Tokyo Is Preparing for Floods ‘Beyond Anything We’ve Seen’(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Tokyo Is Preparing for Floods ‘Beyond Anything We’ve Seen’
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/climate/tokyo-floods.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&rref=climate
222 comments
Also too, of course you should build your "prevent floods from wrecking our shit" system to handle floods "beyond anything we've seen before". Building it to handle less than what you've seen before would be stupid.
> Building it to handle less than what you've seen before would be stupid.
Let me tell a second hand anecdote of a Burmese village.
It was a rather small collection of huts raised on tall poles. But it was a village none the less.
All paths in the village were laid out with a connected mass of wood. Along the path were sticks, rising pretty high up in the air. Somewhere along the top of the sticks were a lot of cuts made out in the wood, at various heights. By a knife or so.
In the dry season, this path laid on the ground to be walked on. You didn't have to walk on it of course, since the surrounding dirt was dry.
In the wet season however, floods often came. And so, they raised the path up along the sticks so that it became a water bridge for when floods came. They raised it to the level of the highest cuts that were made in the sticks. A very reasonable thing to do, in order to connect the village in times of crisis, without using boats.
Interestingly, however was the background of the cuts. Each cut represented a water height that had some time ago been the highest the flood had become. So each season, they only raised the water bridge to the level of the worst flood they had experienced.
They did not have a margin.
While they didn't prepare for less than what they had previously seen, they only prepared for the worst flood in history, and not the worst flood in history + a margin.
Let me tell a second hand anecdote of a Burmese village.
It was a rather small collection of huts raised on tall poles. But it was a village none the less.
All paths in the village were laid out with a connected mass of wood. Along the path were sticks, rising pretty high up in the air. Somewhere along the top of the sticks were a lot of cuts made out in the wood, at various heights. By a knife or so.
In the dry season, this path laid on the ground to be walked on. You didn't have to walk on it of course, since the surrounding dirt was dry.
In the wet season however, floods often came. And so, they raised the path up along the sticks so that it became a water bridge for when floods came. They raised it to the level of the highest cuts that were made in the sticks. A very reasonable thing to do, in order to connect the village in times of crisis, without using boats.
Interestingly, however was the background of the cuts. Each cut represented a water height that had some time ago been the highest the flood had become. So each season, they only raised the water bridge to the level of the worst flood they had experienced.
They did not have a margin.
While they didn't prepare for less than what they had previously seen, they only prepared for the worst flood in history, and not the worst flood in history + a margin.
Probably going over the margin would be a matter of wet feet and moving some bamboo which wouldn't be as big a deal as flooding Tokyo.
Were the flood waters raging? Or placid?
Did they have room on the uprights to tie the cross members higher? Maybe the flood water held the wood up (buoyancy) and the uprights were there as anchors.
How did they raise the wood? I imagine it weighed a lot.
Did they have room on the uprights to tie the cross members higher? Maybe the flood water held the wood up (buoyancy) and the uprights were there as anchors.
How did they raise the wood? I imagine it weighed a lot.
Interesting story. Never knew that and I am a Burmese.
That isn't entirely true. How much is it worth to upgrade from a "once every 500 years" system to a "once every 5000 years" system? If it's more than the expected damages...
Well if my country floods its all over, considering we're under sea level the water may never leave.
And I can imagine Japan doesn't want to risk Tokio.
And I can imagine Japan doesn't want to risk Tokio.
When you start talking truly cataclysmic events, the value of the physical infrastructure at risk will be dwarfed by the human lives. In 2016, the assessed value of all real estate in Manhattan crossed the $1 trillion threshold (which of course leaves out the bridges, the subways, the personal property...) At a value of $9.1 million / life, there are $77.7 trillion worth of humans in New York City.
If there's a natural disaster which would wipe out the population of New York once every 5000 years, we should be willing to spend $15 billion per year to prevent it.
If there's a natural disaster which would wipe out the population of New York once every 5000 years, we should be willing to spend $15 billion per year to prevent it.
This official interview mentions the intended purpose and use over time.
https://www.travel.co.jp/guide/article/5796/
To protect from climate change and the increased risk of flooding.
https://www.travel.co.jp/guide/article/5796/
To protect from climate change and the increased risk of flooding.
Isn't it an agenda to call the consensus reality an "agenda"? I'm not being facetious, but that discourse has fallen the point where simple statements of reality are politicized has dumbed the entire discourse.
I can only speak for myself, but analogously, I have no disagreement when the anti-vaccination contingent paints the rest of us as having an "agenda" when we post stories about horrible flu outbreaks. Herd immunity and total extinction of certain viruses are definitely an "agenda" I will own up to supporting.
[deleted]
Calling it a consensus reality is also showing an agenda - trying to make it sound more certain than it is, which is to push the agenda of saving people from possible harm of future climate change by fooling them into believing it's certain because they're not competent enough to assess the risk of uncertain things. I'm not complaining about trying to do good, but it's not science, it's belief and it might be wrong.
The rest of science doesn't get described so confidently because people don't care if the general public believes it or not. If you're interested in understanding, not politicizing, then it doesn't matter if there's a consensus or not. Look at the history of consensuses about how nature works to see how unhelpful they are at determining what reality is.
The rest of science doesn't get described so confidently because people don't care if the general public believes it or not. If you're interested in understanding, not politicizing, then it doesn't matter if there's a consensus or not. Look at the history of consensuses about how nature works to see how unhelpful they are at determining what reality is.
> The rest of science doesn't get described so confidently
Um what? I feel like you haven't spent 10 minutes in a physics class. As someone who spent many years studying physics, you have to get within range of the quantum level before people in that field start feeling a little shaky in their beliefs.
The history of consensuses? Yes, please, you should do that, because it has gotten us quite far given the constraints of time. There are so many crackpot ideas that are thankfully rarely explored due to consensus.
Um what? I feel like you haven't spent 10 minutes in a physics class. As someone who spent many years studying physics, you have to get within range of the quantum level before people in that field start feeling a little shaky in their beliefs.
The history of consensuses? Yes, please, you should do that, because it has gotten us quite far given the constraints of time. There are so many crackpot ideas that are thankfully rarely explored due to consensus.
Things that were described confidently for centuries (or less):
1. The earth is flat.
2. The sun revolves around the earth.
3. Fire is an element.
4. They have chemical/nuclear weapons.
5. No one can enter the search market; AltaVista owns the market.
6. Pets.com can't fail - look at who is invested and how big is the market.
7. Noone will ever need more than 640K of ram.
8. There is a world market for maybe 5 computers.
Bill Gates denies making that 640K statement, and there's no clear evidence he ever said it:
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/09/08/640k-enough/
There's also no clear evidence that Thomas Watson ever made the world market for five computers statement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_attrib...
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/09/08/640k-enough/
There's also no clear evidence that Thomas Watson ever made the world market for five computers statement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_attrib...
Congrats. You poked a hole in the meta-consensus, proving the point.
You ignore the others, that dogma leads to shallow thinking.
All the world is the blend of chaos and order; acceptance and rejection, yin and yang. Your contribution helps drive the analytical consideration of acceptance or rejection.
You ignore the others, that dogma leads to shallow thinking.
All the world is the blend of chaos and order; acceptance and rejection, yin and yang. Your contribution helps drive the analytical consideration of acceptance or rejection.
I accept that dogma can allow wrong thoughts to persist, to drive criticism underground.
I accept that prevailing scientific/expert opinions can also be right.
I accept that the claim of climate change, if true, would have disastrous consequences on a huge number of human lives, and of course business.
I also accept that I'm not seeing people studying this field denying human caused climate change.
I am not seeing countries other that the U.S, where it has become political, denying climate change.
In fact, I see a larger number of nations in the world agree on something than ANYTHING in human history. These countries have their own scientists.
I can certainly entertain that a few countries might make false claims to push other countries to make bad investments. But you're claiming that a global conspiracy on a literally unprecedented scale is happening and that we should ignore a high consequence concept because a relatively small number of people that happen to come from the single country where it is a political issue and to a dizzying degree come from outside the field say everyone else is wrong?
I'm not a climate scientist. I've done a little digging and have my own guess as to what is likely correct, but frankly my opinion of this is low confidence because I'm so ignorant on the topic. When one side says volcanoes are orders of magnitude less greenhouse gas contributers than humanity, and the other side says the reverse, any decision I make is based other than evidence.
Using the same criteria I use to decide what OTHER scientific advice I follow, I conclude that there is a chance that counter positions to climate change are correct...but is more likely that they are wrong.
High chance of occurrence x high consequence if it happens = you need a lot more evidence than I've seen.
If the history books in 500 years talk about how humanity put forth a lot of effort to stop a calamity at a global scale that turned out to be snake oil, that is still a result preferable than about how people followed dogma that lead them to discount repeated evidence and the millions or billions of people suffered for generations. That might sound like a straw man - i could say that failing to rub my head daily would have disastrous consequences - but when paired with the likelihood that someone on the internet saw through this global hoax, it is part of my reasoning.
May I ask your profession and country of residence?
I accept that prevailing scientific/expert opinions can also be right.
I accept that the claim of climate change, if true, would have disastrous consequences on a huge number of human lives, and of course business.
I also accept that I'm not seeing people studying this field denying human caused climate change.
I am not seeing countries other that the U.S, where it has become political, denying climate change.
In fact, I see a larger number of nations in the world agree on something than ANYTHING in human history. These countries have their own scientists.
I can certainly entertain that a few countries might make false claims to push other countries to make bad investments. But you're claiming that a global conspiracy on a literally unprecedented scale is happening and that we should ignore a high consequence concept because a relatively small number of people that happen to come from the single country where it is a political issue and to a dizzying degree come from outside the field say everyone else is wrong?
I'm not a climate scientist. I've done a little digging and have my own guess as to what is likely correct, but frankly my opinion of this is low confidence because I'm so ignorant on the topic. When one side says volcanoes are orders of magnitude less greenhouse gas contributers than humanity, and the other side says the reverse, any decision I make is based other than evidence.
Using the same criteria I use to decide what OTHER scientific advice I follow, I conclude that there is a chance that counter positions to climate change are correct...but is more likely that they are wrong.
High chance of occurrence x high consequence if it happens = you need a lot more evidence than I've seen.
If the history books in 500 years talk about how humanity put forth a lot of effort to stop a calamity at a global scale that turned out to be snake oil, that is still a result preferable than about how people followed dogma that lead them to discount repeated evidence and the millions or billions of people suffered for generations. That might sound like a straw man - i could say that failing to rub my head daily would have disastrous consequences - but when paired with the likelihood that someone on the internet saw through this global hoax, it is part of my reasoning.
May I ask your profession and country of residence?
"But you're claiming that a global conspiracy on a literally unprecedented scale is happening"
No I'm not actually. What I'm saying is what I said. It was in reference to the ancestral post asserting that arbitrary confidence was being applied to certain statements.
No I'm not actually. What I'm saying is what I said. It was in reference to the ancestral post asserting that arbitrary confidence was being applied to certain statements.
[deleted]
Scientists were widely confident about the correctness of Newton's 2nd law and the universal law of gravitation up till the late 1800s/early 1900s. Then Einstein showed their limitations/incorrectness. You can't look at contemporary modern consensuses because if it's a consensus, it'll look like it's right until the future when/if it's proven wrong.
Philosophy of science says we can't prove theories (of a certain type, which includes most of physics), only disprove them. So there aren't scientific truths, just current best theories.
Many cultures had religious myths about the history of the world which they widely believed.
I'm not saying that people who disagree with the consensus are necessarily right, or even that we should bother to listen to them - just that sometimes they might be so consensus isn't a reason to judge something as true.
Philosophy of science says we can't prove theories (of a certain type, which includes most of physics), only disprove them. So there aren't scientific truths, just current best theories.
Many cultures had religious myths about the history of the world which they widely believed.
I'm not saying that people who disagree with the consensus are necessarily right, or even that we should bother to listen to them - just that sometimes they might be so consensus isn't a reason to judge something as true.
> Scientists were widely confident about the correctness of Newton's 2nd law and the universal law of gravitation up till the late 1800s/early 1900s. Then Einstein showed their limitations/incorrectness.
While Einstein revised them, the Newtonian equations are correct enough that they are still generally used for all kinds of things.
If that the best example you can use to make the argument that the current scientific consensus could be wide off the mark, you've done more to refute your argument than advance it.
While Einstein revised them, the Newtonian equations are correct enough that they are still generally used for all kinds of things.
If that the best example you can use to make the argument that the current scientific consensus could be wide off the mark, you've done more to refute your argument than advance it.
Bloodletting. It's honestly trivial to find examples of where science was wrong. I'm not going to research them for you if you'll make up ad-hoc reasons to reject them.
Obviously I can't give an example of current consensus being likely wrong because if I knew that, scientists would too and it wouldn't be the consensus.
Here's a snarky example though. See if you can find the flaw in it - current consensus among scientists is that you can't prove causation without doing an experiment - in particular you can't prove it using historical data. This is an obstacle to medical research since ethics impedes controlled experiments on people and it's part of why nutrition advice is frequently wrong (there you go for even more examples). But climate scientists have apparently done just that - themselves demonstrating that either the consensus is wrong or they're wrong. Either way, a consensus is wrong.
These are just an arguments to show how wrong consensus can be though - in reality I'm pretty sure that climate scientists don't acutally believe they're right without any doubt. It will be politics and attempts to manipulate people that changes confidence values into supposed certainty.
Obviously I can't give an example of current consensus being likely wrong because if I knew that, scientists would too and it wouldn't be the consensus.
Here's a snarky example though. See if you can find the flaw in it - current consensus among scientists is that you can't prove causation without doing an experiment - in particular you can't prove it using historical data. This is an obstacle to medical research since ethics impedes controlled experiments on people and it's part of why nutrition advice is frequently wrong (there you go for even more examples). But climate scientists have apparently done just that - themselves demonstrating that either the consensus is wrong or they're wrong. Either way, a consensus is wrong.
These are just an arguments to show how wrong consensus can be though - in reality I'm pretty sure that climate scientists don't acutally believe they're right without any doubt. It will be politics and attempts to manipulate people that changes confidence values into supposed certainty.
Cannot prove causation is not the same as cannot conclude causation. As you point out with your medical example, we have plenty of cases where we act with evidence but not proof. Sometimes these are wrong...but more often they are not (when talking about science).
Often there is some evidence in both directions (for/against a theory), so we likewise have experience and examples where we must decide based on that imperfect info.
Given that we will never be able to prove this causation, at least not in the next few lifetimes and given that, right or wrong, the people (vast majority) in the field are saying the problem is real; Given that inaction is terrible if this is all true, then what evidence would convince you (or any example climate change denier) that the concerns are valid?
Often there is some evidence in both directions (for/against a theory), so we likewise have experience and examples where we must decide based on that imperfect info.
Given that we will never be able to prove this causation, at least not in the next few lifetimes and given that, right or wrong, the people (vast majority) in the field are saying the problem is real; Given that inaction is terrible if this is all true, then what evidence would convince you (or any example climate change denier) that the concerns are valid?
My problem here isn't that I think the concerns aren't valid, but that whenever the topic comes up, multiple people start to push the agenda of "we must all take action now", as if they're trying to drum up an army of supporters, which they probably are. It gets embedded in just about any climate change related discussion, news article and even science paper.
You can't even disagree with anything related to the topic without people jumping to the conclusion that you're a climate change denier and insisting on educating you. It shuts down genuine discussion. Even evolutionist arguing creationists have managed to admit that it's just a theory, but then go on to show how strong theories can be which is perfectly righ. Climate change hasn't got to that level of honesty - people are afraid to say it's just a theory because of their agenda.
You can't even disagree with anything related to the topic without people jumping to the conclusion that you're a climate change denier and insisting on educating you. It shuts down genuine discussion. Even evolutionist arguing creationists have managed to admit that it's just a theory, but then go on to show how strong theories can be which is perfectly righ. Climate change hasn't got to that level of honesty - people are afraid to say it's just a theory because of their agenda.
I can sympathize with your position - a lot of good discussion can't happen on various topics because you have to defend against the ridiculous.
Re: GMOs - you want to discuss the impact on monocultures, chemical levels and environment impacts (good or ill), prions or other corners of proteins we don't understand, patented genes, wild release of genes (including the patented ones), the economic value in talking cost vs improved yield, or even a serious discussion about what level of labeling (if any) is reasonable? Too bad, you're going to have to deal with people that think GMO food will mutate THEM if eaten.
climate, gun control, vaccines, free speech, etc - you can't have a nuanced, serious discussion to explore details because you have to fight off the fringe(s).
OTOH, however, a higher-than-linear curve of greenhouse gas emissions and year after year, into decade after decade of inaction, has an impact. The 2 degree threshold isn't a firm line...but it's also not arbitrary. If we need to make drastic change, but we've frittered away the decades that COULD have made that more gradual, then yeah, importance of action is higher. I'm not saying we have all stop driving tomorrow...but our current pace is not what we need, so the pressure is up. If we weren't taking as many steps backwards as we are taking forward, if the models said we were closer to a target than the projection said 10 years ago, that'd allow some reduction in the pressure. Instead of saying "we just need to keep our eye on the ball" we have to say "LOOK! THERE'S A FRICKING BALL!".
So I can understand the sense of urgency. Like race relations or gender issues in tech, any complaint that people are overreacting, or that this isn't the time, or this isn't the place has to come with some believable explanation of how they see a better way that hasn't been tried and failed.
To your concluding point: Climate change is a theory. I'll admit that. It could be wrong. The overwhelming majority of those in the world with relevant data and experience can be wrong. Really. But I don't see much evidence that that is more likely than the theory being mostly correct.
With that admission, where are we? Well, we've agreed to something that was already not in question. But for most it's NOT an agreement. We have to somehow convince people that their gut instinct is not a value that should even be considered when deciding things. And again, and again.
When exactly will we STOP agreeing that it's a theory and move on to what to do with it? Will another 10 years be enough? 20?
Re: GMOs - you want to discuss the impact on monocultures, chemical levels and environment impacts (good or ill), prions or other corners of proteins we don't understand, patented genes, wild release of genes (including the patented ones), the economic value in talking cost vs improved yield, or even a serious discussion about what level of labeling (if any) is reasonable? Too bad, you're going to have to deal with people that think GMO food will mutate THEM if eaten.
climate, gun control, vaccines, free speech, etc - you can't have a nuanced, serious discussion to explore details because you have to fight off the fringe(s).
OTOH, however, a higher-than-linear curve of greenhouse gas emissions and year after year, into decade after decade of inaction, has an impact. The 2 degree threshold isn't a firm line...but it's also not arbitrary. If we need to make drastic change, but we've frittered away the decades that COULD have made that more gradual, then yeah, importance of action is higher. I'm not saying we have all stop driving tomorrow...but our current pace is not what we need, so the pressure is up. If we weren't taking as many steps backwards as we are taking forward, if the models said we were closer to a target than the projection said 10 years ago, that'd allow some reduction in the pressure. Instead of saying "we just need to keep our eye on the ball" we have to say "LOOK! THERE'S A FRICKING BALL!".
So I can understand the sense of urgency. Like race relations or gender issues in tech, any complaint that people are overreacting, or that this isn't the time, or this isn't the place has to come with some believable explanation of how they see a better way that hasn't been tried and failed.
To your concluding point: Climate change is a theory. I'll admit that. It could be wrong. The overwhelming majority of those in the world with relevant data and experience can be wrong. Really. But I don't see much evidence that that is more likely than the theory being mostly correct.
With that admission, where are we? Well, we've agreed to something that was already not in question. But for most it's NOT an agreement. We have to somehow convince people that their gut instinct is not a value that should even be considered when deciding things. And again, and again.
When exactly will we STOP agreeing that it's a theory and move on to what to do with it? Will another 10 years be enough? 20?
How uncertain should man-made global warming sound, in your opinion? You're speaking in gross generalities, perhaps getting some hard numbers. What I've read is that nearly 100% of publishing researchers in the area agree on it (high 90's).
...Actually, it's 97%. I found the paper, which describes the data set and their methodology: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048...
...Actually, it's 97%. I found the paper, which describes the data set and their methodology: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048...
More helpful than the percentage of scientists who think it's true (a bizarre metric in science) would be the confidence they place on that conclusion. It can't be exactly 100%. Showing causation is notoriously hard, especially when you can only look at historical data, and even more so when there's only one example (one case of humans causing global warming).
This figure gets trotted out all the time and it's tiresome because it is so unconvincing to anyone who is even a bit sceptical.
That's a bit like asking what percentage of Christian priests believe God exists. There's kind of a selection bias there.
More helpful are broader surveys including earth scientists, geologists, etc, which (as I recall, not having the source handy) come up much more conflicted, close to 50% disagreement on various critical questions.
There also the issue of what questions are asked. It's easy to ask, 'is the climate changing', get a near-unanimous response to this near-tautological statement, and declare victory. But that question has nothing to do with any real disagreements real people are having.
The actual questions at hand are much more delicate. First among them is the question of what question we should even be asking.
That's a bit like asking what percentage of Christian priests believe God exists. There's kind of a selection bias there.
More helpful are broader surveys including earth scientists, geologists, etc, which (as I recall, not having the source handy) come up much more conflicted, close to 50% disagreement on various critical questions.
There also the issue of what questions are asked. It's easy to ask, 'is the climate changing', get a near-unanimous response to this near-tautological statement, and declare victory. But that question has nothing to do with any real disagreements real people are having.
The actual questions at hand are much more delicate. First among them is the question of what question we should even be asking.
> More helpful are broader surveys including earth scientists, geologists, etc,
Wait...while i agree that the methodology that gives 97% suffers a selection bias, I don't agree with the above. I would not trust a survey of priests about the existance of God, but I'd prefer their thoughts on the existance of a particular book of the bible than a survey of choir members.
Science is huge and detailed. I'd not trust geologists over physicists about physics. I acknowledge that physicists are not 100% correct, but that doesn't make non-physicists suddenly more likely to be correct.
I can see your point if the claim is 97% of scientists, but the claim is about climate scientists, because they determine the consensus on the topic.
What method of saying whether or not there is a consensus would you accept that doesn't involve bringing in people with no knowledge or experience with the topic?
You mentioned a 50%ish figure for scientists. Do you have a citation? Even if I think the result unconvincing (based on tjis limited info) I'd like to see their methodology and sample size.
Wait...while i agree that the methodology that gives 97% suffers a selection bias, I don't agree with the above. I would not trust a survey of priests about the existance of God, but I'd prefer their thoughts on the existance of a particular book of the bible than a survey of choir members.
Science is huge and detailed. I'd not trust geologists over physicists about physics. I acknowledge that physicists are not 100% correct, but that doesn't make non-physicists suddenly more likely to be correct.
I can see your point if the claim is 97% of scientists, but the claim is about climate scientists, because they determine the consensus on the topic.
What method of saying whether or not there is a consensus would you accept that doesn't involve bringing in people with no knowledge or experience with the topic?
You mentioned a 50%ish figure for scientists. Do you have a citation? Even if I think the result unconvincing (based on tjis limited info) I'd like to see their methodology and sample size.
His figure is probably based on a study specifically addressed in link I provided. Look for "Bray and von Storch (2007) and Bray (2010)" and the critique of their results and methodologies.
That there is a scientific consensus is not an agenda, it's a fact.
Because the reason is building codes, cutting green areas.
Flooding is almost always related to changes upriver.
Storms and climate change related water level rises are a danger, but not the main reason.
I may not understand the scope of this project, but when I read the $2 billion, my thought was "wow that's cheap!" Consider the Big Dig or the current Seattle tunnel, at $14B+ and $3B+ respectively.
To be fair, nobody would have undertaken the Big Dig if the true cost were known up-front. And a debt that's 200% GDP is a unique circumstance.
The Big Dig may have been closer to the budget, except it kept getting changed. An example would be that they initially planned on shutting down certain routes until a politician decided to announce that traffic flow would not be disrupted.
That's great if you're paid to model the traffic but probably not so great if you now have to pay the added expenses.
That's great if you're paid to model the traffic but probably not so great if you now have to pay the added expenses.
Just once, I'd like to see the people that planned something and signed the deals stand up to a politician. Just see the demand to make a huge, costly, unreasonable change (likely for political reasons) and say, "No, fuck it. We planned this, you already spent $3 billion on it, it's not changing now. If you want it changed, it's cancelled, the $3b goes up in smoke, along with your political career and everyone who's ever so much as had lunch with you."
I know, it's not realistic... but it would be nice to see. I have this picture in my head of the entire government running like it did in The Pentagon Wars (that's billion, with a "b"...) and nobody can stop it.
I know, it's not realistic... but it would be nice to see. I have this picture in my head of the entire government running like it did in The Pentagon Wars (that's billion, with a "b"...) and nobody can stop it.
Oh, the things I could write... Let's do just that, shall we?
Warning, this could take a minute.
The Big Dig was pretty much my first project outside of the lab. I am not overly fond of admitting to my part in the project but it could be worse, much worse. Truth be told, we did our job just fine, but I digress.
By the time I got involved with the project, it had been in planning stage for quite a while and had undergone a number of revisions and had many funding proposals. My involvement was because I was busy taking traffic modeling into the computer revolution stage.
These various plans all needed to be modeled, of course. Even if there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell, it needed to be modeled. Even trivial changes will mean new modeling. It's lucrative work, if you can get it. Though, it's not much more than a fancy plugin today, it's based on some pretty complicated math and can be improved by adding more data points. Again, I digress...
Now, being new to the world of working as a contractor for municipalities, I had great expectations from the government representatives. I was quickly disabused of such notions but, again, I digress.
The Big Dig had many, many people working on it. It was in the public eye for a fairly short time, compared to the time it lumbered as a meandering project in the planning and pre-planning stage. Yup, they plan to make plans and call it pre-planning. This, of course, goes hand in hand with fact finding, feasibility studies, ecological impact studies, noise studies, and these may very well require constant revision as the plans change.
Well, traffic modeling is just one of those things.
At any point in time, any contractor, sub-contractor, or affiliate could have gone to the media to say just what you propose. In fact, if you examine the archives, I'm sure you'll find ample evidence of people doing just that very thing.
Sure, the amount I made on the project was just a rounding error, but there were a lot of rounding errors.
Then, you have people who will fight it, at every step of the way. They will tie it up in court for as long as they can, which means even more revisions. People sometimes wonder where I got my legal knowledge... Some was in academia but the majority of it was through experience.
There is tons of waste in government, I think we know that. But, politicians will add more - so long as it gets them votes. Interestingly, in this case, the guy campaigned on prosperity for the local economy. The project must not disrupt local business. Got to make money, after all. Yet, it slowed the project down and probably added a good 10% to the overall budget. The lengths we went to were absurd.
And so it goes...
Sure, someone may stand up and tell the politicians that they are insane and that they are stupid but, frankly, we've been saying that for years and nobody actually listens. We can't opt out, because we have contracts.
Oh, contracts? Yeah, every time you extended the project? I got a nice bonus to help grow my business. Every time I had to run the models again? Thanks... Every time I had to go get more data? Thanks...
The Big Dig was what enabled me to get my business up and functioning. We had more contracts before the first year was over and that project seemed to last forever.
I can see why people would just go along for the ride. If I'd had more insight and experience, I may have said something. I doubt it old have done any good, I'd have still had contractual obligations and the penalty clauses would have meant I was a poor man today.
Well, there is a wall of text. Make of it what you will, I guess. It is summed up with contracts, politicians, municipal workers, and citizen expectations.
Warning, this could take a minute.
The Big Dig was pretty much my first project outside of the lab. I am not overly fond of admitting to my part in the project but it could be worse, much worse. Truth be told, we did our job just fine, but I digress.
By the time I got involved with the project, it had been in planning stage for quite a while and had undergone a number of revisions and had many funding proposals. My involvement was because I was busy taking traffic modeling into the computer revolution stage.
These various plans all needed to be modeled, of course. Even if there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell, it needed to be modeled. Even trivial changes will mean new modeling. It's lucrative work, if you can get it. Though, it's not much more than a fancy plugin today, it's based on some pretty complicated math and can be improved by adding more data points. Again, I digress...
Now, being new to the world of working as a contractor for municipalities, I had great expectations from the government representatives. I was quickly disabused of such notions but, again, I digress.
The Big Dig had many, many people working on it. It was in the public eye for a fairly short time, compared to the time it lumbered as a meandering project in the planning and pre-planning stage. Yup, they plan to make plans and call it pre-planning. This, of course, goes hand in hand with fact finding, feasibility studies, ecological impact studies, noise studies, and these may very well require constant revision as the plans change.
Well, traffic modeling is just one of those things.
At any point in time, any contractor, sub-contractor, or affiliate could have gone to the media to say just what you propose. In fact, if you examine the archives, I'm sure you'll find ample evidence of people doing just that very thing.
Sure, the amount I made on the project was just a rounding error, but there were a lot of rounding errors.
Then, you have people who will fight it, at every step of the way. They will tie it up in court for as long as they can, which means even more revisions. People sometimes wonder where I got my legal knowledge... Some was in academia but the majority of it was through experience.
There is tons of waste in government, I think we know that. But, politicians will add more - so long as it gets them votes. Interestingly, in this case, the guy campaigned on prosperity for the local economy. The project must not disrupt local business. Got to make money, after all. Yet, it slowed the project down and probably added a good 10% to the overall budget. The lengths we went to were absurd.
And so it goes...
Sure, someone may stand up and tell the politicians that they are insane and that they are stupid but, frankly, we've been saying that for years and nobody actually listens. We can't opt out, because we have contracts.
Oh, contracts? Yeah, every time you extended the project? I got a nice bonus to help grow my business. Every time I had to run the models again? Thanks... Every time I had to go get more data? Thanks...
The Big Dig was what enabled me to get my business up and functioning. We had more contracts before the first year was over and that project seemed to last forever.
I can see why people would just go along for the ride. If I'd had more insight and experience, I may have said something. I doubt it old have done any good, I'd have still had contractual obligations and the penalty clauses would have meant I was a poor man today.
Well, there is a wall of text. Make of it what you will, I guess. It is summed up with contracts, politicians, municipal workers, and citizen expectations.
> There is tons of waste in government, I think we know that. But, politicians will add more - so long as it gets them votes. Interestingly, in this case, the guy campaigned on prosperity for the local economy. The project must not disrupt local business. Got to make money, after all. Yet, it slowed the project down and probably added a good 10% to the overall budget. The lengths we went to were absurd.
Contrast that to the Canada line in Vancouver, which was built using a cut-and-cover method. All the business owners in the Cambie corridor were convinced that this would be a minimal disruption to their business.
By the time construction was done, every single merchant along the corridor went out of business. Strangely enough, cut-and-cover proposals for more subway lines in Vancouver are as dead as a Monty Python parrot.
Contrast that to the Canada line in Vancouver, which was built using a cut-and-cover method. All the business owners in the Cambie corridor were convinced that this would be a minimal disruption to their business.
By the time construction was done, every single merchant along the corridor went out of business. Strangely enough, cut-and-cover proposals for more subway lines in Vancouver are as dead as a Monty Python parrot.
That's interesting. What did they do so wrong to drive everyone out of business?
In Seoul I grew up watching subway construction all the time. Yes the local traffic suffers for many years, but the underground construction is covered with iron roofs that allow overground traffic, and people get used to it. After all, a street is likely to have subway construction because it had a large number of people using it: these people don't suddenly go away. (If they did, it would be a major blunder on the part of subway planners!)
In Seoul I grew up watching subway construction all the time. Yes the local traffic suffers for many years, but the underground construction is covered with iron roofs that allow overground traffic, and people get used to it. After all, a street is likely to have subway construction because it had a large number of people using it: these people don't suddenly go away. (If they did, it would be a major blunder on the part of subway planners!)
> That's interesting. What did they do so wrong to drive everyone out of business?
The whole street looked like a large bomb crater for a year.
Yes, you could still access the buildings, but why on earth would you shop on Cambie, when you could go the next block over to Robson. Even a 10% reduction in customers could sink many retail businesses, over such a period of time.
The whole street looked like a large bomb crater for a year.
Yes, you could still access the buildings, but why on earth would you shop on Cambie, when you could go the next block over to Robson. Even a 10% reduction in customers could sink many retail businesses, over such a period of time.
Can you explain what you mean by cut and cover?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel#Cut-and-cover
This is hacker news. It's easy enough to google for 2 seconds to learn a new term.
This is hacker news. It's easy enough to google for 2 seconds to learn a new term.
It is. But I think it's more efficient overall for someone to ask the question so that someone like you posts a helpful link, thus saving many more people the trouble of googling.
Maybe it would be cost effective to plan it such that everything in that area is re-located and re-vitalized for when things come back online.
But that indicates the project was not planned well since change requests for such a large project would have been expected.
You can only plan on so much.
Notably: I only modeled traffic. I am not to blame. ;-)
(I have used that caveat so many times.)
Notably: I only modeled traffic. I am not to blame. ;-)
(I have used that caveat so many times.)
Maybe so, but I'm referring to the actual project management process group called Planning I don't mean plan in general but the actual official and formal steps of Planning.
Then the Monitoring and Control process group will evaluate Planning again each time it loops back, so it makes no sense to me their plan failed, multiple times really for each loop. It's even worse knowing that each time they come back to Planning as part of the process they screwed up yet again.
Then the Monitoring and Control process group will evaluate Planning again each time it loops back, so it makes no sense to me their plan failed, multiple times really for each loop. It's even worse knowing that each time they come back to Planning as part of the process they screwed up yet again.
Politicians will always find a way to promise changes to big ticket items. They're the ones that hold the purse strings. You can't plan for whomever is going to be in office next year ("a week is a long time in politics").
Case in point: it was only 17 months from Trump announcing his candidacy to winning the election - plus his party put up over 20 nominees.
Case in point: it was only 17 months from Trump announcing his candidacy to winning the election - plus his party put up over 20 nominees.
Similarly, the cost of Seattle's tunnel was greatly inflated by the little mistake that halted Bertha.
Chicago metro Deep Tunnel : $3B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_and_Reservoir_Plan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_and_Reservoir_Plan
Milwaukee, at well under 1/20th the size of Tokyo, spent $1B on a similar system:
https://deeptunnelmke.com/impact/cost/
That's what I thought as well, $2 billion doesn't seem like that much for that kind of project?
I don't know how they handle infrastructure, but whatever they do seems like something the rest of the world could learn from. A little while ago it made international news when they fixed a sink hole in a few days: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/15/asia/fukuoka-sinkhole-fill...
It should be noted that that sinkhole re-occurred shortly afterwards.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38129691
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38129691
Th original sinkhole was caused by a collapse of a under construction subway tunnel. This second time is just regular settling, there was no second collapse.
There is also this:
1,200 Japanese workers convert above-ground train to subway line in a matter of hours.
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/2msfz2/1200_japanes...
1,200 Japanese workers convert above-ground train to subway line in a matter of hours.
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/2msfz2/1200_japanes...
Or the $3.5B approved for BART to upgrade some lights and wash more of the urine smell off the seats.
This is (intentionally?) false and misleading.
$3.2B of that is going to replacing the system's electrical infrastructure, replacing 90 miles of track infrastructure, and on retrofitting all of the tunnels, including the Transbay tube, new train control systems, relieving crowding, and more. [1][2]
BART has problems, but it's not spending 3.5B on lights and cleaning seats, and to suggest otherwise, especially without a citation, is arguing in bad faith.
[1] http://www.bart.gov/better-bart/the-plan
[2] https://sfbay.ca/2017/05/11/bart-maps-out-plan-to-spend-3-5-...
$3.2B of that is going to replacing the system's electrical infrastructure, replacing 90 miles of track infrastructure, and on retrofitting all of the tunnels, including the Transbay tube, new train control systems, relieving crowding, and more. [1][2]
BART has problems, but it's not spending 3.5B on lights and cleaning seats, and to suggest otherwise, especially without a citation, is arguing in bad faith.
[1] http://www.bart.gov/better-bart/the-plan
[2] https://sfbay.ca/2017/05/11/bart-maps-out-plan-to-spend-3-5-...
I was being hyperbolic, and the bit about washing the smell of urine off the seats should have been a real loud indication of that.
My point was to highlight that we've allocated them $3.5billion for repairs, essentially; we're getting no new track from that bond (where the comments I was responding to were talking about wholesale new constructions).
My point was to highlight that we've allocated them $3.5billion for repairs, essentially; we're getting no new track from that bond (where the comments I was responding to were talking about wholesale new constructions).
I'd guess that part of it is that people tunnels need to keep water out, and drain tunnels want to let water in. Generally keeping water out is a lot harder than letting it in.
There may also be extra safety requirements for people tunnels that could raise costs. A tunnel used for cars for example will need some way to deal with accidents. Imagine a big accident in the middle of the tunnel, perhaps with a fire, during rush hour.
You'll need some way to get rescuers in even if the public traffic lanes are completely blocked both ways by the accident. If there is also a fire you might need a way for people on foot to quickly get out.
These requirements could increase the space requirements for the tunnel, driving up costs. They might also cause limits on where the tunnel can go or how deep it can go, which may drive up costs.
There may also be extra safety requirements for people tunnels that could raise costs. A tunnel used for cars for example will need some way to deal with accidents. Imagine a big accident in the middle of the tunnel, perhaps with a fire, during rush hour.
You'll need some way to get rescuers in even if the public traffic lanes are completely blocked both ways by the accident. If there is also a fire you might need a way for people on foot to quickly get out.
These requirements could increase the space requirements for the tunnel, driving up costs. They might also cause limits on where the tunnel can go or how deep it can go, which may drive up costs.
The project is a number of years old now. The cost of construction projects tend to increase by 15% per year in western countries.
It's so crazy to me that everyone in vulnerable places--Tokyo and Houston in the article for example--are happy to spend hundreds of millions, even billions, to put a bandaid on their local climate change problems.
It seems like they all acknowledge the reality and danger of climate change and are willing to spend money on it.
In TFA Houston wants $400 million to build a reservoir. They seem to acknowledge that things are only going to get worse for them as the years go on. And yet everyone there still drives everywhere spewing carbon into their own air with every trip, public transit is in a poor state, and oil exploitation continues apace. Everyone's OK with spending money and manpower on huge public works projects, but they're not OK with addressing habits and addictions that make the projects necessary in the first place.
It's as if our eyes can see the oncoming train just a mile away, but instead of stepping out of the way we want to build a mechanized winch that will temporarily lift us over the train, and hopefully we'll be done building it before the train hits us, and oh yeah, never mind how we're supposed to get down, or the taller train after that one.
Why can't we put that money, effort, manpower, and will into actually addressing climate change and make crazy projects like vast man-made Mines-of-Moria-style underground tunnels and huge artificial reservoirs unnecessary?
Yes it's a global problem, but solutions to global problems start at home. Throwing our hands up and saying it's pointless until the other guy does something too can't be the way to progress on this issue.
It seems like they all acknowledge the reality and danger of climate change and are willing to spend money on it.
In TFA Houston wants $400 million to build a reservoir. They seem to acknowledge that things are only going to get worse for them as the years go on. And yet everyone there still drives everywhere spewing carbon into their own air with every trip, public transit is in a poor state, and oil exploitation continues apace. Everyone's OK with spending money and manpower on huge public works projects, but they're not OK with addressing habits and addictions that make the projects necessary in the first place.
It's as if our eyes can see the oncoming train just a mile away, but instead of stepping out of the way we want to build a mechanized winch that will temporarily lift us over the train, and hopefully we'll be done building it before the train hits us, and oh yeah, never mind how we're supposed to get down, or the taller train after that one.
Why can't we put that money, effort, manpower, and will into actually addressing climate change and make crazy projects like vast man-made Mines-of-Moria-style underground tunnels and huge artificial reservoirs unnecessary?
Yes it's a global problem, but solutions to global problems start at home. Throwing our hands up and saying it's pointless until the other guy does something too can't be the way to progress on this issue.
It's very likely that local band-aids are the most effective way to deal with this.
Your train example is a pretty good one, but you've mixed up the metaphor. Here, "stepping out of the way" = mass migrations out of coastal cities. "A mechanized winch that temporarily lifts us over the train" = flood control projects like in Tokyo, Houston, Venice, or the Netherlands. "Calling the train company and asking them to stop running trains" = stopping global warming by addressing carbon emissions.
If you had a train barreling down on you, which one would you choose? I'd bet it wouldn't be calling the train company and asking them to stop running trains, because a.) they are unlikely to anyway and b.) even if they were willing, by the time you got through to someone with the power to stop the trains you'll probably be dead anyway.
I'd argue that the actual solution to global warming will be more akin to "stepping out of the way": people will evacuate from major cities, major cities will be destroyed, and people will pick up the pieces of their lives elsewhere. If they're proactive, they might evacuate before the city is actually destroyed, and we'll see mass migrations of people (as have been happening for the last several hundred years anyway) away from areas that will face greater climate risks and toward areas that benefit from global warming.
That's what humans do: we adapt to our environment. Only in particularly hubristic times (like now) have we expected to adapt our environment to us.
Your train example is a pretty good one, but you've mixed up the metaphor. Here, "stepping out of the way" = mass migrations out of coastal cities. "A mechanized winch that temporarily lifts us over the train" = flood control projects like in Tokyo, Houston, Venice, or the Netherlands. "Calling the train company and asking them to stop running trains" = stopping global warming by addressing carbon emissions.
If you had a train barreling down on you, which one would you choose? I'd bet it wouldn't be calling the train company and asking them to stop running trains, because a.) they are unlikely to anyway and b.) even if they were willing, by the time you got through to someone with the power to stop the trains you'll probably be dead anyway.
I'd argue that the actual solution to global warming will be more akin to "stepping out of the way": people will evacuate from major cities, major cities will be destroyed, and people will pick up the pieces of their lives elsewhere. If they're proactive, they might evacuate before the city is actually destroyed, and we'll see mass migrations of people (as have been happening for the last several hundred years anyway) away from areas that will face greater climate risks and toward areas that benefit from global warming.
That's what humans do: we adapt to our environment. Only in particularly hubristic times (like now) have we expected to adapt our environment to us.
Adaptation without mitigation will not be effective as the impacts worsen. Uncapped emissions and business as usual scenarios will cause outcomes that we will not be able to build ourselves out of.
We must reduce emissions and push for sustainable infrastructure and solutions, now.
We must adapt and we must also mitigate. Only through the combination of both efforts and through our determination and willingness to lead sustainable lifestyles will we be able to beat climate change. We must push for renewable energy, and technological solutions to efficiently use resources.
The policy coming out of the White House is against these efforts and we need to find a way to prevent them from hurting us and our posterity by postponing the efforts to transition to clean energy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan....
We must reduce emissions and push for sustainable infrastructure and solutions, now.
We must adapt and we must also mitigate. Only through the combination of both efforts and through our determination and willingness to lead sustainable lifestyles will we be able to beat climate change. We must push for renewable energy, and technological solutions to efficiently use resources.
The policy coming out of the White House is against these efforts and we need to find a way to prevent them from hurting us and our posterity by postponing the efforts to transition to clean energy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan....
Why can’t Tokyo attempt both adaptation and mitigation? Which happens to be exactly what they’re doing.
Nah, the problem is self-limiting. If global warming reduces the carrying capacity of the environment, people will die. Dead people don't use resources; their bodies are returned to the environment by decomposers, where they will provide fertilizer for trees and other plants, which will grow even more abundantly because of the enhanced CO2 levels. Eventually the earth reaches a new equilibrium at a somewhat higher temperature.
Most people don't want to die, and so we have a self-interested argument for not destroying our environment. But we're at the top of the food chain - well before there's a lasting impact on the earth's ability to sustain life, we'll all be dead. It's the height of hubris to believe we have the ability to effect lasting change on the earth's environment that won't disappear once we do.
Most people don't want to die, and so we have a self-interested argument for not destroying our environment. But we're at the top of the food chain - well before there's a lasting impact on the earth's ability to sustain life, we'll all be dead. It's the height of hubris to believe we have the ability to effect lasting change on the earth's environment that won't disappear once we do.
It's not true that a stable equilibrium is always reached. It's also possible that irreversible changes are set into motion which shift the equilibrium so far away from livability that humans cannot survive.
See, for instance, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
What kind of time scales does this suggest?
> A study based on a coupled climate–carbon cycle model (GCM) assessed a 1000-fold (from <1 to 1000 ppmv) methane increase - within a single pulse, from methane hydrates (based on carbon amount estimates for the PETM, with ~2000 GtC), and concluded it would increase atmospheric temperatures by >6 °C within 80 years
Am I reading this right that it would take 80yrs to get to +6c, so it would still be a gradual increase? Is it an exponential increase?
Anyone recommend a documentary about this?
> A study based on a coupled climate–carbon cycle model (GCM) assessed a 1000-fold (from <1 to 1000 ppmv) methane increase - within a single pulse, from methane hydrates (based on carbon amount estimates for the PETM, with ~2000 GtC), and concluded it would increase atmospheric temperatures by >6 °C within 80 years
Am I reading this right that it would take 80yrs to get to +6c, so it would still be a gradual increase? Is it an exponential increase?
Anyone recommend a documentary about this?
For what it's worth, +1.5c is deemed bad and +2c is deemed abominably abhorrent; if the midpoint is +3c in 40y, that's bad, but if the majority of the temp growth is in the latter half (ie it's monotone but convex), that would be a damn crunch imo
This has been happening throughout history of Earth. Just look at all the ice ages (including the most recent so called little ice age).
Just cca 11,000 years ago, without any human intervention (nobody driving SUVs around back then), temperature has risen dramatically which caused massive ice sheets on top of North America and Europe to melt. This caused sea levels to rise by 120 meters, swallowing an area of land larger than China and Europe combined.
Until this day we still don't know what caused that (and it seems to be a reoccurring event as it has happened multiple times). The last time it happened it has caused extinction of most of megafauna (with some remnants surviving in Africa as it was least affected).
We are struggling to cope with sea levels rising by 1-2mm per year. Imagine if they rose by 120m in couple of years. All coastal mega cities - NYC, SF, Tokyo etc would be underwater completely.
Just cca 11,000 years ago, without any human intervention (nobody driving SUVs around back then), temperature has risen dramatically which caused massive ice sheets on top of North America and Europe to melt. This caused sea levels to rise by 120 meters, swallowing an area of land larger than China and Europe combined.
Until this day we still don't know what caused that (and it seems to be a reoccurring event as it has happened multiple times). The last time it happened it has caused extinction of most of megafauna (with some remnants surviving in Africa as it was least affected).
We are struggling to cope with sea levels rising by 1-2mm per year. Imagine if they rose by 120m in couple of years. All coastal mega cities - NYC, SF, Tokyo etc would be underwater completely.
I hear the eco-nihilist party is polling excellently, pretty soon everyone will see the folly of trying to improve anything ever.
Too bad the people who die in the name of "carrying capacity"always tend to be brown and poor.
Too bad the people who die in the name of "carrying capacity"always tend to be brown and poor.
The people most likely to die are the lowest emitters.
It seems that we could be headed for a mass extinction, whether or not humans manage to survive thousands of years longer.
We aren’t going to entirely destroy life on the planet, which will eventually recover great diversity (speciation to fill new ecological niches in some new stable equilibrium) within a few million years after we’re gone, but it will look significantly different than what we are familiar with.
That’s not much consolation to people who feel attached to what human societies and cultures we have all spent a lot of effort developing.
We aren’t going to entirely destroy life on the planet, which will eventually recover great diversity (speciation to fill new ecological niches in some new stable equilibrium) within a few million years after we’re gone, but it will look significantly different than what we are familiar with.
That’s not much consolation to people who feel attached to what human societies and cultures we have all spent a lot of effort developing.
This issue is too political for normal people to properly understand. I don't mean to offend you personally but there's little value in the feelings of someone who's been immersed in a social atmosphere of global warming propaganda, calls to action, and pressure to shut down dissenting voices. Even scientists can't safely publish work on positive effects of climate change or areas where it's not as bad as previously thought without littering their papers with defenses of "but it's still bad".
Your GP said "we must" do some things. No, there isn't a single obvious best answer. We don't know what the longer term effects will be and whether building protection will be enough or not - or enough to pay for their useful life. We don't have accurate science for that. Even if we did, we've still got hundreds of years to prepare, and importantly, future money to spend on it, which is cheaper than spending money today because of the time value of money. Every solution costs money and it's no obvious which one is cheaper.
Where did you get the mass extinction and "entirely destroy life on the planet" ideas? I know there are frequent extinctions of insects and large mammals, but that's been going on for centuries and is nothing to do with global warming. Global warming might exacerbate that but again, I don't think we have clear predictions of whole food chain collapses.
EDIT: I see you've toned down your comment from a strong belief to a suggestion of a possibility, so the main motivation of my reply doesn't really apply now.
Your GP said "we must" do some things. No, there isn't a single obvious best answer. We don't know what the longer term effects will be and whether building protection will be enough or not - or enough to pay for their useful life. We don't have accurate science for that. Even if we did, we've still got hundreds of years to prepare, and importantly, future money to spend on it, which is cheaper than spending money today because of the time value of money. Every solution costs money and it's no obvious which one is cheaper.
Where did you get the mass extinction and "entirely destroy life on the planet" ideas? I know there are frequent extinctions of insects and large mammals, but that's been going on for centuries and is nothing to do with global warming. Global warming might exacerbate that but again, I don't think we have clear predictions of whole food chain collapses.
EDIT: I see you've toned down your comment from a strong belief to a suggestion of a possibility, so the main motivation of my reply doesn't really apply now.
This reads very much like a Bjorn Lomborg type argument - along the lines of: global warming is not proven, and anyway if it does happen it may not be all bad, and even if it is bad we could better spend the money elsewhere. Personally when it comes to disturbing planetary equilibrium I'd rather err on the side of caution.
Even if 'erring on the side of caution' means killing millions of people by diverting resources that could've been used to cure diseases, solve local pollution problems, stop crime and democide, improve work safety, etc etc?
We're not talking about packing an extra sandwich for a picnic here. These things cost.
We're not talking about packing an extra sandwich for a picnic here. These things cost.
You assert forcefully, but I think there are problems with what you say: firstly there is no guarantee that we would spend the money saved on global warming on those other things that you list; secondly it's false to assert that we have to choose between those things and fixing global warming; thirdly efforts to fix global warming could have benefits of their own including in some of the areas that you list, i.e. malaria is likely to increase due to rises in temperature, efficiency measures and reductions in consumption could help cure pollution problems.
Since we're talking about anthropocentric climate change, it's safe to assume "life" means "life as we know it". But you already knew that.
The distinction seems important to me. One has a clear definition and the other could be imagined to mean anything the reader wants. That's alright if everyone already understands and agrees with you, but it makes disagreement useless. Since climate change is so political, there are lot of exaggerations flying around, so you have to be careful.
I think I know that when you said "anthropocentric", you really meant "anthropogenic" but I really had to think hard to see if you were using a clever word to make a point about our own perception of human life. Eventually I decided it was just a spelling mistake but it took effort and I'm still not sure. So trying to be accurate is helpful if you're going for understanding rather than just expressing a feeling.
I think I know that when you said "anthropocentric", you really meant "anthropogenic" but I really had to think hard to see if you were using a clever word to make a point about our own perception of human life. Eventually I decided it was just a spelling mistake but it took effort and I'm still not sure. So trying to be accurate is helpful if you're going for understanding rather than just expressing a feeling.
The Permian extinction was a global warming extinction. The atmosphere was methane and hydrogen sulfide. Oxygen levels dropped too low for anything to survive... read the book 'Under Green Skies' which makes the case for that.
There are reasonable people predicting that type of mass extinction will occur within our lifetime. This blog makes a pretty good argument it will happen: http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html?m=1
There are reasonable people predicting that type of mass extinction will occur within our lifetime. This blog makes a pretty good argument it will happen: http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html?m=1
Last global extinction event was 11,000 years ago when temperature rose drastically, ice sheets melted and sea levels rose by 120m. It killed most of megafauna. What caused that (and what caused the ice age in the first place) is still not well understood by scientists.
In my opinion, to think that human caused global warming and sea levels rising by 1.5mm per year will lead to global extinction event seems a bit far fetched when you compare it to what caused the last global extinction. The current climate changes are minuscule compared to huge climate changes (not caused by any human activity!) that happened quite recently.
In my opinion, to think that human caused global warming and sea levels rising by 1.5mm per year will lead to global extinction event seems a bit far fetched when you compare it to what caused the last global extinction. The current climate changes are minuscule compared to huge climate changes (not caused by any human activity!) that happened quite recently.
That megafauna didn't live in e.g. megacities (containing vital infrastructure and toxic chemical factories) built on coastal flood plains. They also didn't have a (fairly) monocultured web of food items that could be devastated by climate change. Or a bee infrastructure that was already struggling and could be tipped over into extinction which then leads to much bigger problems.
Sure, we're going to have a smaller change in climate but we're also a lot more precariously placed than they were (and about as incapable of dealing with it.)
Sure, we're going to have a smaller change in climate but we're also a lot more precariously placed than they were (and about as incapable of dealing with it.)
Is it well understood why bee infrastructure is struggling? I was under impression causes behind bee problems are still unknown so I wouldn't connect it to climate change necessarily.
You are right that our civilization is very vulnerable because of our agriculture and food logistics being very fragile. A single really bad draught on a global scale would cause massive problems in feeding the large population we have.
I would argue that in this respect overpopulation is a bigger problem than climate change though. Instead of focusing on emissions and renewable energy there should be more focus on decreasing world population from current unsustainable level.
You are right that our civilization is very vulnerable because of our agriculture and food logistics being very fragile. A single really bad draught on a global scale would cause massive problems in feeding the large population we have.
I would argue that in this respect overpopulation is a bigger problem than climate change though. Instead of focusing on emissions and renewable energy there should be more focus on decreasing world population from current unsustainable level.
> I wouldn't connect [bee troubles] to climate change necessarily.
Oh, no, sorry, I wasn't - I was just saying that it was already quite wobbly and even a small push from something like climate change could topple it.
Oh, no, sorry, I wasn't - I was just saying that it was already quite wobbly and even a small push from something like climate change could topple it.
There are reasonable people...
Have they got Paul Erlich on board?
Have they got Paul Erlich on board?
The less clear our predictions are, the more we should manage the risk.
If we've shifted planetary equilibrium far enough, we could be just "2 or 3 volcanic eruptions within a short window of time" away from accelerated feedback effects into a runaway catastrophe
If we've shifted planetary equilibrium far enough, we could be just "2 or 3 volcanic eruptions within a short window of time" away from accelerated feedback effects into a runaway catastrophe
What of the things that we "must" do do you actually disagree with?
If we manage to e.g. change ocean conditions enough (and the changes are already dramatic) to take out a significant proportion of the plankton in the world, it’s not going to go well for us.
We're not, actually:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-ends...
I used to think that we were, and when I read that article, I kept looking for flaws in its logic or counterexamples in other press. But ultimately, it interviews a real expert, and his logic is correct: we're drawn to flashy apex predators at the top of the food web, but these species spring in and out of existence all the time, and when it comes to the fossil record, they're barely a blip. If we were actually in a mass extinction, we would be worrying about cockroaches, ants, and seaweed going extinct, not tigers and rhinos. And of course, we wouldn't be here to observe it.
That's not an argument to completely fuck up the environment, since, like I mentioned, we'll be the first to go and most people have some sense of self-preservation, let alone preservation of the human species. It is a reminder of just how insignificant we actually are on a planetary scale, and of how our cognitive biases often lead us to think that we are more important or more powerful than we actually are.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-ends...
I used to think that we were, and when I read that article, I kept looking for flaws in its logic or counterexamples in other press. But ultimately, it interviews a real expert, and his logic is correct: we're drawn to flashy apex predators at the top of the food web, but these species spring in and out of existence all the time, and when it comes to the fossil record, they're barely a blip. If we were actually in a mass extinction, we would be worrying about cockroaches, ants, and seaweed going extinct, not tigers and rhinos. And of course, we wouldn't be here to observe it.
That's not an argument to completely fuck up the environment, since, like I mentioned, we'll be the first to go and most people have some sense of self-preservation, let alone preservation of the human species. It is a reminder of just how insignificant we actually are on a planetary scale, and of how our cognitive biases often lead us to think that we are more important or more powerful than we actually are.
Okay.
> “I think that if we keep things up long enough, we’ll get to a mass extinction, but we’re not in a mass extinction yet, and I think that’s an optimistic discovery because that means we actually have time to avoid Armageddon,” he said. [...]
> “The only hope we have in the future,” Erwin said, “is if we’re not in a mass extinction event.”
* * *
I guess it’s a bit fuzzy where you draw the line. Perhaps mass extinction is not an inevitability and concerted global action or some technological breakthroughs could still save us, but it has an uncomfortably high likelihood considering how bad humans are at staving off uncertain long-term threats.
> “I think that if we keep things up long enough, we’ll get to a mass extinction, but we’re not in a mass extinction yet, and I think that’s an optimistic discovery because that means we actually have time to avoid Armageddon,” he said. [...]
> “The only hope we have in the future,” Erwin said, “is if we’re not in a mass extinction event.”
* * *
I guess it’s a bit fuzzy where you draw the line. Perhaps mass extinction is not an inevitability and concerted global action or some technological breakthroughs could still save us, but it has an uncomfortably high likelihood considering how bad humans are at staving off uncertain long-term threats.
It's maybe worth drawing a distinction between things like "species extinction" versus "civilization collapse" and "massive reduction in carrying capacity".
I think it is much easier to have one or both of the latter outcomes in the med term (the next few hundred years, say) without it necessarily ending in human extinction.
I think it is much easier to have one or both of the latter outcomes in the med term (the next few hundred years, say) without it necessarily ending in human extinction.
Yeah. There's a whole hierarchy from "inconvenient weather" to "natural disasters" to "cities wiped off the map" to "civilization collapse" to "all civilization collapses" to "we're back in the stone age" to "humanity goes extinct" to "vertebrates go extinct" to "almost everything goes extinct" to "earth can no longer support life as we know it". Each level is a couple orders of magnitude more severe than the last, and each level is a couple orders of magnitude less likely.
The first is already happening. The second is highly likely. #3 and 4 are possible, but beginning to strain the bounds of likelihood. Somehow whenever global warming comes up people tend to jump to the last level, ignoring all the other steps and the massive reduction in complexity that has to happen without adaptation from any other lifeform for us to get there.
The first is already happening. The second is highly likely. #3 and 4 are possible, but beginning to strain the bounds of likelihood. Somehow whenever global warming comes up people tend to jump to the last level, ignoring all the other steps and the massive reduction in complexity that has to happen without adaptation from any other lifeform for us to get there.
[deleted]
[deleted]
LOL. Sigh. Why does global warming attract this particular brand of sophistry all the time?
"President, what's your solution to the North Korean nukes?"
"Nothing to worry: the problem is self-limiting. If they start a nuclear war, billions will die, and then the survivors will be too poor to build any more nuclear weapons, so naturally there will be no more nuclear wars."
"But what about Puerto Rico? When are the aids coming?"
"The problem is self-limiting. If we do nothing, most of them will die or simply move to somewhere else, and then next time another hurricane hits there will be less people to die!"
"President, what's your solution to the North Korean nukes?"
"Nothing to worry: the problem is self-limiting. If they start a nuclear war, billions will die, and then the survivors will be too poor to build any more nuclear weapons, so naturally there will be no more nuclear wars."
"But what about Puerto Rico? When are the aids coming?"
"The problem is self-limiting. If we do nothing, most of them will die or simply move to somewhere else, and then next time another hurricane hits there will be less people to die!"
[deleted]
Remarkably blasé and somewhat nihilistic.
There are market forces behind renewables already. Wind and solar is getting cheaper and cheaper. Coal and oil are getting more expensive.
> I'd argue that the actual solution to global warming will be more akin to "stepping out of the way": people will evacuate from major cities, major cities will be destroyed,
And the people too poor to evacuate will stick it out in the city hoping for the best, and die in the aftermath of the next catastrophe.
And the people too poor to evacuate will stick it out in the city hoping for the best, and die in the aftermath of the next catastrophe.
When the alternative is
> even if they were willing, by the time you got through to someone with the power to stop the trains you'll probably be dead anyway.
But in reality, "we're" not just doing one thing. There are many things going on to solve the problem from multiple levels. While Tokyo is building up flood protections, Australia(n banks) is actively divesting from fossil full projects.
> even if they were willing, by the time you got through to someone with the power to stop the trains you'll probably be dead anyway.
But in reality, "we're" not just doing one thing. There are many things going on to solve the problem from multiple levels. While Tokyo is building up flood protections, Australia(n banks) is actively divesting from fossil full projects.
A mass evacuation out of Houston for a hurricane is impossible. I have seen it time and time again - every time they try to evacuate us, a bunch of people just die in the streets, and then there's the risk of a NOLA situation where all the people who are poor to evacuate at every whisper of hurricane die of disease from disgusting floodwaters, or exposure. Or drown.
The population of the Greater Houston area is 5.6 million. Just look at the map https://goo.gl/maps/rU1ZWvfjy9w You can get out via 45, 59/69, i-10, 290, 69NE, or hell even 249. It's quite possibly the most spider-webbed city in the country. You can go to Austin, Dallas, San Antonio.
And every hurricane those freeways are deadlocked, and people are caught by the storm from behind, and old people's oxygen tanks explode on their busses because of texas heat, and that's without a full-blown evacuation ordered. We even run out of gasoline, the Oil City.
I'm not sure what the solution is but yea, evacuation out of Houston is not an option. I just wish there was some way to tackle the "big truck" mentality out here so we can start reducing our contribution to climate change. Our one attempt to build a inner-city metro is a comical failure that people just crash their giant trucks[1] into on a regular basis because they built the damn thing on ground level on main street.
[1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq6W45lG1Jg)
The population of the Greater Houston area is 5.6 million. Just look at the map https://goo.gl/maps/rU1ZWvfjy9w You can get out via 45, 59/69, i-10, 290, 69NE, or hell even 249. It's quite possibly the most spider-webbed city in the country. You can go to Austin, Dallas, San Antonio.
And every hurricane those freeways are deadlocked, and people are caught by the storm from behind, and old people's oxygen tanks explode on their busses because of texas heat, and that's without a full-blown evacuation ordered. We even run out of gasoline, the Oil City.
I'm not sure what the solution is but yea, evacuation out of Houston is not an option. I just wish there was some way to tackle the "big truck" mentality out here so we can start reducing our contribution to climate change. Our one attempt to build a inner-city metro is a comical failure that people just crash their giant trucks[1] into on a regular basis because they built the damn thing on ground level on main street.
[1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq6W45lG1Jg)
I believe they were talking a bout a slow, permanent evacuation of an area likely to get hit by more and bigger floods coupled with rising oceans.
How does that work? There's a reason why all the world's biggest metropolises are on the coast. Were would the people go? There are 20 million people in the Tokyo area.
And its actually not a problem. Rich countries can build flood defenses just fine. The Houston flooding could have easily been prevented if the US cared about infrastructure. After Katrina plans have been submitted. They just need funding.
And its actually not a problem. Rich countries can build flood defenses just fine. The Houston flooding could have easily been prevented if the US cared about infrastructure. After Katrina plans have been submitted. They just need funding.
As an aside with similar sentiment, this quote really drove home the point of flexible humans are to their situations.
"Centralisation breeds anomalies: beach resorts often buy their seafood in Mexico City’s wholesale market, hundreds of miles from the coast."
https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21665027-its-combinat...
"Centralisation breeds anomalies: beach resorts often buy their seafood in Mexico City’s wholesale market, hundreds of miles from the coast."
https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21665027-its-combinat...
>That's what humans do: we adapt to our environment. Only in particularly hubristic times (like now) have we expected to adapt our environment to us.
Changing emissions profiles IS adapting. We've already done it with smog and lead, etc.
Changing emissions profiles IS adapting. We've already done it with smog and lead, etc.
> I'd argue that the actual solution to global warming will be more akin to "stepping out of the way": people will evacuate from major cities, major cities will be destroyed, and people will pick up the pieces of their lives elsewhere
Even this is optimistic. It seems more likely to me that cities like Houston will keep getting flooded and "bailed" out (ha ha) by federal relief funds and state bond issuances.
Even this is optimistic. It seems more likely to me that cities like Houston will keep getting flooded and "bailed" out (ha ha) by federal relief funds and state bond issuances.
"Only in particularly hubristic times (like now) have we expected to adapt our environment to us."
You can't generalize at this level of granularity. Humans have done a lot of "adapting the environment to us" - draining swamps, building canals, reversing rivers, building dams, making water, power, and sewage distribution systems.
You can't generalize at this level of granularity. Humans have done a lot of "adapting the environment to us" - draining swamps, building canals, reversing rivers, building dams, making water, power, and sewage distribution systems.
yet everyone there still drives everywhere spewing carbon into their own air with every trip
This.
Every single person who claims they believe global climate change is a very serious, and man-made, problem absolutely should be taking personal steps now to address it. Telecommuting is a thing. Home-solar is a thing. Electric cars are a thing. Quit telling _others_ to solve the problems, and start doing it personally, now.
Put another way: if you're seriously concerned about global climate change, and using gasoline-powered vehicles (directly or by proxy), you're not seriously concerned about climate change - and I can't take your concerns seriously because you don't.
And "leaders" who take private jets to "climate change policy conferences" are straight-up charlatans.
(I'd be construed as a "climate change denier", and yet I do more about mitigating climate change than anyone else I know.)
Be the change you want in the world. You can afford it.
This.
Every single person who claims they believe global climate change is a very serious, and man-made, problem absolutely should be taking personal steps now to address it. Telecommuting is a thing. Home-solar is a thing. Electric cars are a thing. Quit telling _others_ to solve the problems, and start doing it personally, now.
Put another way: if you're seriously concerned about global climate change, and using gasoline-powered vehicles (directly or by proxy), you're not seriously concerned about climate change - and I can't take your concerns seriously because you don't.
And "leaders" who take private jets to "climate change policy conferences" are straight-up charlatans.
(I'd be construed as a "climate change denier", and yet I do more about mitigating climate change than anyone else I know.)
Be the change you want in the world. You can afford it.
>Every single person who claims they believe global climate change is a very serious, and man-made, problem absolutely should be taking personal steps now to address it. Quit telling _others_ to solve the problems, and start doing it personally, now.
This being effective seems contrary to everything we know about economics. If even a huge portion of people voluntary lower consumption or energy usage, it frees up that energy to be consumed more cheaply by other people and so the overall consumption is hardly impacted. Historically this is the case.
If you don't price an externality into the market with a tax or credit or it's useless.
Put another way: if you're seriously concerned about global climate change, and do not support pigouvian taxes or other policy that will actually have an impact, you're not seriously concerned about climate change - and I can't take your concerns seriously because you don't. You're just concerned about projecting the appearance that you care.
This being effective seems contrary to everything we know about economics. If even a huge portion of people voluntary lower consumption or energy usage, it frees up that energy to be consumed more cheaply by other people and so the overall consumption is hardly impacted. Historically this is the case.
If you don't price an externality into the market with a tax or credit or it's useless.
Put another way: if you're seriously concerned about global climate change, and do not support pigouvian taxes or other policy that will actually have an impact, you're not seriously concerned about climate change - and I can't take your concerns seriously because you don't. You're just concerned about projecting the appearance that you care.
> You're just concerned about projecting the appearance
> that you care.
>This is a completely unnecessary, uncharitable attack.
Yes it is unnecessarily snarky and if I could edit my comment I would remove that line.
Yes it is unnecessarily snarky and if I could edit my comment I would remove that line.
>> This is a completely unnecessary, uncharitable attack.
Not necessarily. If your parent had been a car-user and staunch supporter of Pigouvian taxes, they may have felt personally and unreasonably attacked by their previous poster and merely responded in kind. Notice that the language is identical, signaling a reflexive reaction.
Personally, I think they are both right about what needs to be done. Personal action and collectively enforced action.
Not necessarily. If your parent had been a car-user and staunch supporter of Pigouvian taxes, they may have felt personally and unreasonably attacked by their previous poster and merely responded in kind. Notice that the language is identical, signaling a reflexive reaction.
Personally, I think they are both right about what needs to be done. Personal action and collectively enforced action.
If even a huge portion of people voluntary lower consumption or energy usage, it frees up that energy to be consumed more cheaply by other people
Not really, oil extraction is capital intensive, oil wells have finite lives, and you can count on people extracting the cheapest oil first. As fossil fuel demand drops, the risk of operating a well increases and that makes borrowing more expensive, the capital costs will be amortized across less energy so the energy will have to be more expensive, and energy should naturally get more expensive as time goes on and the easiest oil is depleted. Sure, technology changes and reduces the cost of extraction but moving away from fossil fuels isn't an incentive for developing more extraction technology.
Not to mention that people's investments in alternative fuels / transportation brings the costs down for everyone else and as costs go down, more and more people will be willing to pay the eco-friendly premium until some day they're less expensive and people select eco-friendly consumption out of their own self-interest.
I think this day is closer than most people realize for electric cars. Gear heads and regular folks are going to love electric cars when the batteries get better, at some point, it's going to cost a lot extra to get a ICE vehicle and that's going to be a rent extraction on idiots who dream of rolling coal in F250s.
Not really, oil extraction is capital intensive, oil wells have finite lives, and you can count on people extracting the cheapest oil first. As fossil fuel demand drops, the risk of operating a well increases and that makes borrowing more expensive, the capital costs will be amortized across less energy so the energy will have to be more expensive, and energy should naturally get more expensive as time goes on and the easiest oil is depleted. Sure, technology changes and reduces the cost of extraction but moving away from fossil fuels isn't an incentive for developing more extraction technology.
Not to mention that people's investments in alternative fuels / transportation brings the costs down for everyone else and as costs go down, more and more people will be willing to pay the eco-friendly premium until some day they're less expensive and people select eco-friendly consumption out of their own self-interest.
I think this day is closer than most people realize for electric cars. Gear heads and regular folks are going to love electric cars when the batteries get better, at some point, it's going to cost a lot extra to get a ICE vehicle and that's going to be a rent extraction on idiots who dream of rolling coal in F250s.
Changing economic behavior with public campaigns has a pretty much zero success rate. Anyone remember Pres Ford's "WIP" buttons (Whip Inflation Now)? It had the hubris that inflation could be stopped if only people would just stop raising prices.
Even as a kid, I laughed at the absurdity of that campaign. Of course it had zero effect.
Something that will work is to tax pollution, i.e. a carbon tax. Making it more expensive will do far more to influence behavior away from it than any marketing campaign. And besides, it raises spending money for the government, too.
Using the tax system to "internalize the externalities" (economist jargon) is an efficient and effective way to do it.
Even as a kid, I laughed at the absurdity of that campaign. Of course it had zero effect.
Something that will work is to tax pollution, i.e. a carbon tax. Making it more expensive will do far more to influence behavior away from it than any marketing campaign. And besides, it raises spending money for the government, too.
Using the tax system to "internalize the externalities" (economist jargon) is an efficient and effective way to do it.
Changing economic behavior with public campaigns has a pretty much zero success rate.
yet advertising and marketing happens.
yet advertising and marketing happens.
When it's of immediate local benefit to the individual, yes.
[deleted]
Ford wasn't very good at acronyms?
There’s nothing inherently wrong with taking personal steps, but by themselves they are largely worthless. It’s like optimizing an I/O bound program by speeding up some of the arithmetic operations not on any critical path.
Telling people who continue to commute by car or use grid electricity or travel internationally that they don’t really care about climate change is idiotic – not just useless but actively counterproductive because it makes people dismiss you as an arrogant jerk.
What’s needed are large-scale policy changes (international agreements, public investment in research and alternative infrastructure, changes to zoning laws, carbon taxes, regulations of agricultural runoff, crackdown on tax evasion and money laundering and international bribery, ...), which takes significant amounts of political organizing effort, money, and political capital (including flying various leaders around on jets).
Telling people who continue to commute by car or use grid electricity or travel internationally that they don’t really care about climate change is idiotic – not just useless but actively counterproductive because it makes people dismiss you as an arrogant jerk.
What’s needed are large-scale policy changes (international agreements, public investment in research and alternative infrastructure, changes to zoning laws, carbon taxes, regulations of agricultural runoff, crackdown on tax evasion and money laundering and international bribery, ...), which takes significant amounts of political organizing effort, money, and political capital (including flying various leaders around on jets).
Telling people who continue to commute by car or use grid electricity or travel internationally that they don’t really care about climate change is idiotic
That's a strawman. What the parent comment says is that people's behavior reveals their preferences. A more clear example is this - someone who drives a Suburban for fun and burns their trash isn't in a good position to demand that others go out of their way to treat the earth better.
That's a strawman. What the parent comment says is that people's behavior reveals their preferences. A more clear example is this - someone who drives a Suburban for fun and burns their trash isn't in a good position to demand that others go out of their way to treat the earth better.
One of the complications here is that the CO2 costs of manufacturing the car aren't taken into account. When they are, it can actually be preferable to continue to run the gas guzzler. Manufacturing steel and batteries is hugely energy and resource intensive.
> people's behavior reveals their preferences
Only if they are rational economic actors.
If you live in the sticks and want to buy food which is several kilometers away, do you throw up your hands in the air and starve so that you don't use your car?
Only if they are rational economic actors.
If you live in the sticks and want to buy food which is several kilometers away, do you throw up your hands in the air and starve so that you don't use your car?
I don't think we have to address rationality / irrationality in action.
If I'm following your point you're saying that some people make choices against constraints and that we should understand their constraints before we impugn their actions.
And you're absolutely right. I don't begrudge anyone for driving a truck who uses a truck, and much of the debate about 'what you need' seems to follow this thinking - if you're using your truck in such a way that a sedan is a viable alternative, how costly is it really to put that person in a sedan? And that's a very valid point (personally, I think we have to many trucks and SUVs on the road because fuel is unreasonably cheap and trucks / suv owners don't bear the full costs of crashing / insuring them).
But we can ask that people do the things they expect of others - or at least it's defensible to ask someone to be the change they want to see in the world.
The person who lives in the sticks might have an opportunity to grow their own food, and depending on their views about the environment it's an avenue to explore.
And there's also a point about 'harm reduction' - driving a car to get groceries is more defensible than driving an SUV to get a candy bar and leaving it running while you shop to keep the A/C pumping.
If someone has to drive a car, they need to understand that not all cars pollute alike. A 2016 Prius pollutes orders of magnitude less than a 1959 Chevrolet 2 ton truck and the person should consider ways they can reduce their harm to the environment if they want others to do the same.
If I'm following your point you're saying that some people make choices against constraints and that we should understand their constraints before we impugn their actions.
And you're absolutely right. I don't begrudge anyone for driving a truck who uses a truck, and much of the debate about 'what you need' seems to follow this thinking - if you're using your truck in such a way that a sedan is a viable alternative, how costly is it really to put that person in a sedan? And that's a very valid point (personally, I think we have to many trucks and SUVs on the road because fuel is unreasonably cheap and trucks / suv owners don't bear the full costs of crashing / insuring them).
But we can ask that people do the things they expect of others - or at least it's defensible to ask someone to be the change they want to see in the world.
The person who lives in the sticks might have an opportunity to grow their own food, and depending on their views about the environment it's an avenue to explore.
And there's also a point about 'harm reduction' - driving a car to get groceries is more defensible than driving an SUV to get a candy bar and leaving it running while you shop to keep the A/C pumping.
If someone has to drive a car, they need to understand that not all cars pollute alike. A 2016 Prius pollutes orders of magnitude less than a 1959 Chevrolet 2 ton truck and the person should consider ways they can reduce their harm to the environment if they want others to do the same.
All the large-scale policies you cite are mostly useful for the medium and long term, but counter-productive in the sort-term, as creating new "clean" infrastructures is done using our current, fossil fueled infrastructures.
Personal steps are our main chance at a short term effect, and we need that short term effect. A huge part of greenhouse gas emissions for instance is due to meat. It amounts for more than half of it if you count cattle respiration ! This is something that can be almost exclusively solved by personal involvement, i.e. eating less meat or no meat at all. Likewise for personal transportation and home heating/insulation. With these three things other which people have a lot of control, we cover a large part of greenhouse gas emissions.
Personal steps are our main chance at a short term effect, and we need that short term effect. A huge part of greenhouse gas emissions for instance is due to meat. It amounts for more than half of it if you count cattle respiration ! This is something that can be almost exclusively solved by personal involvement, i.e. eating less meat or no meat at all. Likewise for personal transportation and home heating/insulation. With these three things other which people have a lot of control, we cover a large part of greenhouse gas emissions.
Your basic unquestioned assumptions are that humans have a non-negligible effect on global warming and that global warming exists. Instead of jumping to conclusions, we must also question and analyze the existing evidence for the premise.
This reminds me of the whole "take shorter showers" thing. The amount of water consumed taking showers is minuscule compared to how much water is used for industrial agriculture. It's not going to make a difference to take a 5 minute shower vs. 10 minutes. So it overall feels very defeating as an individual to try to make a change.
Definitely agreed that it's important to take a look at all of the domains that have an affect on the situation. That said, one of the things "take shorter showers" and similar efforts does do is raise awareness and helps people keep it in mind as part of their daily life. This can have an effect on the decisions they make in other areas as well.
But if you're pushing for "take shorter showers" legislation imposed on all, I expect you to take shorter showers now.
To me, this sounds like “if you’re not down in steerage baling water out of the sinking Titanic, you’re not seriously concerned about it sinking.”
It won’t make any detectable difference if I go 100% solar and vegetarian, or if I spend all my disposable income on gasoline that I burn in amusing ways.
Collective action is the only thing that matters for this. If you go all-in on a low carbon lifestyle for yourself, and your friend nudges government policy towards something that reduces emissions, your friend has done far more to mitigate climate change than you have.
It won’t make any detectable difference if I go 100% solar and vegetarian, or if I spend all my disposable income on gasoline that I burn in amusing ways.
Collective action is the only thing that matters for this. If you go all-in on a low carbon lifestyle for yourself, and your friend nudges government policy towards something that reduces emissions, your friend has done far more to mitigate climate change than you have.
But if you can't show that "100% solar & vegetarian" is a viable & desirable choice, you're not going to convince others to. Imposition under threat of police action will only invoke shifting bad choices, strain economy, and inspire malice.
As I recall from the time, the rise of the SUV came from imposition of emissions limits on cars, which didn't cover trucks so the spacious & fumes-spewing "enclosed car-styled truck" was inspired. Did that help emissions in the long run? Here in the southern USA, 2/3rds of vehicles aren't emissions-efficient sedans.
As I recall from the time, the rise of the SUV came from imposition of emissions limits on cars, which didn't cover trucks so the spacious & fumes-spewing "enclosed car-styled truck" was inspired. Did that help emissions in the long run? Here in the southern USA, 2/3rds of vehicles aren't emissions-efficient sedans.
This doesn't add up to me. I can be one of the two people in a prisoner's dilemma scenario and fully acknowledge the reality that I might be heading to jail while still playing the selfish strategy of snitching.
Just because you recognize that your personal actions won't affect the outcome as it pertains to you doesn't mean you can't recognize that the personal actions of a large number of other people will affect the outcome as it pertains to you.
Just because you recognize that your personal actions won't affect the outcome as it pertains to you doesn't mean you can't recognize that the personal actions of a large number of other people will affect the outcome as it pertains to you.
This isn't prisoner's dilemma though - everyone has a full ability to communicate with each other. That breaks a pretty basic assumption.
To stretch your analogy, you are playing prisoners dilemma with someone who is swearing he will snitch, has a lawyer who is saying "my client will cooperate fully with the police" and who has signed a document explaining the facts.
To stretch your analogy, you are playing prisoners dilemma with someone who is swearing he will snitch, has a lawyer who is saying "my client will cooperate fully with the police" and who has signed a document explaining the facts.
In the classical prisoner's dilemma it doesn't matter whether the prisoners can fully communicate with each other or not as long as it hold that they cannot change their move after seeing what the other guy moved. And it's perverse because they both have a strategy A that strictly dominates B but if they both play A then they're worse off than if they both played B.
That is equivalent to not communicating. In the classical prisoner's dilemma, you do assume that the other person will make their decision independently of you. (Which is also equivalent to not communicating.) Real humans don't do what the classical case says they do, because humans can empathize with each other and work together even without explicitly communicating. Political organizations, though? Not as much.
This thread is already insane in that the metaphor is getting more complicated than what it was trying to explain, but...
...trying to minimise one's carbon footprint is, quite obviously, an iterated prisoner's dilemma: you can observe other's behaviour every day (and vice versa) and react accordingly.
The problem is that nobody plays it with a single other person, but with "all of humanity" instead. Any change in others' behaviour will almost certainly be only gradual, and not accessible to daily perception.
...trying to minimise one's carbon footprint is, quite obviously, an iterated prisoner's dilemma: you can observe other's behaviour every day (and vice versa) and react accordingly.
The problem is that nobody plays it with a single other person, but with "all of humanity" instead. Any change in others' behaviour will almost certainly be only gradual, and not accessible to daily perception.
> Every single person who claims they believe global climate change is a very serious, and man-made, problem absolutely should be taking personal steps now to address it. Telecommuting is a thing. Home-solar is a thing. Electric cars are a thing. Quit telling _others_ to solve the problems, and start doing it personally, now.
Let me get it straight, you mean Leonardo Di Caprio, George Clooney and Al Gore should live like the peasants? Please, hold my beer.
Let me get it straight, you mean Leonardo Di Caprio, George Clooney and Al Gore should live like the peasants? Please, hold my beer.
Cognitive dissonance is unbecoming.
Spewing tons of CO2 en route to a CO2 control conference, when the same ends could be met via teleconference, is hypocrisy.
You can live well while reducing your impact on the environment. They certainly have the money to.
Spewing tons of CO2 en route to a CO2 control conference, when the same ends could be met via teleconference, is hypocrisy.
You can live well while reducing your impact on the environment. They certainly have the money to.
Is it? I don’t think teleconferencing technology is at a state (yet) where it’s nearly as effective at conveying messages and building relationships as in-person conferencing. It‘s closer than it used to be, and it may get closer still in the future (e.g. if VR gets good enough that people want to use it for that), but for now it’s not there. Teleconferencing also has a public perception of being cheaper and thus less important. So, if the goal of a conference is to cause some measurable reduction in the expected amount of carbon being dumped in the future, by encouraging government action and such - it’s certainly debatable whether conferences can actually achieve that goal, but that’s the goal - then a virtual conference would probably result in a substantially smaller reduction. And if a substantial portion of a measurable change is measurable, then it’s a lot bigger than the CO2 cost of some plane tickets, which at a global scale is immeasurable.
On the other hand, making a point of using telecommunications could make for a good PR stunt, which could increase attention and thus effectiveness. It could also help promote the idea of using teleconferencing as an environmental measure. Overall, though, I’m not sure how good a stunt it’d be - it might give people the impression that fighting climate change requires people to make great personal sacrifices in their way of life, which, whether or not it’s true, could hurt the cause by creating cognitive dissonance. (I’m pretty sure it’s not true, per se. Rather, it would require a ton of money, which would hurt people’s way of life indirectly, but not as obviously.)
On the other hand, making a point of using telecommunications could make for a good PR stunt, which could increase attention and thus effectiveness. It could also help promote the idea of using teleconferencing as an environmental measure. Overall, though, I’m not sure how good a stunt it’d be - it might give people the impression that fighting climate change requires people to make great personal sacrifices in their way of life, which, whether or not it’s true, could hurt the cause by creating cognitive dissonance. (I’m pretty sure it’s not true, per se. Rather, it would require a ton of money, which would hurt people’s way of life indirectly, but not as obviously.)
To quote a dialog I once overheard at a marathon's finish line:
"You run a marathon and smoke?"
"It's better than just smoking."
"You run a marathon and smoke?"
"It's better than just smoking."
It's clear that our contemporary social structures are not well equipped to deal with climate change. This is unlikely to change in the next 10-50 years. So local governments that are able to act must do so.
"Solutions to global problems start at home." --> If everyone in Houston switched up their SUVs for Prius', nothing globally would change at all, except that the people of Houston would have smaller cars. Why does this make sense for them?
"Solutions to global problems start at home." --> If everyone in Houston switched up their SUVs for Prius', nothing globally would change at all, except that the people of Houston would have smaller cars. Why does this make sense for them?
[deleted]
You're right that we require a policy attack on Climate Change, but nonetheless, it feels a bit odd to keep doing the thing that'll kill you.
If only Houston produced carbon and the rest of the world were carbon neutral the 4 million residents of the metro area wouldn't be able to raise the temperature of Earth a degree in a millennia at current emissions rates.
This is why Climate Change is hard. Individually nobody is causing that much damage (except maybe Californian cows) but the sum of the parts causes an extraordinary problem.
This is why Climate Change is hard. Individually nobody is causing that much damage (except maybe Californian cows) but the sum of the parts causes an extraordinary problem.
It's basically the Tragedy of the Commons on a global scale. The atmosphere is a huge public good, and climate change is a huge negative externality. It's relatively beneficial to the individual person, and even the individual country, to ignore the problem, even if it ultimately harms the population as a whole in the long run. That's why so many people prefer to ignore the problem or pretend it doesn't exist, rather than actually confront the issue.
http://tragedy.sdsu.edu/
http://tragedy.sdsu.edu/
Yep.
If I have a pile of coal, and you want electricity, I can sell you coal for a good price. I make a profit, you get energy, we both lose a tiny bit due to increased global warming. The other 7 billion people in the world each lose a tiny bit to global warming and get zero direct benefit from our trade. It is rational for me to keep selling you coal, and for you to keep buying it, while we can keep the game rolling and push the costs onto everyone else.
It's be beneficial for everyone else if they banded together and prevented us from trading without paying them appropriate compensation.
If you're feeling particularly misanthropic / politically foolish, repeat similar argument about living in society with high per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Suppose you and a partner decide to have children. Maybe everyone else in the world should band together and demand compensation/regulation for the global environmental impact due to population growth in these countries. Some things we currently regard as individual freedoms are not logically compatible with constrained resources/constrained pollution sinks.
If I have a pile of coal, and you want electricity, I can sell you coal for a good price. I make a profit, you get energy, we both lose a tiny bit due to increased global warming. The other 7 billion people in the world each lose a tiny bit to global warming and get zero direct benefit from our trade. It is rational for me to keep selling you coal, and for you to keep buying it, while we can keep the game rolling and push the costs onto everyone else.
It's be beneficial for everyone else if they banded together and prevented us from trading without paying them appropriate compensation.
If you're feeling particularly misanthropic / politically foolish, repeat similar argument about living in society with high per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Suppose you and a partner decide to have children. Maybe everyone else in the world should band together and demand compensation/regulation for the global environmental impact due to population growth in these countries. Some things we currently regard as individual freedoms are not logically compatible with constrained resources/constrained pollution sinks.
Very interesting idea
Japan didn't (over)build that flood control system because they're worried about global warming or thousand year floods.
They did it to create jobs. In the same way the US is said to have a "military industrial complex", Japan has a "construction industrial complex", wherein the government builds a whole lot of infrastructure the country can't really justify or even maintain. Flood control, rail lines, airports, etc. It's all stuff an industrialized country needs, but the Japanese take it up to eleven in an effort to stimulate the economy.
They did it to create jobs. In the same way the US is said to have a "military industrial complex", Japan has a "construction industrial complex", wherein the government builds a whole lot of infrastructure the country can't really justify or even maintain. Flood control, rail lines, airports, etc. It's all stuff an industrialized country needs, but the Japanese take it up to eleven in an effort to stimulate the economy.
I find this argument a little weak. I think you are confusing Japan with China?
Or do you have any sources?
Or do you have any sources?
The same thing happens with our health. People would rather spend trillions of dollars on health care, rather than start eating healthy. 70% of all healthcare dollars go towards diseases and causes of death that are lifestyle related causes (eating, nutrtion, excercise, smoking, etc)
Well, as for the excessive spending, there is also the fact that healthcare is basically a parallel to the military industrial complex (doctors, hospitals, insurers, drug companies) especially conducive to oligarchy/monopoly-like behavior.
Paradoxically enough (but not so much if you think about it a while), a review of patient mortality rates during doctor's strikes found that mortality decreased when doctors were on strike.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18849101
Paradoxically enough (but not so much if you think about it a while), a review of patient mortality rates during doctor's strikes found that mortality decreased when doctors were on strike.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18849101
Tragedy of the commons - it's a ubiquitous and powerful economic principle.
The tragedy of the commons is another name for the failure of private property and markets to account for externalities. For a real theory of the commons without leaving mainstream economics cf. Mary Ostrom's Governing the Commons. Otherwise, all of anthropology.
Elinor Ostrom.
Nice podcast on some of these things: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/11/boettke_on_elin.htm...
Nice podcast on some of these things: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/11/boettke_on_elin.htm...
Thanks for catching that. Must have amalgamated two economists in my head.
> Why can't we put that money, effort, manpower, and will into actually addressing climate change and make crazy projects like vast man-made Mines-of-Moria-style underground tunnels and huge artificial reservoirs unnecessary?
In part because the Carbon Industry is huge and powerful, and holds power over most of the worlds major governments.
I mean Rex Tillerson, the former head of Exxon Mobil is currently the US Secretary of State.
The rest is because the machine of Late Capitalism is built on a presumption of endless growth with no consequences. The crisis that's barrelling down on us is so __alien__ to the established way of thinking that it's literally impossible for these economies to react with anything other than stupor and paralysis.
In part because the Carbon Industry is huge and powerful, and holds power over most of the worlds major governments.
I mean Rex Tillerson, the former head of Exxon Mobil is currently the US Secretary of State.
The rest is because the machine of Late Capitalism is built on a presumption of endless growth with no consequences. The crisis that's barrelling down on us is so __alien__ to the established way of thinking that it's literally impossible for these economies to react with anything other than stupor and paralysis.
Preparing for the effects is much more practical, and something that you can execute against. I have long been a proponent of the notion that there is ample, and incontrovertible, evidence of climate change even before people started adding their own hand to the mix. As such, the expected value of a dollar spent on preparing for a change in climate gives a better return in terms of survivability than spending a dollar changing a local contribution to CO2 production. Spending money on both is even better.
When one of the super volcanoes burps its going to screw up a lot of things, and it would be nice to have some options.
When one of the super volcanoes burps its going to screw up a lot of things, and it would be nice to have some options.
There's a coordination problem at work. If Tokyo stops emitting entirely, it still gets flooded. Whereas the flood prevention actually stops the flood (for a couple of decades anyway). Even though it's not a great solution, it turns out that flood prevention is the only solution Tokyo can actually implement on its own.
I wish we had a global system of carbon taxes, and hope that we might make an effective solution. And I wish cities like Tokyo would push harder for national/international solutions. But I don't think they're wrong to prepare locally.
I wish we had a global system of carbon taxes, and hope that we might make an effective solution. And I wish cities like Tokyo would push harder for national/international solutions. But I don't think they're wrong to prepare locally.
This is all a great illustration of support for Elon Musk's idea that a carbon tax is the best way to fight climate change.
Unfortunately, a global carbon tax would put the billion dollar Climate Change Bureaucracy Industry nearly out of business. And people act like we haven't seen this kind of perverse incentive structure--bureaucratic inertia--before with the War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terrror, etc.: they all end up focusing on self-preservation rather than their apparent objectives.
Unfortunately, a global carbon tax would put the billion dollar Climate Change Bureaucracy Industry nearly out of business. And people act like we haven't seen this kind of perverse incentive structure--bureaucratic inertia--before with the War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terrror, etc.: they all end up focusing on self-preservation rather than their apparent objectives.
Yeah I won't really be worried about global warming until they start talking about something like "The Climate War". We lose all our wars, so that would be a declaration of inevitable doom.
Climate change is in dire need of a Themistocles type character that can sway the public. The current talking heads I feel are just not up to the task. Someone who the right can relate to who but doesn't alienate the left in the process and who can rise above the media noise and can encapsulate their arguments into easily digestible sound bites so as to not get lost. There's no doubt humanity is in for a hep of trouble in the immediate future, however the powers at be are too disjointed with conflicting interests to be expected to reach a rationale consensus. It Doesn't help that the right has developed some pretty powerful newspeak rife with thought terminating cliches that makes argument all but impossible. If history is any consolation, things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better. Unfortunately things getting worse in this case means it'll probably be too late to make things better.
Because climate change makes the floods worse, meaning that without climate change you still have floods. Reversal of climate change is not significant enough to be able to safe money on these tunnels. Although we would save a lot of lives by undoing climate change.
I don't get why Houston wants to spend $400M on a reservoir. Sure they need a reservoir, but they need all of the other stuff too. Perhaps if they had $4B budget, they could actually fix everything that needs to be fixed.
Houston needs to get to the point that they can handle 60+ inches of rain in a 24 hour period. Token efforts might keep their budget balanced and the voters appeased until the next election, but they're getting 100 year storms so frequently now, they'll have to stop calling them that.
Climate change is great and all, but even if you sharply cut carbon emissions today, it would take a years before 100 years storms went back to their previous frequency.
Houston needs to get to the point that they can handle 60+ inches of rain in a 24 hour period. Token efforts might keep their budget balanced and the voters appeased until the next election, but they're getting 100 year storms so frequently now, they'll have to stop calling them that.
Climate change is great and all, but even if you sharply cut carbon emissions today, it would take a years before 100 years storms went back to their previous frequency.
Building such infrastructure does properly address specific risks of natural disasters and climate change.
One should not assume that climate changes have been, are, nor will be, exclusively caused by human action; one should not think that there is a single, global path of action that will somehow set all future climates to some ideal version. More concretely, consider that we happen to live in an interglacial period. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
One should not assume that climate changes have been, are, nor will be, exclusively caused by human action; one should not think that there is a single, global path of action that will somehow set all future climates to some ideal version. More concretely, consider that we happen to live in an interglacial period. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
> In TFA Houston wants $400 million to build a reservoir. They seem to acknowledge that things are only going to get worse for them as the years go on. And yet everyone there still drives everywhere spewing carbon into their own air with every trip, public transit is in a poor state, and oil exploitation continues apace. Everyone's OK with spending money and manpower on huge public works projects, but they're not OK with addressing habits and addictions that make the projects necessary in the first place.
It sucks to have to drive for miles to get anywhere in Houston. Public transportation is downright dangerous in Houston where the threat of violent crime is very high. It is not practical to arrive at work sweaty from walking or bicycling. Just being outside on a motorcycle moving at moderate speed causes intense perspiration within 10 minutes. Air conditioning is necessary. There is no alternative to the gasoline powered automobile because the city is planned so poorly. So you deal with it the only way you can by taking personal responsibility to ensure your own safety and comfort. Fundamentally the problem may be poor planning or that the government is dysfunctional and taxpayer money is squandered.
It sucks to have to drive for miles to get anywhere in Houston. Public transportation is downright dangerous in Houston where the threat of violent crime is very high. It is not practical to arrive at work sweaty from walking or bicycling. Just being outside on a motorcycle moving at moderate speed causes intense perspiration within 10 minutes. Air conditioning is necessary. There is no alternative to the gasoline powered automobile because the city is planned so poorly. So you deal with it the only way you can by taking personal responsibility to ensure your own safety and comfort. Fundamentally the problem may be poor planning or that the government is dysfunctional and taxpayer money is squandered.
Even billions is cheap for Japan given that their strongest export sector these days is automobiles.
Well, mitigation without adaptation would be a terrible idea. That's how you get screwed over by industrial countries with little regulation.
Obviously the answer is a bit of both, so it's not entirely clear what you're arguing for....
Obviously the answer is a bit of both, so it's not entirely clear what you're arguing for....
Simple economics. Its a free rider problem, both on state to federal, as well as federal to global level. There simply are not the institutions to have global solutions.
I kinda agree with you, but I still find this more interesting than the usual nothing + catastrophy aftermath in flooded areas.
Rational self-interested bots engineered to maximise shareholder value.
The way I see it, the only possible way to stop the coming disaster is for the entire world to come together, collectively, and limit population with sterilization lottery programs. We need to bring things down to 1 billion or less people. Nations that don't volunteer willingly will have to be drug along by force.
This probably won't happen, though. We're f#@^ed.
This probably won't happen, though. We're f#@^ed.
Every single country that has become wealthy has seen a drop in reproduction rates to rates lower than what's necessary to keep population numbers steady–except the US because somehow they managed to be become more religious with time.
Meaning you can make excellent progress towards your goal without committing injustices on an industrial scale. Instead, you get to work on empowering women and bringing education, economic opportunity, and health care to everyone.
Yeah!
Meaning you can make excellent progress towards your goal without committing injustices on an industrial scale. Instead, you get to work on empowering women and bringing education, economic opportunity, and health care to everyone.
Yeah!
Education, social justice, economic opportunity and universal health care are all wonderful things but this is a problem we need to solve -now-. We have something like 100 years by conservative estimates before runaway effects like methane clathrate melt and ocean acidification make warming inevitable and irreversible. Even now, in the "wealthy" USA, abandoning coal power is being described as unrealistic, let alone implementing the sweeping social changes you've mentioned in places like Africa, Central America and China.
"Injustices on an industrial scale"? When billions of people are displaced from the rising coasts, when entire nations disappear into the ocean, when our over-homogenized agriculture fails to sudden environmental shifts leading to widespread famine, we'll wish we had just gotten vasectomies instead.
"Injustices on an industrial scale"? When billions of people are displaced from the rising coasts, when entire nations disappear into the ocean, when our over-homogenized agriculture fails to sudden environmental shifts leading to widespread famine, we'll wish we had just gotten vasectomies instead.
The only reason the US reproduction rate isn’t lower is due to massive immigration. If you take out the cohort of people who’ve moved here in the past generation, the rate looks much more like that of European nations.
USA's exceptionalism in fertility is due to immigration not religion.
Everyone's OK with spending money and manpower on huge public works projects, but they're not OK with addressing habits and addictions that make the projects necessary in the first place.
Careful how you throw around “they” there buddy. We Houstonians are 7 million diverse people doing the best we can with what we have.
Thanks for your outrage on our behalf. Instead of grand standing and virtue signaling perhaps you could, you know, actually do something to help.
Careful how you throw around “they” there buddy. We Houstonians are 7 million diverse people doing the best we can with what we have.
Thanks for your outrage on our behalf. Instead of grand standing and virtue signaling perhaps you could, you know, actually do something to help.
Y'all could build a robust mass-transit system and get those cars off of the road for a start.
What do you think we’ve been trying to do? Read the Houston Chronicle or Houston Press.
Hurricane Katrina was estimated to have over $200 billion in losses—if that's true, it seems like there should be more investment in this type of infrastructure.
Why? When you can use disaster capitalism and profit on the "volatility" provided by such events?
I've heard it said that in the UK a fatal car crash increases GDP by about £1 million.
Reference?
A quick skim only showed studies showing cost of each fatality e.g. USD 1.6e6 in US listed here https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
A quick skim only showed studies showing cost of each fatality e.g. USD 1.6e6 in US listed here https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
I think you mean 'decreases'
GDP famously includes the cost of ambulance rides, replacing broken windows, and insurance claim examination, even though we might not really want those things.
I strongly suspect he does not.
Savannah Georgia is spending over a billion to dredge the harbor to make way for bigger Panamax container ships. Same with Charleston, about 2 billion. My point is that there are a fair number of billion dollar infrastructure projects that fly under most people's radar. Source: today's WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-panama-canals-big-bet-is-pa...
From what I understand, Japan thinks the climate is getting warmer due to human action, and serious steps need to be taken to deal with it.
I have a question for the global climate change skeptics out there.
Are there any major countries in the world besides the US and maybe Russia where the central government agrees with you on what is happening and what to do about it? (If there are give us some links)
I have a question for the global climate change skeptics out there.
Are there any major countries in the world besides the US and maybe Russia where the central government agrees with you on what is happening and what to do about it? (If there are give us some links)
[deleted]
Does the USA have a central government with a central policy? Obama believed in climate change even if Trump doesn't, most of congress, even on the right, believe in some amount of climate change (e.g. McCain). I'm really at a loss to find that unified anti climate change sentiment in the states. It's more like a democracy where politicians and electorates are allowed to have different opinions.
By central government, I meant for the US the federal government, and in particular the present administration.
My question still stands.
My question still stands.
When I google "china coal power", a confusing set of links appears. Some are certain that coal power plant construction in China has halted or will halt in future, others are not. I suspect reality doesn't match the marketing exactly.
Your post is misplaced but...
China is definitely building new coal plants, just not in every district. Beijing has a ban, for example, but not surrounding Hebei.
China is definitely building new coal plants, just not in every district. Beijing has a ban, for example, but not surrounding Hebei.
There is a difference between "central government agrees with you" and whether they are actually doing something about it. Most world governments give lip service to climate change but don't do much trying to stop it.
A little off topic, but the novel Japan Sinks [0] by Sakyo Komatsu is a wonderful insight into Japan and its fears/feelings on natural disaster. Also, more generally, just a really great disaster novel.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Sinks
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Sinks
Enjoyed the movie based on the novel as well.
Also fascinating, Dragon Head[0] is a 10 volume post-apocalyptic natural disaster psychological and survival horror manga worth a read.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Head
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Head
[deleted]
Between natural disasters and weaponized weather modification (yes it still sounds crazy but it's becoming increasingly clear that it's a real thing), this is definitely a priority for a country like Japan.
I do believe there's a movie coming out with a similar premise of weather modification to control natural disasters gone wrong called Geostorm.
The US feels more like a third world country in its "response" to climate change compared to countries like Japan
Tokyo is 30% of Japan's population..
Fukushima Is Preparing for Melt-down(2008)
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was happend. Disasters occur at unexpected places.
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was happend. Disasters occur at unexpected places.
The caption of the last image says: "Visitors can tour the system, which cost $2 billion and was completed in 2006."
I hope that's just a typo.
What part do you hope is a typo?
Quick lookup of other sources all state figures between US$2billion and US$3 billion
I initially read that as the tour costing $2 billion. Seems a bit steep!
Is it? How much have the recent floods experienced in the Americas cost?
What is honestly going on in this comment section? First guy is confused by a perfectly good caption saying that the facility cost $2 billion to build and was completed in 2006. And second guy said he somehow thought that meant that taking a tour costs $2 billion (which would be obviously expensive just for a tour). And you have somehow misinterpreted the comment about the tour to be saying that the facility is expensive.
Come on, guys. Read before you comment. Jesus.
Come on, guys. Read before you comment. Jesus.
I assume the second person was joking. I have no idea what the first person was concerned about, unfortunately.
[deleted]
Tokyo has a GDP of $1.6 trillion per year. And they have a lot of expensive property they want to protect from flooding.
Yeah I wouldn't want to pay $2 billion for a tour.
Instead, it claims that the purpose of the tunnels is to protect the areas surrounding some smaller rivers upstream of Tokyo, which are on flood plains and regularly used to get flooded (no climate change required, just regular rain season/typhoon does this). Now due to urban sprawl more people want to live there, exacerbating the problem and creating the need for this system.
I do not doubt that climate change is happening. I just don't like articles with such a clear agenda in the background, especially when the official sources contradict the statements.
[1] http://www.ktr.mlit.go.jp/edogawa/gaikaku/intro/01intro/inde...
(Please correct me if I'm wrong or I missed something.)