rconnor said:
(and to hinge your argument on an unrepeated CATO study is problematic).
ahem...
beej67 8 days ago said:
Throwing a Cato analysis out the window purely because it comes from Cato, when all Cato did in the analysis was run Obama's policies as stated through an EPA climate model as provided, is the very definition of "poisoning the well." It is not logic, it is fallacy.
Period.
so..
rconnor said:
I have to ask if you’ve even read/researched the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (frankly, I’m not sure CATO did either), as the answers are right there in the report. Or is your adamant rejection of the plan purely based off some under-referenced CATO analysis?
My rejection of the "benefits" listed in the EPA fact sheet is based on the glaring omission of how much temperature rise their plan was going to avert, followed closely by the fact that the only people willing to actually do the math on it were Cato, followed closely by the fact that their results, using EPA methodology, showed no effective change in AGW due to the proposed 8 billion dollar policy.
rconnor said:
Your argument continues to miss the point. You, and CATO, are looking at the situation in complete isolation from anything and everything else. In reality, such a vacuum doesn’t exist. Small steps toward emission reductions add up and act as catalysts for further reductions. Both China and India have made statements that they will keep their emissions per capita below the US. Emissions reductions need to start with the developed world first. They’ve started in Europe, now the US is starting to get on board. Once Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumb 2, in Canada and Australia (respectively), get out of office then I’m sure they will catch up. In fact, US action puts even more pressure on them. The path to minimizing the future impacts of climate change are won a ton of carbon at a time.
Last week you were saying that the policy wasn't actually intended to decrease global warming significantly anyway, even though Obama said exactly the opposite of that. This week you're now saying that it will reduce global warming because applying the policy will create some unspecified amount of carbon reduction from some other countries, pending changes within their political leadership.
And how on earth are we supposed to calculate an ROI from that? 8 billion dollars, which will have no effect unless other poorly people do other unspecified things, and that's good policy?
Just for turds and giggles, I pulled up your links. Lots of talk about how much it's going to cost us when the ice caps melt, and no talk about how much ice caps are saved by the 8 billion dollar outlay. Not a chart in there states that 50 billion dollars worth of additional land will be flooded by the 0.02 degree difference between the 8 billion dollar plan and status quo. One neat thing from the second link, though, backs up my premise above. Almost all of the 'savings' they're showing from the 8 billion dollar plan is from claimed healthcare related savings from NOX and SOX reductions. I do find that hard to believe, but even if I were to believe it, then the same savings could equally be had by shifting to cleaner burning fossil fuels, or cleaner methods of burning coal.
rconnor said:
To your specific choice between forest conservation or Clean Power Act, it’s a false choice (GTTofAK, what’s the latin phrase for this one?). They are spending $8 billion on the Clean Power Act to net $66 Billion, it is not that they have $8 Billion burning a hole in their pockets.
1- The money could have been spent elsewhere, therefore it's not a false choice.
2- The reports linked are trash. They're not netting $66 billion by lowering the global temperature 0.02 degrees centigrade. They're claiming a huge net based on reduction of health costs, but anyone who's applied actuarial principles to our health care system knows that that's a horrid way to approach the data. It's as if we can avoid the cost of someone dying from lung cancer, that we'll somehow not ever have to pay for whatever they end up dying from later. When you run the math, smokers actually save the taxpayer money by dying early. The guys who brewed these reports up intentionally avoided certain facts to only gather money from half the story. Or, in the case of claimed "climate benefits," none of the story.
rconnor said:
Forest conservation is incredibly important to minimizing climate change, however reducing coal fired generation is also very important. A clean energy supply means that you can reduce emissions per capita without relying on reductions in consumption. Don’t get me wrong, reductions in consumption are very important but in a capitalist consumption-centric framework, can be difficult to achieve. But again, let me be very clear to you (as we share a lot of common ground), forest conservation is vital. My issue is that you create a false choice between the two. Heck maybe the benefits from the Clean Power Act can be used for forest conservation!
Oh for the love of God and/or Darwin.
In your engineering company, computers are important, and paperclips are important. Each has a function. If you could buy 20 new computers for your company for $500 per computer, or you could by a Golden Paperclip for $10,000, which would you pick? It's not a false choice, it's a real choice. The computers do something, the paperclip does nothing, and they cost the same.
The CO2 reduction does nothing, the conservation does something, and they cost the same.
rconnor said:
Let me also remind you that, in your repeated attempts to bring up this point, all you are actually arguing is that emission reduction initiatives haven’t been strong enough. That makes us strange bedfellows.
I'm absolutely arguing that the emissions reduction initiatives proposed thus far have not been strong enough to achieve your stated goal. I'll go a step further. The insanely draconian ones that only the loonies of people are proposing also will not achieve your stated goal. This is why the anti-carbon crowd never produces a study showing cost-benefit, unless it's completely faked and totally fraudulent, like the ones you linked.
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -
