Author Topic: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100  (Read 715 times)

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 648
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Full disclosure, I don't actually like CAFE, and I would much rather have a carbon tax. That said, WTF? The Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100 and the plan is to do absolutely nothing about it.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7182
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2018, 11:02:42 PM »
You live in Washington State and you want a carbon tax?  You're in luck!

You can vote for one this November!

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/washington-state-carbon-tax/567523/

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3283
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2018, 07:57:26 AM »
Itís the perfect Trump administration response:

Yup, your GOP friends have been lying to you all along, suckers. Climate change is real, and itís catastrophic, and itís probably even worse than we thought.

But weíre old white dudes, and all of our buddies are profiting from the status quo. We donít give a shit. So, just so weíre clear on that.  Fuck you and your descendants. We got ours.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 07:59:57 AM by Kris »

sixwings

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2018, 08:02:50 AM »
Yeah that's the thing, the really rich people don't care, they will be fine. everyone else is screwed. An increase in temp like that means a total and complete ecosystem and food chain collapse globally.

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 648
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2018, 09:29:01 AM »
You can vote for one this November!

I will! But I doubt that it will pass.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7182
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2018, 09:54:16 AM »
An increase in temp like that means a total and complete ecosystem and food chain collapse globally.

Psshaw, what's a little food chain collapse when you're rich?

People like Trump are betting they can buy their way out of whatever problems they've created for the rest of us.  With enough money, you can pay people to farm for you personally, like old feudal lords. 

You can vote for one this November!

I will! But I doubt that it will pass.

Hard to tell.  The previous carbon tax bill from 2016 got zero support from Republicans despite being a purely conservative idea.  The new version is pretty far left for the US, linking carbon pricing to social justice issues, but since the bipartisan approach failed so miserably I'm happy to support an effort that doesn't rely on the votes of people who think climate change is a hoax.  I figure it's worth a shot.  I intend to vote for it.

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 648
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2018, 10:17:31 AM »
You can vote for one this November!

I will! But I doubt that it will pass.

Hard to tell.  The previous carbon tax bill from 2016 got zero support from Republicans despite being a purely conservative idea.  The new version is pretty far left for the US, linking carbon pricing to social justice issues, but since the bipartisan approach failed so miserably I'm happy to support an effort that doesn't rely on the votes of people who think climate change is a hoax.  I figure it's worth a shot.  I intend to vote for it.

All the real conservatives are dead. A revenue neutral carbon tax is the most conservative policy you could possibly have, completely consistent with capitalist principles. Don't get me started.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 10:19:19 AM by PDXTabs »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7182
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2018, 10:34:31 AM »
All the real conservatives are dead. A revenue neutral carbon tax is the most conservative policy you could possibly have, completely consistent with capitalist principles. Don't get me started.

Is it possible that "conservative" politicians aren't actually motivated by "conservative" economic policies at all? 

You couldn't possibly be alleging hypocrisy in politics, could you?

I-732 was uniformly opposed by conservative politicians in 2016, and didn't get enough support from liberal politicians because it didn't pander to their base.  It failed.  I-1631 is pandering to that base in a big way, and will get exactly as many votes from conservatives as did I-732.  Maybe it will pick up some of those liberal votes that didn't support it last time?  It certainly can't do any worse that 732 did, IMO.  I think there's a reasonable chance it will pass, in no small part because of unified opposition to all things Trump.

That would be a great irony, in the end, if after decades of carefully balanced non-progress on climate issues, a hard right turn under Trump was what finally galvanized Americans to right their ship.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2018, 11:22:00 AM »
I expect the 7 degree estimate to be revised soon after the science policy advisor is removed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/climate/epa-science-adviser.html

I mean, why should a fundamentally technical agency use science?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11805
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2018, 12:10:12 PM »
I expect the 7 degree estimate to be revised soon after the science policy advisor is removed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/climate/epa-science-adviser.html

I mean, why should a fundamentally technical agency use science?

It's not fair for government agencies to use science.  Science is the objective observation of reality, and reality has a well known liberal bias.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2811
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2018, 01:03:25 PM »
Quote
A rise of seven degrees Fahrenheit, or about four degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planetís fate is already sealed.

I'd happily vote for a carbon tax (although unfortunately I don't live in a state where one is on the ballot). But in my own personal life I've started to assume that the bolded sentence is correct and we are, in fact, too late. Miami may well be a lost cause. NYC probably should be as well, but there may be enough money and political clout in the city to build the giant series of earthworks necessary to defend the city from rising ocean levels. (Miami is built on porous limestone, so the water comes up through the ground even if you prevent it from flowing over the surface.)

In the USA we have a fair bit more buffer against a food chain collapse than most parts of the world. It essentially comes from three sources:

1) Biofuels production. There are a lot of things not to like about the US ethanol industry, but in a true worldwide famine we could increase the amount of corn available to feed americans by 2/3rds by shutting down all ethanol production by government mandate. Without ethanol, that extra corn would never be planted in the first place, so we'd have at least a one year lag to bring extra food production online.

2) Food exports. Nationally we send about half our wheat crop overseas each year and about 40% of our soybean crop. In a worldwide famine, countries get protectionist about keeping food inside the country real fast (see the spike in rice prices in 2008 and how many rice growing countries in Asia reacted to it). Note that, unlike #1 which actually causes more food to be available, this option reduces hunger and suffering in the USA but only by increasing it elsewhere in the world.

3) Eating lower on the food chain. Some of the food fed to cows and almost everything fed to pigs can also be eaten by humans directly. Eating what the pig would have eaten instead of eating the pig itself lets the same amount of food go 5-8x as far. In the USA we eat about 100 kg of meat per person per year (270k calories/year or about one third of the 730k calories/year a person needs). And unlike the EU, where meat consumption is also high, the vast majority of the meat americans eat is domestically produced from animals raised on domestically grown feed. Dramatically cutting back on meat production in a crisis would increase the total calorie supply in the country by about 150% (assuming a 5x multiple between the calorie value of the food the animal eats and the calorie value of the animal). However, based on historical data, people don't make this shift in diet until they literally cannot afford to continue with their previous diets, so I would imagine #3 will be the last of the three to kick in.

But none of this is meant to discount just how much human suffering and death throughout the world is now essentially baked into our future. Nor is it meant to imply that things won't also get quite bad right here in the USA.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7182
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2018, 01:16:33 PM »
However, based on historical data, people don't make this shift in diet until they literally cannot afford to continue with their previous diets

Unfortunately, all of the people making the decisions about how the nation responds to climate change can afford to continue with their previous diets pretty much indefinitely.  Trump does not care if beef becomes 10x more expensive, he is still going to eat hamburgers. 

It's the poor folk who will struggle and starve, as always.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2811
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2018, 01:28:56 PM »
However, based on historical data, people don't make this shift in diet until they literally cannot afford to continue with their previous diets

Unfortunately, all of the people making the decisions about how the nation responds to climate change can afford to continue with their previous diets pretty much indefinitely.  Trump does not care if beef becomes 10x more expensive, he is still going to eat hamburgers. 

It's the poor folk who will struggle and starve, as always.

If (when?) the price of beef increases 10x (and it very plausibly might), most people will be eating a lot less meat and the supply of grain and beans for human consumption will increase as a result. All without any particular person having to make a decision about how the nation is going to response to the food crisis.

I have no doubt that the elites will still be eating hamburgers and steaks one way or another (just as we see in Venezuela as the poor are starving and the vast majority of the country doesn't have enough to eat to avoid losing weight), but the food consumption patterns of the top 1% of the country don't have a meaningful impact on food prices or the food supply fr the nation as a whole.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7182
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2018, 02:15:47 PM »
the food consumption patterns of the top 1% of the country don't have a meaningful impact on food prices or the food supply fr the nation as a whole.

I wasn't clear.  I didn't mean that the rich control food pricing, I meant that the rich control our nation's climate policy.

sixwings

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2018, 02:58:22 PM »
Quote
A rise of seven degrees Fahrenheit, or about four degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planetís fate is already sealed.

I'd happily vote for a carbon tax (although unfortunately I don't live in a state where one is on the ballot). But in my own personal life I've started to assume that the bolded sentence is correct and we are, in fact, too late. Miami may well be a lost cause. NYC probably should be as well, but there may be enough money and political clout in the city to build the giant series of earthworks necessary to defend the city from rising ocean levels. (Miami is built on porous limestone, so the water comes up through the ground even if you prevent it from flowing over the surface.)

In the USA we have a fair bit more buffer against a food chain collapse than most parts of the world. It essentially comes from three sources:

1) Biofuels production. There are a lot of things not to like about the US ethanol industry, but in a true worldwide famine we could increase the amount of corn available to feed americans by 2/3rds by shutting down all ethanol production by government mandate. Without ethanol, that extra corn would never be planted in the first place, so we'd have at least a one year lag to bring extra food production online.

2) Food exports. Nationally we send about half our wheat crop overseas each year and about 40% of our soybean crop. In a worldwide famine, countries get protectionist about keeping food inside the country real fast (see the spike in rice prices in 2008 and how many rice growing countries in Asia reacted to it). Note that, unlike #1 which actually causes more food to be available, this option reduces hunger and suffering in the USA but only by increasing it elsewhere in the world.

3) Eating lower on the food chain. Some of the food fed to cows and almost everything fed to pigs can also be eaten by humans directly. Eating what the pig would have eaten instead of eating the pig itself lets the same amount of food go 5-8x as far. In the USA we eat about 100 kg of meat per person per year (270k calories/year or about one third of the 730k calories/year a person needs). And unlike the EU, where meat consumption is also high, the vast majority of the meat americans eat is domestically produced from animals raised on domestically grown feed. Dramatically cutting back on meat production in a crisis would increase the total calorie supply in the country by about 150% (assuming a 5x multiple between the calorie value of the food the animal eats and the calorie value of the animal). However, based on historical data, people don't make this shift in diet until they literally cannot afford to continue with their previous diets, so I would imagine #3 will be the last of the three to kick in.

But none of this is meant to discount just how much human suffering and death throughout the world is now essentially baked into our future. Nor is it meant to imply that things won't also get quite bad right here in the USA.

These are under the assumption that large parts of the USA that is currently farmland will continue to be farmland, which may not be the case. Also with increased storm intensity and unpredictability it may be a lot more difficult to grow crops in the future.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/how-to-live-with-it/crops.html

Many people in the south are going to have major issues and push north to the border.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2811
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2018, 03:06:16 PM »
Gotcha. Yes, that is probably in large part why no one in power was willing to take the needed action a decade ago (combined is a tragedy of the commons problem with individual country's incentives to reduce carbon emissions). Still, I'm not entirely confident life will actually be all the comfortable for the american and global elites in coming decades.

While wealth certainly has an insulating effect from the direct consequences of increases in food prices, the direct consequences can get very messy for people in power. In 2010, we had major droughts in Russia, the Ukraine, Argentina, and China at the same time excessive rain damaged crops in Canada, Australia, and Brazil. Prices of staple foods doubled around the world, and in some of the most food insecure parts of the world, (the middle east and africa) people took to the streets, rioted, and ultimately the regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya were overthrown, and a civil war in Syria kicked off that is still going on today.

Now the average Egyptian was already spending 40% of their income on food so a 2x increase in the cost of wheat immediately put them in an untenable position. The average american is spending about 13% of their post-tax income on food, and a lot of what we call "food" spending is actually spent on paying for restaurant service rather than food itself. So while it took a 2x spike to bring down regimes in the middle east, it might take a 5x or 10x or even 20x increase food prices before we'd react the same way.

But once people cannot feed themselves or feed their children, sooner or later you get a French Revolution. And that not a good outcome for the people in power, even if they don't miss a lot of meals right up until the guillotines come out.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2811
Re: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2018, 03:11:29 PM »
These are under the assumption that large parts of the USA that is currently farmland will continue to be farmland, which may not be the case. Also with increased storm intensity and unpredictability it may be a lot more difficult to grow crops in the future.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/how-to-live-with-it/crops.html

Many people in the south are going to have major issues and push north to the border.

Not necessarily. Let's say that changes in weather patterns cut current crop yields per acre by 50% and make 50% of the land currently farmed no longer viable. If all three of those sources of "buffer" in the US food supply mean we're currently growing 4x as many calories as we need to feed our population, after two sequential 50% hits in food production we'd be producing 1/4 as much food and have just enough calories to scrape by. Without those sources of buffer, we'd only be able to feed 1/4th as many people, resulting in mass starvation. If things get even worse, you may still have significant starvation, but it'll still be a lot less than you'd have had in the absence of those sources of buffer.

TL;DR version: no matter how bad things get, you're better off if you started out with a large surplus than with barely enough.