Apologies to the eight people who actually read this blog for not writing anything since October. I really have no good excuses. On to the next topic...
I recently read an interesting distinction between the phrases "global warming" and climate change." Global warming is the increase in average global temperature due to humans pouring carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Climate change, on the other hand, is the more localized effect of global warming. Climate change can be any number of things: floods, droughts, heatwaves, cold snaps, rising sea levels, hurricanes, monsoons, changing ocean currents and salt or acid levels, etc. Climate change is the effect of global warming, and that effect will be different around the world.
Will those effects be good or bad? Depends on the place and the nature of the change, but the one thing we can be sure of about ALL of these effects is that they will increase the uncertainty surrounding weather events. We may all take it for granted, but weather predictability is extremely important both to human health and safety, as well as to the global economy. Think of how much the recent snowstorms in the U.S. this winter disrupted the national economy. One recent study estimates close to $1 billion in losses per state where roads become impassable and state governments shut down. When such storms hit regions that are typically unprepared for such weather, the effect is even greater.
Uncertainty is the great scourge here. According to geologists and climatologists, we live in a remarkably stable and predictable climate, and that has contributed to the ability for civilizations to grow and flourish. We know when to plant and harvest crops, we know when to hunt and when to keep warm, and the extremes of either temperature (hot or cold) are historically rarely enough to immediately threaten human life. That's no longer true. Wheat in Russia is devastated one summer, while millions to this day remain homeless in Pakistan due to unprecedented flooding. When these sorts of weather events occur with increasing frequency, how can we build homes and cities near rivers without taking huge risks? How can we be sure that the grain for which we have contracted will be delivered?
Uncertainty increases as risk increases. And risk leads to higher costs. Higher costs lead to less economic productivity, which leads to a decreased standard of living, for both the rich and the poor. We often hear that efforts to reduce global warming cannot interfere with economic growth. But that's the just the thing; stopping global warming, and thereby providing a more stable and predictable environment for our economy, can only help productivity and economic growth. Allowing business as usual will, in the long-run, cripple the growth and welfare of the economy and human civilization, and create significant political and regional unrest. And anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something...like a tank of gasoline.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Republicans and Global Warming
Here is an interesting article from Bill McKibben, Middlebury College Professor and founder of 350.org. McKibben explores the question of why Republicans are so virulently opposed to both the science and solutions surrounding global warming. During this election cycle, fraught with extremist views from Tea Party candidates, more Republicans than ever are denying the science of global warming, despite the overwhelming (and unfortunate) evidence that it exists.
In particular, I love all the accusations of "hoax" and "conspiracy." Such fringe theories are even more tenuous than anti-Semitic Illuminati conspiracy theories. As if thousands of scientists, data stations, studies, reports, physical observations, and the laws of physics themselves were in on it. But these theories don't come from extremist loners sitting in their basements, they come from extremist crackpots sitting in power, or scarily close to it. They also, of course, come from vested interests such as the oil and gas industry. I wonder what they have to gain?
In particular, I love all the accusations of "hoax" and "conspiracy." Such fringe theories are even more tenuous than anti-Semitic Illuminati conspiracy theories. As if thousands of scientists, data stations, studies, reports, physical observations, and the laws of physics themselves were in on it. But these theories don't come from extremist loners sitting in their basements, they come from extremist crackpots sitting in power, or scarily close to it. They also, of course, come from vested interests such as the oil and gas industry. I wonder what they have to gain?
Monday, August 23, 2010
New Yorker Exposes David Koch
In a recent article in the New Yorker, reporter Jane Mayer writes about Koch Industries and the covert, self-interested political operations to simply expand their company's profit margin. Favorite tactics include subverting scientific conclusions, pouring money into supposed "grassroots campaigns" and using heavy handed influence on supposedly independent boards and non-profit groups to control findings, reports, and manipulate decisions. Oh, also stealing from Native Americans.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
The Hypocrisy of the Bush Tax Cuts
Like most of us, the United States owes money, except its debt is a bit larger than ours. About 13 trillion dollars larger. That number is the national debt: the total amount of money that the United States owes to its investors (anyone who has purchased a Treasury bill or a federally-backed bond).
The deficit is something different. It is the difference between money that the U.S. spends in a given year and the money that it takes in from taxes and other sources of revenue in that year. Every year the amount of the deficit gets added to the national debt. If the U.S. spends less money than it takes in, then it has a surplus. The United States had a budget surplus three times under President Clinton. The previous most recent budget surplus occurred 29 years before that.
In 1999 Alan Viard, Senior Economist for the Dallas Federal Reserve, wrote “If current policies are maintained, surpluses are expected to continue for 20 years, completely retiring the outstanding federal debt. However, deficits are expected to reappear after 2020 due to rising Social Security and medical spending.”
So what happened? There is no easy answer of course. September 11th, war, housing bubbles, natural disasters, and the financial crisis all contributed to changing economic conditions that affected U.S. expenditures and revenues. But one of the main reasons was the expiration of an obscure Congressional rule, and the subsequent fiscal irresponsibility of the most recent Bush administration. PAYGO, enacted in 1990 under President H.W. Bush essentially required the government to finance new expenditures with currently available money, instead of borrowing it. It’s a concept with which we are all familiar: use your debit card instead of your credit card. You may get less instant gratification, but you know you won’t go into debt. Plus, you have your whole line of credit available for an emergency.
This rule, along with a booming economy, put our spending in line with income and produced three years of budget surpluses. Then, under the Bush administration, the government decided to cut taxes (a major source of revenue) while increasing spending (example: the pointless war in Iraq). It would be as if you took a pay cut while simultaneously buying a summer home in Maine. Between 2003 and 2007 the national debt increased by over half a trillion dollars each year, and increased over 1 trillion dollars during 2008 (primarily due to the bank bailouts). During the entirety of George W. Bush’s presidency the national debt increased by almost five trillion dollars, and we entered the greatest financial and economic crisis since the great depression.
So let us be clear. In the previous two decades, it has been Democrats, not Republicans, who have handled the nation’s finances better (Credit should go also to George H.W. Bush for enacting PAYGO and raising taxes when necessary). Despite this fact, it has been conservatives who have consistently demanded that the United States reduce its annual budget shortfalls and its national debt, eagerly cutting taxes while refusing to cut costs.
Since the government spent billions upon billions of dollars injecting money into the economy in 2009, Conservatives have been yelling even louder that the country must reign in its ballooning debt. Three times this summer, Senate Republicans blocked legislation that would have provided, among other necessary services, unemployment benefits to Americans who have been out of work for an extended period of time. They voted against it because the spending was not offset (it would have added to the deficit).
Congress has the authority to spend without paying for that spending in emergency situations. One might assume that during a period of 10% unemployment, Republicans might consider extending unemployment benefits an emergency. But no. They continued to block. And here’s the rub: when the highly irresponsible Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the this year, Republicans want to extend all tax cuts, even to the richest Americans who can most afford them without – you guessed it – paying for them. Tax cuts cost money. They mean a significant loss of revenue to the federal government.
This is a black and white situation. Republicans are willing to give tax cuts to the richest Americans, but they are not willing to give even the most basic unemployment benefits to Americans hit hardest by the financial crisis (which was essentially caused by the richest Americans).
The question is, why? Is it an academic difference of opinion about how to best invigorate an economy? Or is it a more self-serving ideological motive to starve the government of resources and revenue, despite the costs to the citizens of this country? I think we already know the answer.
The deficit is something different. It is the difference between money that the U.S. spends in a given year and the money that it takes in from taxes and other sources of revenue in that year. Every year the amount of the deficit gets added to the national debt. If the U.S. spends less money than it takes in, then it has a surplus. The United States had a budget surplus three times under President Clinton. The previous most recent budget surplus occurred 29 years before that.
In 1999 Alan Viard, Senior Economist for the Dallas Federal Reserve, wrote “If current policies are maintained, surpluses are expected to continue for 20 years, completely retiring the outstanding federal debt. However, deficits are expected to reappear after 2020 due to rising Social Security and medical spending.”
So what happened? There is no easy answer of course. September 11th, war, housing bubbles, natural disasters, and the financial crisis all contributed to changing economic conditions that affected U.S. expenditures and revenues. But one of the main reasons was the expiration of an obscure Congressional rule, and the subsequent fiscal irresponsibility of the most recent Bush administration. PAYGO, enacted in 1990 under President H.W. Bush essentially required the government to finance new expenditures with currently available money, instead of borrowing it. It’s a concept with which we are all familiar: use your debit card instead of your credit card. You may get less instant gratification, but you know you won’t go into debt. Plus, you have your whole line of credit available for an emergency.
This rule, along with a booming economy, put our spending in line with income and produced three years of budget surpluses. Then, under the Bush administration, the government decided to cut taxes (a major source of revenue) while increasing spending (example: the pointless war in Iraq). It would be as if you took a pay cut while simultaneously buying a summer home in Maine. Between 2003 and 2007 the national debt increased by over half a trillion dollars each year, and increased over 1 trillion dollars during 2008 (primarily due to the bank bailouts). During the entirety of George W. Bush’s presidency the national debt increased by almost five trillion dollars, and we entered the greatest financial and economic crisis since the great depression.
So let us be clear. In the previous two decades, it has been Democrats, not Republicans, who have handled the nation’s finances better (Credit should go also to George H.W. Bush for enacting PAYGO and raising taxes when necessary). Despite this fact, it has been conservatives who have consistently demanded that the United States reduce its annual budget shortfalls and its national debt, eagerly cutting taxes while refusing to cut costs.
Since the government spent billions upon billions of dollars injecting money into the economy in 2009, Conservatives have been yelling even louder that the country must reign in its ballooning debt. Three times this summer, Senate Republicans blocked legislation that would have provided, among other necessary services, unemployment benefits to Americans who have been out of work for an extended period of time. They voted against it because the spending was not offset (it would have added to the deficit).
Congress has the authority to spend without paying for that spending in emergency situations. One might assume that during a period of 10% unemployment, Republicans might consider extending unemployment benefits an emergency. But no. They continued to block. And here’s the rub: when the highly irresponsible Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the this year, Republicans want to extend all tax cuts, even to the richest Americans who can most afford them without – you guessed it – paying for them. Tax cuts cost money. They mean a significant loss of revenue to the federal government.
This is a black and white situation. Republicans are willing to give tax cuts to the richest Americans, but they are not willing to give even the most basic unemployment benefits to Americans hit hardest by the financial crisis (which was essentially caused by the richest Americans).
The question is, why? Is it an academic difference of opinion about how to best invigorate an economy? Or is it a more self-serving ideological motive to starve the government of resources and revenue, despite the costs to the citizens of this country? I think we already know the answer.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
More Evidence David Koch is Just the Worst
This post on climateprogress.org is further evidence that David Koch, an alumnus of Deerfield Academy (my alma mater) is just about about one of the worst people in America. His interests are entirely self-serving, and his largesse seems to be nothing more than attempt to buy his way into heaven.
Sorry David, even a lifetime of good deeds cannot wash away the sins which you continue to perpetrate on your fellow humans. Deerfield Academy should be ashamed for honoring you so enthusiastically.
Sorry David, even a lifetime of good deeds cannot wash away the sins which you continue to perpetrate on your fellow humans. Deerfield Academy should be ashamed for honoring you so enthusiastically.
Climate Change Skeptics are Just Plain Wrong
For those of you still engaged in the debate over whether climate change is real, here’s some news: the debate’s over, and the climate change skeptics have lost. With apologies for the bluntness, they are simply wrong, and they most likely chose to disagree due to their short-term economic self-interest.
Consider the new study published by William Anderegg of Stanford University in PNAS, the official journal of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Anderegg and his coauthors examined an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers. Their “publication and citation data show that (i) 97-98 percent of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets [of climate change] and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of [climate change] are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.” Seems like a fairly one-sided debate.
But wait, skeptics say, what about that whole Climategate debacle, where stolen e-mails from climate scientists at East Anglia University in Britain supposedly showed climate data manipulation? And what about Michael Mann, the climate scientist from Penn State and the University of Virginia? His research has been under investigation by overzealous political opportunist Ken Cuccinelli (Attorney General of Virginia). These incidents are proof that scientists have been manipulating data and lying about climate change, aren’t they!?
Sorry climate change skeptics, but both accusations have been extensively reviewed and dismissed. In Britain, three official panels found no reason to dispute either the rigor or the honesty of the climate scientists. At Penn State, two panels found Michael Mann not guilty of any scientific wrongdoing.
Subsequent comprehensive reports from the National Academies of Science and the National Research Council have not only confirmed the global consensus on climate change, but also more fully detailed the consequences to the U.S. of a warming planet.
Let us imagine the skeptics have seen the evidence and are convinced. Polls show most Americans both don’t consider climate change a priority, they claim. But is this really true? A new poll and analysis of polling data by Dr. Jonathan Krosnick of Stanford University finds that a large majority of Americans believe climate change is real, is caused by human actions and that the government should actively pursue ways of slowing and reversing climate change.
Krosnick debuted this poll in a recent New York Times op-ed. The most intriguing results came from the state level polls (especially important for senators), where Krosnick finds that majorities in every single state believe climate change is caused by human activity (the majority of states had rates of 80-90 percent). Further, Krosnick found that an astounding 74 percent of Americans support the concept of a cap-and-trade regime to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So why are climate change skeptics so vocal and why are they given a bigger platform than their arguments deserve? Easy: they are most often people with the most to lose if the world shifts away from fossil fuels, and they have lots of money. Companies like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries and others base their entire business model on our dependence on fossil fuels. And they are decidedly more interested in maintaining healthy quarterly profits than in supporting a decades-long global transition that leaves their futures uncertain.
I wish the scientists and experts were wrong. I wish pouring carbon dioxide into our atmosphere had no effect on global temperatures and we could go on merrily burning oil, natural gas and coal. But they are not, and no amount of lobbying, obfuscation or denial will stop the temperature from rising.
The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is overcooked.
Consider the new study published by William Anderegg of Stanford University in PNAS, the official journal of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Anderegg and his coauthors examined an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers. Their “publication and citation data show that (i) 97-98 percent of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets [of climate change] and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of [climate change] are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.” Seems like a fairly one-sided debate.
But wait, skeptics say, what about that whole Climategate debacle, where stolen e-mails from climate scientists at East Anglia University in Britain supposedly showed climate data manipulation? And what about Michael Mann, the climate scientist from Penn State and the University of Virginia? His research has been under investigation by overzealous political opportunist Ken Cuccinelli (Attorney General of Virginia). These incidents are proof that scientists have been manipulating data and lying about climate change, aren’t they!?
Sorry climate change skeptics, but both accusations have been extensively reviewed and dismissed. In Britain, three official panels found no reason to dispute either the rigor or the honesty of the climate scientists. At Penn State, two panels found Michael Mann not guilty of any scientific wrongdoing.
Subsequent comprehensive reports from the National Academies of Science and the National Research Council have not only confirmed the global consensus on climate change, but also more fully detailed the consequences to the U.S. of a warming planet.
Let us imagine the skeptics have seen the evidence and are convinced. Polls show most Americans both don’t consider climate change a priority, they claim. But is this really true? A new poll and analysis of polling data by Dr. Jonathan Krosnick of Stanford University finds that a large majority of Americans believe climate change is real, is caused by human actions and that the government should actively pursue ways of slowing and reversing climate change.
Krosnick debuted this poll in a recent New York Times op-ed. The most intriguing results came from the state level polls (especially important for senators), where Krosnick finds that majorities in every single state believe climate change is caused by human activity (the majority of states had rates of 80-90 percent). Further, Krosnick found that an astounding 74 percent of Americans support the concept of a cap-and-trade regime to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So why are climate change skeptics so vocal and why are they given a bigger platform than their arguments deserve? Easy: they are most often people with the most to lose if the world shifts away from fossil fuels, and they have lots of money. Companies like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries and others base their entire business model on our dependence on fossil fuels. And they are decidedly more interested in maintaining healthy quarterly profits than in supporting a decades-long global transition that leaves their futures uncertain.
I wish the scientists and experts were wrong. I wish pouring carbon dioxide into our atmosphere had no effect on global temperatures and we could go on merrily burning oil, natural gas and coal. But they are not, and no amount of lobbying, obfuscation or denial will stop the temperature from rising.
The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is overcooked.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Conservatism and Climate Change
For those of us who really care about climate change, here’s a question. Why? Why do we want to stop the surface temperature of the earth from warming, the icebergs from melting, sea levels from rising, polar bears from dying, and coral reefs from shrinking? The answer may be less obvious, and less virtuous, than we think.
The earth’s climate has shifted countless times over billions of years in a variety of extreme directions, with a dizzying array of consequences for life on the planet. True, current climate change will negatively affect a multitude of animal and plant life, but it will also positively affect other animal and plant life more suited to the changing global conditions.
Humanity will survive, and the natural world will adapt and reach a new equilibrium. So why do we want to stop these changes? Is it guilt from being the cause? Perhaps it is because the costs are more visible than the benefits. But should we feel guilty? Plant life previously changed our entire atmosphere, introducing large amounts of oxygen for the first time. No doubt some species suffered. Animals flourished. Are plants to blame for those changes?
While guilt may be part of it, I submit that we care most about climate change’s negative impacts on humanity. We mostly like current temperatures, rainfall patterns, sea levels, and plant and animal distributions. We have well-established human patterns (both globally and locally) that depend on a degree of environmental certainty. Our cities are built near water, our crops are sewn where they grow best, and we are dependent on the predictability of a variety of natural cycles. Changing our habits and infrastructure would be incredibly expensive, wildly inconvenient, and would impose a heavy toll on human lives.
This leads me to believe that we are motivated to slow climate change mostly by conservative and selfish impulses. We want things to remain the same, and we don’t want to deal with adapting to change. My point is that stopping climate change is not a moral cause, nor is it an environmental cause, and it need not be in order to feel passionate about it. It is a cause predicated upon the continuity of our physical, cultural, economic, and political preferences. And that is alright.
When it comes to climate change, those of us who want to take action now are the true conservatives. (Note that political conservatives use the exact same argument of preserving opportunity for future generations when they discuss deficit control.) And approaching the issue with that attitude will be incredibly important in marshaling public opinion to inspire our leaders to take action. We must point out that the benefits of stopping climate change outweigh the costs.
Opponents of action raise valid, if shortsighted, points. Slowing and stopping climate change will have short-term consequences. It won’t all be green jobs and windmills overnight. People will lose jobs. Economic growth will slow. Some Western Virginia coal mining towns will become ghost towns.
But we know that the consequences of inaction are far worse than the consequences of action. And we know that once we start changing our ways, eventually the drive of new innovation and human ingenuity will yield a civilization able to sustain itself and live within its means. And the best way we can communicate that is not by talking about polar bears and coral reefs, but by being honest with ourselves and others, being selfish, and speaking the language of conservatism when we talk about climate change.
The earth’s climate has shifted countless times over billions of years in a variety of extreme directions, with a dizzying array of consequences for life on the planet. True, current climate change will negatively affect a multitude of animal and plant life, but it will also positively affect other animal and plant life more suited to the changing global conditions.
Humanity will survive, and the natural world will adapt and reach a new equilibrium. So why do we want to stop these changes? Is it guilt from being the cause? Perhaps it is because the costs are more visible than the benefits. But should we feel guilty? Plant life previously changed our entire atmosphere, introducing large amounts of oxygen for the first time. No doubt some species suffered. Animals flourished. Are plants to blame for those changes?
While guilt may be part of it, I submit that we care most about climate change’s negative impacts on humanity. We mostly like current temperatures, rainfall patterns, sea levels, and plant and animal distributions. We have well-established human patterns (both globally and locally) that depend on a degree of environmental certainty. Our cities are built near water, our crops are sewn where they grow best, and we are dependent on the predictability of a variety of natural cycles. Changing our habits and infrastructure would be incredibly expensive, wildly inconvenient, and would impose a heavy toll on human lives.
This leads me to believe that we are motivated to slow climate change mostly by conservative and selfish impulses. We want things to remain the same, and we don’t want to deal with adapting to change. My point is that stopping climate change is not a moral cause, nor is it an environmental cause, and it need not be in order to feel passionate about it. It is a cause predicated upon the continuity of our physical, cultural, economic, and political preferences. And that is alright.
When it comes to climate change, those of us who want to take action now are the true conservatives. (Note that political conservatives use the exact same argument of preserving opportunity for future generations when they discuss deficit control.) And approaching the issue with that attitude will be incredibly important in marshaling public opinion to inspire our leaders to take action. We must point out that the benefits of stopping climate change outweigh the costs.
Opponents of action raise valid, if shortsighted, points. Slowing and stopping climate change will have short-term consequences. It won’t all be green jobs and windmills overnight. People will lose jobs. Economic growth will slow. Some Western Virginia coal mining towns will become ghost towns.
But we know that the consequences of inaction are far worse than the consequences of action. And we know that once we start changing our ways, eventually the drive of new innovation and human ingenuity will yield a civilization able to sustain itself and live within its means. And the best way we can communicate that is not by talking about polar bears and coral reefs, but by being honest with ourselves and others, being selfish, and speaking the language of conservatism when we talk about climate change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)