Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

http://www.thenation.com/authors/naomi-klein

in a better world, GOP politicians would be taken to task every day for theirhilarious insane contradicting position RE: climate change and their support for the military. the DoD just released an update to their Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR). the position of the DoD on climate change is unambiguous; the first sentence is "Climate change will affect the Department of Defense's ability to defend the nation and poses immediate risks to U.S. national security." (italics mine)

i don't blame GOP fools for downplaying (aka not mentioning it at all, ever) the DoD's stance on climate change. but it's ridiculous that they're not called out on it more often, considering they support just about everything else the military does. why is it different with climate change? if they don't trust climate scientists and they don't trust "academics" and they don't trust SCIENCE, it seems like one of the next pillars of authority would be the military and religious organizations - both of which recognize climate change and support doing something to mitigate it.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/CCARprint.pdf

maybe now they can't trust the military? the kenyan jihad to weaken america by brainwashing us with climate "science" has infiltrated our armed forces! socialism! impeach!

That's...kinda true. (In re: not trusting the military, or rather, ascribing them to being 'pressured' by politicians who are not themselves. Which oddly enough doesn't seem to apply when they themselves are in charge but hey.)

maybe the core question is Who do republicans still trust?

Big Oil? But even ExxonMobil and Chevron and BP are acknowledging that carbon emissions might have something to do with this thing called climate change, so I guess maybe I should say the Kochtopus instead?

It's an interesting mindset that they have, where they can be so paranoid and apocalyptic about one looming middle- to long-range threat (e.g. debt) but dismiss out of hand another (climate), and by "interesting" I mean depressing, and by "debt" I mean "debt when a Democrat is occupying the White House."

Whoever signs their checks?

So Lockheed Martin is claiming a breakthrough in fusion that could be ready for widespread use in a decade
Might we have a shot at surviving after all?

fusion would be awesome. unfortunately it's been 'a decade away' for the past several decades. also highly unfortunate is that since there is a lengthy 'lag' between GHG emissions and their effect on temperature and sea levels that is decades long. in other words, even if the world miraculously went zero-carbon tomorrow we would still experience increasingly shitty effects of climate change for the next hundred years.

hey guys i dug deep into the synthesis report of IPCC's report, and found something that will absolutely shock you. these "scientists" (taking money from the envirofascist money machine, in many cases), buried information on the costs of mitigating climate change. see pg. SPM-17 in the report if you want to see for yourself, but let me warn you: bring along a roll of paper towels because you will feel unclean and nasty after you fully understand the economic implications of taking strong enough action on climate change to keep overall warming under 2 degrees celsius through the 21st century. Here we go. deep breath. it would require:

an annualized reduction of consumption growth by 0.04 to 0.14 (median: 0.06) percentage points over the century relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6 percent and 3 percent per year (high confidence).

you can't fool me with fancy numbers, envirofascists! i translated the figures into a handy chart, using a starting point of $85 trillion for today's Global World Product, 2.3% for annualized growth under the baseline scenario (halfway between their high confidence range marks) and 2.24% for annualized growth under the aggressive action mitigation strategy (the baseline rate of 2.3% minus the median 0.06 reduction of consumption growth).

take a look at the end of the world:

http://i.imgur.com/QhkozU6.jpg

let me summarize the the summary report of a giant group of climate scientists summarizing the reports of other people who have summarized reports: if we take the kind of action we need to take, right now, to keep 21st century warming at levels that are not catastrophic, it's going to make the overall Global World Product move from that upper line to the lower line.

WE CAN'T LET THIS STAND

What ~AGENDA 21~ doesn't want you to see!!!!111!

that $30 trillion gap at 2100...just think of all the megaspaceyachts that won't be built, all the extra caviar that will not be ordered, the 6th floor second penthouse that won't even be considered by rich people sitting in their primary penthouse..it's just fucking sad

Not to mention the price of caviar would likely shoot up catastrophically by that point!

That $30 trillion gap is irrelevant after the financial structure readjusts to a world that is uninsurable and unaffordable.

good LORD some depressing stuff is coming out on insideEPA (paywalled, sorry). some background, as quickly as possible: the proposed EPA rule on regulating greenhouse gases from existing power plants (as opposed to the rule on future power plants, which has already been implemented) depends heavily on active participation from states. the rule was developed with flexibility in mind. each state is given an annual rate-based target of greenhouse gas emissions - expressed as pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. each state is then required to come up with their own plan (the State Implementation Plan or SIP) to meet the target, whether that's through using more renewable energy, energy efficiency measures, more natural gas (BARF....BAAAAAAARRFF. ahem, sorry) or improving generation efficiency at coal plants. if states don't develop a plan on time, EPA has to issue a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) - basically, doing the state's work for them - which is bad news because states (presumably) should be best suited to come up with plans that meet their own unique conditions and needs.

it shouldn't be a surprise that an influential GOP memo is circulating that advises GOP-dominated states to completely ignore the requirement for states to come up with their own plan, en masse, and just force EPA to create plans for each state. the memo's reasoning is that 1) states that develop their own SIPs are essentially supporting the administration and the GHG rule and degrades GOP politicians' ability to argue against it, 2) if dozens of states refuse to come up with SIPs, EPA won't have the resources to create plans for all of them in time, and 3) EPA will have less power and flexibility in designing plans for states than states would have if they created their own plans.

eh, this stuff is kind of in the weeds, i guess. but it's an absolute disaster, writing's on the wall. the painful irony with all of this is unbelievable. obamacare, and now EPA GHG rules - based on ideas that were originally developed BY CONSERVATIVES, going out of the way to provide states with the ability to take control rather than the federal government, and then dealt punishing blows by conservatives that express their opposition to ideas by doing everything possible to undercut their success through nonparticipation.

and what's hilarious is that the end of the memo provides a few results from a survey that the consulting firm performed, and one of the things they highlight is that people greatly prefer states to decide how electricity generation is performed, rather than the federal government. IN THE SAME MEMO HE BEGS STATES TO FORFEIT THEIR ABILITY TO DECIDE HOW ELECTRICITY GENERATION IS PERFORMED IN EXCHANGE FOR TEMPORARY POLITICAL GAIN

Were you starting off the week happy and encouraged? Let me ruin it for you...

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/e2-wire/223398-senate-gop-steeling-for-battle-against-the-epa

Senate Republicans are gearing up for a war against the Obama administration’s environmental rules, identifying them as a top target when they take control in January.

The GOP sees the midterm elections as a mandate to roll back rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies, with Republicans citing regulatory costs they say cripple the economy and skepticism about the cause of climate change.

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) identified his top priority come January as “to try to do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in.”

McConnell made his defense of coal, a major piece of Kentucky’s economy, a highlight of his reelection bid, which he won easily over Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes.

He said he feels a “deep responsibility” to stop the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, as it proposed to do in January for newly built generators and in June for existing ones.

But those are far from the only rules the GOP wants to target.

Republican lawmakers are planning an all-out assault on Obama’s environmental agenda, including rules on mercury and other air toxics from power plants, limits on ground-level ozone that causes smog, mountaintop mining restrictions and the EPA’s attempt to redefine its jurisdiction over streams and ponds.

The Interior Department is also in the crosshairs, with rules due to come soon on hydraulic fracturing on public land and protecting streams from mining waste.

Republicans citing regulatory costs they say cripple the economy

if the EPA hadn't been all over Bear Stearns' case, inhibiting their free market creativity with environmental regulations, the CDO bubble would never have burst, AIG would be riding just as high today as in 2007, and half a dozen of the biggest US banks that went belly up would still be solvent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/world/asia/china-us-xi-obama-apec.html

China and the United States made common cause on Wednesday against the threat of climate change, staking out an ambitious joint plan to curb carbon emissions as a way to spur nations around the world to make their own cuts in greenhouse gases.

The landmark agreement, jointly announced here by President Obama and President Xi Jinping, includes new targets for carbon emissions reductions by the United States and a first-ever commitment by China to stop its emissions from growing by 2030.

Administration officials said the agreement, which was worked out quietly between the United States and China over nine months and included a letter from Mr. Obama to Mr. Xi proposing a joint approach, could galvanize efforts to negotiate a new global climate agreement by 2015.

i'm sure we'll still all die of hunger in 40 years, but this seems like good news.

inhofe is taking over for boxer? just shoot me.

ALEC has drafted model legislation to eliminate the EPA over a period of 5 years, replacing it with a committee of a rotating cast of 300 state environmental officials (6 per state). ALEC members will consider adopting it during their annual meeting in early December in DC.

haha

they propose replacing the 15,000 EPA employees with 300 people on a committee, which would result in a lowering of the EPA budget from ~8.2 billion to 2.0 billion. 2 billion for 300 committee member comes out to 6.66666666666666 million per committee member.

(i know, i know, they would propose paying the committee members a reasonable amount (not a devil amount) and then spend the rest on contractors)

Every future post to this thread should be preceded by this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2BNmn8TYdE

the proposal/memo is behind a paywall but goddamn it is hilarious and terrifying. The series of "WHEREAS" is just fucking incredible.

lol @ breathtaking "WHEREAS" series

have you seen it? it's just unbelievable.

sorry, no, i was just not paying attention / thinking of "in general". can you link to it? i can probably get through and it would be fun to take a look.

it's on insideepa which is paywalled, and i don't want to post too much of it here or some shady character will murder me in my sleep. but here's two representative WHEREASes:

WHEREAS, 3nvironmental quality is a demand of all 4mericans, but environmental problems, where they remain, vary in type and s3verity, and the best, least costly solutions are l1kely to be found more quickly with experimentation, innovation, and competition between st4te agencies working with industry c0unterparts than in a highly-bureaucratic, centralized, environmental agency in Washington, D.C., f4r removed from the day-to-day problems and 1ssues confronting disparate state and r3gional populations;

(ah, i see, they really care about the environment, but believe that the environment would be best served in a decentralized fashion led by the states (which aren't bureacratic at all! teeheeeeheeeeeee!! sorry.) disagree but at least that's you know, an opinion)

WHEREAS, r3cent and recently proposed regulations and rules including but not limited t0: new Ozone standards, the Cr0ss-State Air Pollution Rule, the proposed carbon dioxide standards for new and 3xisting power plants, new and unreasonably stringent short-term ambient air quality
standards for n1trogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, new rules targeting c0al-fired boilers such as Bo1ler MACT, new rules targeting stationary internal c0mbustion engines, and the new WOTUS rule all c0me with huge costs, but there is no 3vidence that they will provide any measurable
benefit to human health, qual1ty of life, or the environment;

(oh, i see. ALEC's view of environmental policy is so cutting edge that they don't see any evidence that improving air quality standards for NOx and SOx would provide any measure benefit to health. and regulating CO2 from power plants? nah, that won't help humans any. nope)

why is there no liberal equivalent to ALEC

that would be socialism

thanks for the sample k4rl

70 inches of snow today in buffalo. take that, libtardos!

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/google-engineers-explain-why-they-stopped-rd-in-renewable-energy

they get slammed pretty hard in the comments, I was amused

there are liberal think thanks that draft model legislation, maybe not as brazenly as ALEC though. and they don't have a fraction of the influence.

(reply to Οὖτις)

i don't think the fact that ALEC drafts model legislation is so bad. the main problem is how awful that legislation is, and how readily state legislators will put their names to it.

i mean if there was a liberal version of ALEC and state legislators made use of its model legislation (adjusting that legislation for the state concerned) i wouldn't complain!

you don't think the relationship between the corporate membership of ALEC and the process ALEC engages in is problematic?

pondering this did get me thinking about the prospect of a national model legislation cooperative, which is sort of a fun idea.

Isn't corporate membership both problematic and a strong reason that ALEC is as powerful as they are?

corporations are people too my friend

a national model legislation cooperative

yeah this would be great

i think it's a neat idea too, but who would cooperate in the cooperative?

Isn't corporate membership both problematic and a strong reason that ALEC is as powerful as they are?

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Karl Malone), Tuesday, December 2, 2014 5:31 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i mean yeah--a comparative cooperative would only be useful if it had muscle. a list the size of OFA's for ex

maybe some primacy of cooperative shares belonging to the experts who'd write the model leg and the remainder & say voting on big picture policy directions could go to the fuller contributing membership

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/12/02/electricity-free-air-conditioner-sends-heat-space/

Idle daydreams of applying this as a geoengineering solution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fossil-fuel-lobbyists-bolstered-by-gop-wins-work-to-curb-environmental-rules/2014/12/07/3ef05bc0-79b9-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html

With support from industry lobbyists, many Republicans are planning to make the Environmental Protection Agency a primary political target, presenting it as a symbol of the kind of big-government philosophy they think can unify social and economic conservatives in opposition.

“There is a palpable anger at the EPA in America,” said Nate Bell, a Republican state legislator from rural Arkansas who championed a measure at the ALEC meeting supporting the replacement of the agency. “Mention them, and you will get laughed out of any coffee shop or feed store in my district.”

on the plus side,

Another proposed resolution would call for abolishing the EPA and replacing it with a committee of state officials. The idea was put aside after some corporate lobbyists cautioned that it could hurt ALEC’s credibility.

looooo

Nevertheless, participants said, the anti-EPA feelings ran so deep at the meeting that an ALEC task force weighing the various proposals agreed to create a “working group” to further consider ways state legislatures could support replacing the federal agency.

oh

i imagine that the rooms where ALEC working groups craft model legislation are filled with deafening piped in moaning and wailing sound effects

Water woes in Lima: A glimpse of our future?

http://roadtoparis.info/top-list/10-climate-change-controversies-now-that-cause-settled/

refreshing to see a list of legitimate climate controversies! thanks for linking to that leee

a dose of rare good news:

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) administration said Wednesday that it will block gas development by hydraulic fracturing, bringing to an end a six-year study process and kicking off what could be years of lawsuits from developers who want to tap rich Marcellus shale deposits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/12/17/cuomo-administration-rules-against-fracking/