physics up.

Once upon a time, there was a guy who stated "I know that I don´t know anything." Nowadays, there are a lot of guys who state "I know that I know everything."  Pick your choice, gentlemen!

[Madiel]

I know how science works, and how nothing is ever truly settled. It's all only as valid as the next contrary result.

The problem is you are utterly muddying the waters by bringing this up now, in this context. And in fact, despite your assertion that it is idiotic to deny global warming, it is exactly this kind of comment about science that gives validation to the idiots who deny global warming, and who don't understand how the scientific method works.

Quantum physics is not exactly the most useful comparison to something as practically oriented as climate science. For all practical purposes, the scientific consensus is in as you yourself agree. When I talk about filling in the details, there are a colossal number of 'details' to fill in. But by piping up with comments like yours, you're not helping the political debate about global warming in the slightest.

Okay?

[Florestan]

I know how science works, and how nothing is ever truly settled.

I didn´t expect otherwise.

The problem is you are utterly muddying the waters by bringing this up now, in this context.

Do you imply that there is a now and a context for truth? Do you imply that there are truths which it is inconvenient to state now and in this context?

And in fact, despite your assertion that it is idiotic to deny global warming, it is exactly this kind of comment about science that gives validation to the idiots who deny global warming, and who don't understand how the scientific method works.

If my stating that two plus two equals four would result in someoone being put to death, should I refrain from stating that two plus two equals four?

you're not helping the political debate about global warming in the slightest.

I am not in the slightest interested in helping the political debate. What I am interested in is the purely scientific debate --- which is far from being settled.

Okay?

Fine with me, anyway. 

[Todd]

The description of how the government spends money into existence should not be confused with what is called Fed "printing".

Even in an MMT world, governments simply can't "spend".  They must spend money.  That money need not be printed.  (Economists have long defined the money supply in a variety of ways, and literally no economist on earth confuses printed currency with the broader concept of money.)  But that money must come from somewhere.  Where it comes from is replacing open market operations by the treasury (ie, selling debt on the open market) with direct bond sales to the central bank.  In its simplest form, in the US, MMTers want the Fed to keep doing what it has been doing since 2008 forever.  What can go wrong?  Well, if you listen to MMTers, nothing!  If this sounds like one of those too good to be true things, it is.

[Todd]

Quoted for truth.

Let's assume the science is settled.  The politics is not.  That's practically far more important. 

The big problem is that, using IPCC estimates, the long-term sustainable per capita carbon emissions per year is around two tons.  Even in France, that will necessitate a 2/3rds decrease in carbon emissions per person.  In the US, that requires a 90% decrease.  Since there is an exceptionally strong correlation between carbon emissions and income and wealth, drastic reduction in measurable carbon emissions necessarily requires a reduction in income and wealth.  (This assumes, of course, that policy makers would attempt a somewhat egalitarian set of policies that would distribute carbon emissions more equally around the globe.)  Now, replacing fossil fuel as the main source of energy production will help to mitigate a decrease in income and wealth, but with existing technologies, and those on the drawing board, it will not offset the decrease.  Politicians need to be clear that significantly reducing carbon emissions to stop anthropogenic climate change will necessarily require the rich modern world becoming significantly poorer.  No one wants to do that.  Often, politicians will say the opposite.  They will say if only we switch to solar power and make a few, minor lifestyle changes, we can continue to be fat and happy and meet desirable CO2 emission goals, among other goals.  We can have our cake and eat it, too.

But it's already too late.  There are measures being taken by some countries and entities to mitigate climate change, but the measures are not enough to reach the IPCC's stated goals, let alone to prevent the most alarmist scientists' prognostications of doom.  So we, meaning the world's population, are in a situation where policy trade-offs must be made between mitigation and adaptation, and we will witness some worsening scenarios throughout the world.  The Maldives will literally cease to exist, possibly in my lifetime.  Millions will die in poorer coastal areas and other areas hit by shifting climate patterns.  To be sure, heroic efforts will (and should) be undertaken to save lives and to adapt, but it's already too late to stop significant changes.  Wars will be fought over water; migration away from environmentally devastated areas will increase the world over; sea levels will continue to rise, destroying great cities (but making sea wall contractors rich in the short and medium term!); food prices will rise (this is how most richer people will be directly affected); great storms will wreak havoc; and so on.

But how many people in the rich world are really willing to give up their goodies?  How many people on this very forum own not one internet enabled device, but two, or four, or ten?  How many people in richer countries buy new cellphones every year or two?  Own two, three, four, or more TVs?  Own a car?  Take airplane trips?  Buy 50-100+ CDs a year?  Attend concerts at plush concert halls with comfy environmental controls?  I personally know almost no one who has taken steps to significantly reduce their carbon footprint, and I know of relatively few.  I get it, it's corporations' fault, it's governments' fault.  That makes it easier to gripe about it while typing away on a petrochemical reliant keyboard.

[drogulus]

Even in an MMT world, governments simply can't "spend".  They must spend money.  That money need not be printed.  (Economists have long defined the money supply in a variety of ways, and literally no economist on earth confuses printed currency with the broader concept of money.)  But that money must come from somewhere.  Where it comes from is replacing open market operations by the treasury (ie, selling debt on the open market) with direct bond sales to the central bank.  In its simplest form, in the US, MMTers want the Fed to keep doing what it has been doing since 2008 forever.  What can go wrong?  Well, if you listen to MMTers, nothing!  If this sounds like one of those too good to be true things, it is.

      I see no reason to think "somewhere" isn't the money sovereign spending more than it taxes. The government must spend dollars, then they can be the national savings/debt. The bonds are a monetary, not fiscal requirement. Having spent new dollars to cover the savings loss to the economy, dollar savings instruments equal to the deficit are needed. The economy wants liquid, safe savings in dollar instruments. This used to be a way to avoid paying gold, now that's gone. Providing safe savings is still here.

      What can go wrong is an interesting question. Since MMT is descriptive of operations and draws conclusions known to actual theories, what goes wrong is quite familiar. The government will spend too much or too little for full function. Full function itself is not a matter for dispute, all the measures will tend to cluster.

      Conventional economics is pulled in 2 directions, budget balance and economic balance, spending for full function or spending equal to annual tax removal. The results of this "split the baby" approach are unsatisfactory. My particular interest is in a feature of the spend/tax circuit, and the way budgeteers and even a few economists wish to force the sun to come up.

      What I mean is this: Spending and taxing are governed functionally by the poles of recession and inflation, not hard limits, more a matter of how much punishment and who feels it. The implications for the spend/tax circuit is that what returns as tax will inevitably rise along with spending, and that the time lag determines the effective money supply. Dollars that are spent and not saved, then spent on "exist" in the lag. They are spent into existence as new dollars, fall into savings after doing some work or end life in tax.

      Now we come to the lower life form I call the budgeteer. A budgeteer is someone who acts as though an economy exists to serve a budget, even though it may try to think a budget is merely a tool or record of the financial position, it can't help thinking it's a goal in itself. Budgeteers do not think tax dollars must return according to how the economy is balanced. They don't don't think not that, either. It's more a "something bad will happen" of a monster in the closet kind. Real world good and bad outcomes are already accounted for, so if it's not in the closet it's under the bed. The solution is to force the sun to come up in an annual budget, not outside. It's nuts, tax ought to come back when its best for the economy, but its the only way a budgeteer can understand things.

[Florestan]

Let's assume the science is settled.

Let´s assume ISIS adopt Inagine as their anthem.

The politics is not. 

Nor will it ever be.

That's practically far more important. 

Practically? You kidding, man? The only answer to all questions, from global warming to Brussel islamic terrorist attacks is only one... Inagine (if in doubt about Brussels, Google is your friend)

How many people on this very forum own not one internet enabled device, but two, or four, or ten?  How many people in richer countries buy new cellphones every year or two?  Own two, three, four, or more TVs?  Own a car?  Take airplane trips?  Buy 50-100+ CDs a year?  Attend concerts at plush concert halls with comfy environmental controls?

Ah, yes, the good ol´ rightist, reactionary, conservative, fascist, populist and PiS-ish trick of placing a mirror in front of a caring, loving, bleeding heart liberal cosmopolitan humanist environmentalist ecologist whatever-ist... you, Sir, are a Nazi, by Godwin´s beard! 

I personally know almost no one who has taken steps to significantly reduce their carbon footprint, and I know of relatively few. 

You, Sir, are too stuck in real life --- you should get out more in Neverland!

I get it, it's corporations' fault, it's governments' fault. 

Finally, you´ve seen the light!

[drogulus]

     No doubt there will be successive iterations of the climate change model that will make early efforts look crude. In this familiar way the science is not settled. Models are being refined all the time. What will continue to be true though is that scientists are better judges of the facts and implications of climate change than political operatives that don't accept the best science as guide.

     I differ with oil companies in this respect, that while we accept the science (provisionally, of course), I say so, while oil companies know one thing and say another. They plan for what science tells them (what else could they do?) but they say "science is unsettled" in a way that suggests it's false.

[Todd]

I see no reason to think "somewhere" isn't the money sovereign spending more than it taxes.

That's what most governments do.  It's called deficit financing.  MMT simply bypasses the open market and goes straight to debt monetization.  That's it.  Your writing is abstract to the point of being disconnected from practical reality.  In the context of the US, your abstract notions also fail to account for the appropriations process at the federal level. 

Fortunately, MMT will not be adopted in the US as a result of the 2016 election.  I say let a nation like the UK try it first, especially if it separates from the EU, and see how it goes before committing the US to such a path.

[Florestan]

What will continue to be true though is that scientists are better judges of the facts and implications of climate change than political operatives

That is true.

political operatives that don't accept the best science as guide.

Science is an admittedly objective thing; best science is as subjective as it gets --- what constitutes worst science, pray tell? And why is one good (nay, best) and the other bad (nay, worst)?

IOW, those of you who are professional scientists or engineeers raise your hand.

[Rinaldo]

How many people on this very forum own not one internet enabled device, but two, or four, or ten?  How many people in richer countries buy new cellphones every year or two?  Own two, three, four, or more TVs?  Own a car?  Take airplane trips?  Buy 50-100+ CDs a year?

Ah, yes, the good ol´ rightist, reactionary, conservative, fascist, populist and PiS-ish trick of placing a mirror in front of a caring, loving, bleeding heart liberal cosmopolitan humanist environmentalist ecologist whatever-ist... you, Sir, are a Nazi, by Godwin´s beard! 

Boy, I love it when somebody else pushes his cynicism on me!

I vote for politicians who take science seriously, I vote for parties that push for sustainable, long-term progress. I am more than willing to be taxed more to ensure my grand-grandchildren won't inherit a scorched Earth. I don't have a car, I try to buy local and yeah, I practice thorough waste sorting, which is a hated chore in my household.

Sure, I also fly low-cost. Or use a cellphone. But that doesn't nullify my caring, loving, bleeding heart liberal tendencies at all.

Of course we are already partially screwed and people are already hurting. But the amount of screwage and hurt can be mitigated – and a possible worldwide cataclysm averted, if societies adopt stances, that are, first of all, friggin' sensible.



We don't have to climb back on trees to keep this planet livable for 8+ billion people. We only have to embrace solutions that are already on the table and need a political push to be implemented / strived for. But hey, enjoy your conservative sneering, the future generations will remember it fondly.

[Florestan]

I am more than willing to be taxed more to ensure my grand-grandchildren won't inherit a scorched Earth.

How much are you taxed now? How much are you going to be taxed in the future should the party you vote for have it their way?

I try to buy local

How many times do you succeed?

Sure, I also fly low-cost. Or use a cellphone. But that doesn't nullify my caring, loving, bleeding heart liberal tendencies at all.

Do you really love, and care for, the whole world?

[Todd]

Boy, I love it when somebody else pushes his cynicism on me!

Do you mean like when politicians gathered in Paris and signed a treaty where emission limits are not binding?

But that doesn't nullify my caring, loving, bleeding heart liberal tendencies at all.

It doesn't nullify it, but it shows that you enjoy the carbon emission heavy luxuries of being rich.  Consumption of these products and services must decline.  That means for you, too.

We don't have to climb back on trees to keep this planet livable for 8+ billion people.

Straw man.  No one is claiming that humans must regress to a State of Nature type setting.  However, the rich world must become poorer to achieve the IPCC's preferred goals.  And vast transfers of wealth from the developed world to the developing world must also take place. 

Of course, this does assume that you support the IPCC and its findings and goals.  Do you agree with the IPCC's long-term per capita emission goals?  If you do, and you think it possible that reducing carbon emissions by between 66% and 90% is possible without making people poorer, can you elaborate on how that will work and the timelines needed to achieve it?

[Brian]

Of course, this does assume that you support the IPCC and its findings and goals.  Do you agree with the IPCC's long-term per capita emission goals?  If you do, and you think it possible that reducing carbon emissions by between 66% and 90% is possible without making people poorer, can you elaborate on how that will work and the timelines needed to achieve it?

The stock answer here is "magical science discovery!" I'm not betting on the stock answer.

So we, meaning the world's population, are in a situation where policy trade-offs must be made between mitigation and adaptation, and we will witness some worsening scenarios throughout the world.  The Maldives will literally cease to exist, possibly in my lifetime.  Millions will die in poorer coastal areas and other areas hit by shifting climate patterns.  To be sure, heroic efforts will (and should) be undertaken to save lives and to adapt, but it's already too late to stop significant changes.  Wars will be fought over water; migration away from environmentally devastated areas will increase the world over; sea levels will continue to rise, destroying great cities (but making sea wall contractors rich in the short and medium term!); food prices will rise (this is how most richer people will be directly affected); great storms will wreak havoc; and so on.

The prospect that worries me most, geopolitically, is mass migration. Imagine everyone in Iraq, Jordan, and the whole Arabian peninsula trying to move into Russia, or Europe. In 100 years, even lovable Canada might be an exclusive preserve of wealth with dozens of Donald Trumps vowing to keep oot the flood of Texans, eh?

EDIT: The last bit of which is to remind that even some of the world's wealthiest people - in Texas, Miami, Singapore, Hong Kong, London - will have their lives irrevocably changed, and their ability to live in those places stripped away, by some of the changes that might be happening over the next century.

[Todd]

The stock answer here is "magical science discovery!" I'm not betting on the stock answer.

I am:

The prospect that worries me most, geopolitically, is mass migration.

It's certainly one of the top two or three, at most, biggest concerns for the rest of this century.  (It's hard to rule out nuclear proliferation, but I'm something of an old-fashioned guy in that regard.)  Mass migration will be intensified by the availability of potable water, which risks turning into the next oil, in that wars will increasingly be fought over it.  Mass migration already is leading to political chaos.  Hard to see it getting better.  And it is literally impossible to see any solutions that don't require rich nations spending more money on foreign aid.  Checkbook diplomacy will become more important.  I admit it, accept it, and embrace it.

[Florestan]

The prospect that worries me most, geopolitically, is mass migration. Imagine everyone in Iraq, Jordan, and the whole Arabian peninsula trying to move into Russia, or Europe.

That´s too catastrophic a scenario. Let´s keep it realistic: many in Iraq, Syria, Lybia and  Afghanistan want to move into Europe, and many, many more just do that.

even some of the world's wealthiest people - in Texas, Miami, Singapore, Hong Kong, London - will have their lives irrevocably changed, and their ability to live in those places stripped away, by some of the changes that might be happening over the next century.

True. But some of those in Texas, Miami and London would reap nothing else than what they sowed.