The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Will the Supreme Court Consider the Social Cost of Carbon?
Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sought to reconsider a stay of a district court opinion barring consideration of the Biden Administration's social cost of carbon estimates.
Earlier this year, a federal district court in Louisiana enjoined federal agencies from relying upon or considering estimates of the costs of greenhouse gas emissions -- the so-called "Social Cost of Carbon -- developed by an interagency working group. The opinion was a bit of a mess, and was soon stayed by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Unhappy with the stay, Louisiana and the other states that brought the initial suit filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Today that petition was denied in a brief order, which noted that "no member of the panel or judge in regular active service requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc." In other words, not even one judge on the Fifth Circuit thought the question merited further review.
Undaunted by the latest order, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry proclaimed he will file a petition for certiorari. The underlying case would not appear cert-worthy, particularly as the administrative law questions presented are rather straight-forward and uncontroversial. Universal challenges to agency consideration of the Social Cost of Carbon are premature and beyond the jurisdiction of federal courts unless and until such estimates are relied upon by an agency taking a distinct, discrete action that causes a justiciable injury.
The one wrinkle is that there is another case challenging the Biden Administration's Social Cost of Carbon pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In the unlikely event that the Eighth Circuit reaches a different conclusion about the viability of such suits, then Supreme Court review might be possible.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If they do, then they need to consider the benefits of it as well, like not living in caves like apes.
Oh, look. It's wayyyyyyy out ahead.
Deny the plague of parasitic lawyers taking a 30% cut of trillions of dollars to buy superyachts, doing nothing to alleviate the problem.
Do you type in a response on a cell phone? You wouldn't have that if not for a powerful, free economy.
You received the benefits. If there is a problem, assume the costs. Do not allow smoke and mirrors parasites to filch your pockets.
The court can make itself useful by preventing injury, and not waiting for massive, irreversible damage to happen.
What irreversible damage would that be?
oh man I'm in trouble. As a runner I put out more C02 than a non runner. will I have to pay a runner climate tax? Or have to buy carbon credits from some 400lb fatty who barely moves?
The obese ARE sequestering carbon, after all.
The first sentence of your final paragraph says the potentially conflicting case is in the Fifth Circuit; the second sentence says it's in the Eighth Circuit. The second sentence is the correct one. It's Missouri v. Biden, No. 21-3013 (8th Cir.), an appeal from No. 4:21-cv-287 (E.D. Mo., Aug. 31, 2021).
I noticed that as well.
While its true that climates do change, putting a cost on it is an extraordinarily complex problem requiring expertise not only in climate science but multiple disciplines from economics, to agriculture, to sociology. Anyone who claims to have it all figured out is a big fat liar. So its pretty silly to fine people for something you're unsure of which might be high or low or even positive. At best you're just pulling random numbers out of thin air or even worse you're writing blank checks for the ecocult industry.
The two major initiatives to reduce carbon emissions range from unmitigated disaster to suboptimal—-the EU promoted diesel passenger cars and America promoted corn ethanol to be blended with gasoline. Obviously Congress is the entity that should figure out the cost they would be wise to do nothing instead of creating another industry like corn ethanol. Btw, America experienced an energy crisis from 2001-2008 which is what undermined the economy, and the 2005 Energy Policy Act is just as bad as anything else the Bush administration did. Even PEPFAR is pretty bad if one knows the history of AIDS drugs and the patent battles.
". . . requiring expertise not only in climate science but multiple disciplines from economics, to agriculture, to sociology. Anyone who claims to have it all figured out is a big fat liar."
True and luckily it was a federal Interagency Working Group (as noted in the blog above), that created a report that recommended, ". . . the IWG 'unbundle' this process and instead use a framework in which each step of the SC-CO2 calculation is developed as one of four separate but integrated 'modules': the socioeconomic module, which generates projections of greenhouse gas emissions based on its estimates of population and world economic output; the climate module, which translates changes in emissions into changes in temperature; the damages module, which estimates the net impact of temperature changes in dollar terms; and the discounting module. Data generated by the socioeconomic module would feed into each of the other three modules, and the temperature changes generated by the climate module would inform the damages module. Each module would be developed based on expertise in the relevant scientific disciplines to reflect the most up-to-date research. The report offers detailed recommendations about how the IWG should develop each of the modules and how the proposed framework could include feedbacks between and interactions within the modules."
They can't even predict which country will kick which countries butt in a single invasion overflowing with very well characterized macroparameters and we're supposed to trust them in a several orders of magnitude more complex highly politicized topic where most of them are zealots emotionally invested in finding things to be a certain way? Color me skeptical.
Be honest, you're not skeptical.
You're irrationally critical of EVERYTHING the federal govt does.
No, he's rationally critical of everything the federal government does.
Look, the central planning "knowledge problem" doesn't magically go away if you create an "Inter-Agency Working Group". Desperately wanting the government to be able to make reliable predictions doesn't empower them to do so.
All of history says that governments are total crap when it comes to this sort of thing. People have gotten Nobel prizes in economics for explaining WHY they're total crap at doing this sort of thing, and always will be.
This policy literally came out of an administration which is BRAGGING about ignoring everything economics has taught us! They're not even TRYING to be rational, not that they'd be able to if they were trying.
Disaffected, bigoted, science-disdaining, incel-to-autistic right-wingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Carry on, bitter clingers. Until replacement.
I don't know about not even trying; I think they are trying to appear to be rational, and failing miserably. Consider their blaming Putin's invasion for inflation, when inflation began a year earlier. It's a pathetic attempt, but it is an attempt to appear rational.
They quite rationally reason that, when your allies control most media outlets and mechanisms of cultural transmission, you don't NEED good lies.
It will work this time because the people doing it are smart and educated fellow progressives. Every lesson of history can be summarily ignored because the current crop of busybodies has high self-regard and they have spreadsheets.
1: The only "social cost of carbon" is all the pain that the mentally ill "Climate Change" zealots go though imagining that they're going to end the world!!11!
Of course, this "pain" isn't so great as to keep them from flying first class to Asia for an "educational vacation", but we can't be extreme about all this!
2: I am vastly amused that none of you are commenting on the Musk v Twitter situation.
I guess all the eager fascists celebrating social media censorship with "if you don't like it, get your own social media company" are feeling burning agony now that the good guys might actually get our own social media company
I thought Trump and Nunes were taking care of that.
Yet another Trump flop, I guess.
"the good guys might actually get our own social media company"
Where "good guys" = antisocial, bigoted, disaffected right-wing losers.
(What happened to Gab, Parler, Gettr, and whatever Trump called his latest ridiculous, catastrophic failure? Plus, cheer up, right-wingers: You'll always have the Volokh Conspiracy, FreeRepublic, Stormfront message boards, and Instapundit!)
"the good guys"
Yes, when Elon is in charge, it's gonna be so "freaking EPIC* #69420 #bigchungus #libtardsdestroyed
Meanwhile, his first act will be to change the terms of service so that posting a photo of him with Ghislaine Maxwell (https://i.insider.com/5d5302c6cd97841bc207b2e4?width=1136&format=jpeg) will result in an immediate ban.
The "Social cost of Carbon"..
Oh boy. I can see that backfiring. Current estimates put the social cost of carbon at $50 a ton (of CO2).
Per Capita carbon emissions in the US are 15 metric tons.
Per Capita carbon emissions in Guatemala is 1 metric ton.
Thus, the annual cost of a single immigrant from Guatemala is $700, in terms of the social cost of carbon. Over a 50 year span, that's $35,000. Given the 1 million migrants from Guatemala, that's a social cost of $35 Billion
You know... If we're using social cost. Next we can work on Chinese products being imported.
The practical problem is that the only genuinely effective ways to fix climate change would also shut down the economy, and no politician of either party is going to do that. Scientifically, climate change is fixable; politically it isn't. So maybe we just recognize that reality and continue to party until the ship actually sinks.
The practical problem is, the US could completely shut down its economy, and that wouldn't fix the climate change problem.
Unless you're willing to address the China issue, through severe measures, anything the US does alone (or even in combination with Europe and Japan) won't fix the climate change problem.
Remember. Chinese Carbon Emissions exceed every other "1st world" country...combined.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837
Chinese carbon emissions exceed every other country because China has a far greater population than any other country. Per capita, the United States is still the primary problem.
That said, you are right that the Chinese aren't going to shut down their economy either. So we're back to my original statement that scientifically the problem is fixable; politically it isn't.
Divide per capita CO2 by per capita PPP GDP, and you'll find that China is slightly worse than the US; Their per capita CO2 emissions are lower than ours only because most of their population are dirt poor.
Brett, in other words, the United States has traditionally gotten away with having high carbon emissions only because most of the rest of the world couldn't. If, God forbid, 1.3 billion Chinese all started living like Americans, the world would barely be able to breathe. And it's certainly going to occur to developing countries (if it hasn't already) that there's no reason Americans should live like kings while they are expected to remain dirt poor.
If I remember the numbers correctly, Americans consume about half the world's resources while having 5% of the world's population. That's not sustainable. That's the sort of things that eventually lead to war. Even if Americans aren't willing to ramp down their lifestyles because it's the right thing to do, maybe we should do it because there's a limit on how much the rest of the world will allow us to continue to get away with it.
Fortunately, a lot of Americans are destined to be replaced.
K_2,
Americans are not going to "ramp down their lifestyles" or standard of living. And the first political party that puts it that bluntly is heading for the trash heap of history.
Don, of course they're not, which takes us back to my original comment that the reason these problems aren't fixable is political, not scientific. No politician who proposed the type of lifestyle sacrifices that would be necessary for a permanent fix would be re-elected.
That, however, is a separate question from whether Americans, who make up 5% of the world population, can continue to use half the world's resources indefinitely, and they can't. There will come a tipping point at which a solution is imposed on Americans by global realities, war or threat of war, or the natural consequences of our own rapaciousness. There will be a day of reckoning, and it won't be pleasant.
No, K-2, calling things that are impractical, "political" is a fake; it is self-delusional. The climate cannot be stopped. It can be slowed, but many potential actions carry unknown risks. That is not political, it is scientific and epistemological.
Also, there is NO half-way compelling scientific evidence that there is a climatic tipping point. That phrase is just a political weapon of activists. America is not going to impose anything.
As for your day of reckoning, you have no way of knowing.
Your thinking is trapped by the rhetoric of the Green party.
Funny, people who do climate science for a living seem to think there is.
This is exactly like the 1960s when the tobacco companies insisted that there was no good science that showed that smoking causes cancer. And paid billions to fund their own "science". And dug in their heels and insisted until they simply could no longer do so that there was no link between tobacco and cancer. And of course today we know they were lying.
It appears the fossil fuel industry is following their lead.
This is exactly like the 1960s when the tobacco companies insisted that there was no good science that showed that smoking causes cancer... of course today we know they were lying.
Of course, the tobacco companies were not lying, because there was no need. To not be lying, they only ever had to demonstrate that there was no good science that smoking is the only attributable cause of of lung cancer, for which the science is conclusive; it is not. Lung cancer clearly has strong genetic factors. Many people that never smoke suffer from the lung diseases linked to tobacco while many smokers never manifest such symptoms of harm.
To defend against lawsuits, they only needed to demonstrate a lack of evidence that smoking was the primary cause of the specific cancer that caused harm to the person bringing suit. Which they did. Over and over. They certainly never promoted the over-indulgence of a 2 or 3 pack-per-day smoker.
What finally changed was not the science, but the strategy for obtaining that filthy tobacco money through legal avenues. The lawsuits by the states did not rely on science 'proving' tobacco was the primary cause of an individual's lung disease, but on its overall contribution to the pool of factors. What could not be demonstrated individually was demonstrated statistically for the population. The courts were never intended to be used this way, but then again there is nothing in the Constitution that justifies suits by the EPA to collect for externalities. Those profits came along with a cost to society and society will take them back.
Actually, their primary tactic for winning was to demonstrate that, never mind their advertising, everybody knew that smoking was bad for your health, (Which was true!) so the risk was voluntarily assumed.
What happened was that a group of tort lawyers came up with a scheme whereby states would change their laws to prohibit that defense, in return for a cut of the winnings in court.
Oh bullshit. That assumes everything continues without adjustments to changing reality.
People have been barking up that tree for ages. A few decades back, dystopias fed on increasing heroin addiction to postulate worlds with half the population addicts who were simultaneously too drugged out to contribute to society, and so lively and dangerous that they threatened to topple society.
Reality doesn't work like that. Trends don't continue to infinity in utter disregard for other trends. The world is not facing imminent global war because Americans continue to demand an unsustainable tech and luxury lead over other societies.
And who is going to force tgis "solution" on us?
IOW, what the warmists don't want to say, is that they plan for the whole world to be as poor as Chinese peasants, except for national elites.
When one of the "warmests" actually says that, get back to me.
There actions have already shown that. Their proposed wealth (excuse me, "unrealized capital gains") tax is just the latest example. Their goal of eliminating relatively cheap cars and energy and telling the poor to snuggle instead of using a furnace is a previous example.
You have to be blind to not see the countless examples of trying to make the world poorer, except of course for the elites (whose expensive EVs are subsidized while cheap cars are priced out of the market).
I haven't heard anyone tell the poor to turn off their furnaces; maybe not set them quite so high. And I will agree that the wealthy should bear most of the brunt since they are the biggest carbon consumers. But that's quibbling over details. The basic point remains that 5% of the world can't continue to consume 50% of its assets.
The basic point remains that 5% of the world can't continue to consume 50% of its assets.
It might be a basic point if you had ever demonstrated it was true rather than simply pronouncing it above and then referring to it again and again.
Hint: it isn't true.
By the way, Brett, suppose you had five children and you all sat down one Sunday for Sunday dinner. One of them reaches out and grabs half the food on the table. And when confronted says, "You just don't want me to have what I want." What would you say to him?
There have been many times when I have not been able to reconcile your religious faith with your politics. This is one of them.
That's a really piss poor analogy. You make up a strawman situation, make up Brett's strawman response, and condemn Brett for being such a strawman.
So answer my question. What would you say to him?
"You can take all the food you want when you're the one who puts it on the table, kiddo. For now, put it back."
In your scenario, of course, the food magically appears on the dinner table, with no pre-existing property rights, so I mysteriously have no more right to its disposition than the hypothetical brat, and must appeal to my presumed superior wisdom, rather than by undisputed authority over it.
And it does not escape attention that your analogy, as is usually the case, casts the authorities on your side as the adults in the room, and all who oppose them as children. I think that really is how you view people who don't accept your right to dictate what they do: Children, because if they were real grown ups they'd obviously agree with you about everything.
The earth's resources may not have appeared by magic, but their existence pre-dates property rights, probably by millions of years.
And I will acknowledge that a significant amount of the time, I think your side are the children in the room. Just listen to this discussion. Earth's resources are finite, some of them are close to exhaustion, and some of them cause climate problems that imperil the future of the whole human species. And what I'm hearing is that despite being only 5% of the world population, we'll just reach out and grab half of them because we can. That kind of behavior wouldn't be tolerated in children. Any child who tried that would be sent to his room for a time out.
What I hear from your side is mostly me, my, I want, gimme gimme gimme, with no thought to how it impacts the rest of us. I hate to break it to you, but that is childish behavior, which probably does inform my response.
"The earth's resources may not have appeared by magic, but their existence pre-dates property rights, probably by millions of years."
Actually, a wide range of non-human animal species recognize some degree of property rights, mostly in the form of territory, nesting sites, that sort of thing.
"What I hear from your side is mostly me, my, I want, gimme gimme gimme, with no thought to how it impacts the rest of us."
Funny, that's what I hear from your side, "Gimme power, gimme power, gimme power, with no thought of how it impacts the people it's power over.
Brett, libertarianism is simply the fear that someone, somewhere, might tell you no.
And that's a perfectly valid attitude for adults, who are entitled to make their own decisions, to hold. Every child chafes under the knowledge that they have to do as they're told, and aspires to adulthood, when they get to make their own decisions.
Authoritarianism, by contrast, is simply the fear that somebody, somewhere, might say "no" when given an order. It's a demand that everybody else accept being reduced to the status of a child again, ordered about by the elect.
Per Capita, the US isn't even in the top 10 emitters.
No doubt you have a citation for that strange claim.
First hit when I googled 'per capita greenhouse emitters' was this page from Yale which has the US at number 14.
Only two of the ones above the US are large first world countries - Australia and Canada. Just eyeballing the list of developed countries, being small/dense and/or in a moderate climate helps.
Your link takes me to a 404 error page at Reason.
Ooopsie ... let's try that again.
So, a few points need to be made. Others have made them, but let's put them in context.
1. India nearly has China's population. India has carbon emissions roughly 25% that of China. So, it's not "just" populatoin.
2. Per Capita, the US certainly has high carbon emissions. Per Capita, it's not the top in the world. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Canada all have higher per capita carbon emissions. (That's typical of energy producing, developed, geographically broad states) Per Capita, the US is sitting at 13.6 Metric tons per person (2022), while China is at 8.6 metric tons per person. Several other European countries have lower CO2 emiissions per capita (The UK at roughly 5.5, Spain at roughly 5.5, Italy at roughly 5.1).
3. Importantly here, China has regularly been increasing its CO2 emissions both in absolute terms, and per capita, while the rest of the world has been holding steady, or dropping CO2 emissions.
4. One of the biggest issues, is China's MASSIVE use of coal. The US really doesn't use "50%" of world resources. China on the other hand, used more than 50% of global coal usage in 2021. (The US sat at 8.5% by comparison) .
5. The US does use more oil. 19.4% of the world supply. China still comes in at 14.2%, while the EU is at 15%. So not "50% of world resources".
6. One of the issues, in addition to the above, is the amount China exports with its energy intensive (coal/CO2 intensive) processes. To use one metric, China accounted for 57% of world steel production. That's problematic on multiple fronts.
1. It's more CO2 intensive to produce steel in China, due to the high burden of coal factories. It's better to produce it with lower CO2 intensive energy sources.
2. Then China needs to use yet more CO2 to ship the steel it produces around the world.
I can go on for a while. But, one of the big issues is....China. A series of SERIOUS trade restrictions can have massive benefits in terms of reducing CO2 production worldwide. There's no reason for steel to be produced in a carbon-intensive industry in China, then shipped worldwide at a cost of MORE CO2.
China is not a major energy producing country like the US, and it's fairly dense in terms of its population. It should be able to have per capita CO2 production levels closer to that of the UK or France, 5 metric tons per person (a 40% drop from where it currently is). Yet, its per capita CO2 emissions continue to increase.
Any major international push for CO2 restrictions needs to start...and end...with China. If it needs Russia-level sanctions to occur...then so be it.
"... is the amount China exports with its energy intensive (coal/CO2 intensive) processes..."
I wonder how the accounting works for that. If country A emits T tons of CO2 to make some steel, then sends that steel to country B, does the T tons of CO2 get added to A or B's ledger?
Or when a cow breaks wind in North Dakota, but the beef is sent to Canada?
It doesn't make sense to become 'greener' merely by offshoring the emissions.
The common accounting puts it on country A's ledger.
The following link adjusts it for trade
https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
You see a lot of interesting effects here. European countries which are so "green" (Like France and the UK), are in essence, just importing carbon-intensive products, to reduce their "native" carbon emissions. Sizable levels too, equivalent to 30 - 40% of their reported carbon emissions. Greener countries, like Denmark and Sweden are even higher (50-60%). That doesn't even account for transport costs.
I don't think that's right, though. Plenty of room between 'we're doomed' and 'all is fine.'
Beyond reductions (which have been doing on worldwide despite conservative caterwauling), there's also R&D on stuff like carbon sequestration and geoengineering.
No reason to go doomer; might as well be optimistic.
I hope you're right.
All of that is fine Sarcastro. The US has been among the leaders in reducing carbon emissions, primarily through natural gas displacing coal.
And there is plenty of room in the in-between. Unfortunately, our current masters avoid standing there. They, along with almost all of the dominant media are fully in the panic camp and are pushing the “let’s do what ruined Germany” path. It’s gonna be a disaster.
I'm not sure that's the message our leaders are actually putting out there. I'm hearing more, but the predictions of catastrophe is more coming from the scientific working groups than the policymakers.
Biden and company are waaaaay in the panic camp. Every action that they’ve taken toward domestic conventional energy has been hostile - designed to reduce production (and then they bitch when prices increase). In what might be an actual emergency they declined to do anything to encourage domestic production, instead approaching a South American tyrant for help (as if Venezuelan heavy sludge is less polluting than our light, sweet stuff).
They’re all in on the Green New Deal. Let’s shut down nukes and go all in on renewable. Like Germany and California. Germany is now turning their coal back on and begging Putin for natural gas. California routinely has to buy supply from their neighbors. Yeah, let’s emulate those guys.
It’s gonna be a fucking disaster because decisions are being made based on politics and Green Religion rather than chemistry and physics.
I think your equating any production reduction with panic and hostility is not correct. Plenty of ground between 'we need to moderate production' and 'we're all gonna die in 20 years.'
That's what I meant when I said 'I'm hearing more.' As in 'I'm hearing we need to do more' but that's not the same as catastrophe.
I suppose it's a matter of degree, but not everything that's not maximum production now is panic-mode.
Nominating a fed governor who has advocated using the fed to starve the energy industry of capital is hostility. They’ve been open about their desire for the industry to go away even though we don’t now have and may never have a viable replacement.
These people are much more stupid than you’re recognizing. And with the current media being the American Pravda there is nobody questioning any of this stupidity that can get any visibility. Maybe that guy that’s running for California governor (Shellenberger? Something like that). But it’s only a matter of time before the media gets after him for challenging the orthodoxy. Nothing will be left but maybe a rib.
The politics is, as politics does, leaking upstream into the science, because the politicians, in the end, aren't interested in funding people to tell them what they don't want to hear.
But I suspect you're talking about the policy summaries coming from those groups, not the actual science, and policy summaries are pretty much always political documents.
I'm optimistic, both because I think the threat is greatly exaggerated, and because, if it turns out I'm wrong, there are a lot of things we could do very quickly if things got dire enough that we could act on genuine science and engineering, rather than Green religious doctrine.
"Scientifically, climate change is fixable"
K_2,
If fixable means stopped, not really, on anything less than a 50 - 100 year time scales and even that is unlikely. The inertial of the climate system is very large and the carbon and methane emissions are going to continue, even if lessened for decades.
Basically, if it really IS a problem, it's only fixable if you can destroy the Greens' political power. Because their goal isn't rationally allowing a civilized society at lower CO2 levels. It's leveraging CO2 to destroy civilization.
Otherwise they'd dump the obsession with wind and solar, and go all in on nuclear power.
Wind and Solar also have their opponents.
Wind usually for killing birds but also for spoiling rich peoples views.
Solar for driving up the cost of land and reducing agricultural land.
Many of these "environmentalists" are simply neo-luddites
The fix is what it always was: progress. More productivity, more materials science advancement, more space industry, more energy industry, more mining industry, more nanoscale engineering, more agricultural advancement.
That requires a wealth-creating society so people can focus on improvements instead of survival.
Greens oppose most of this, either directly or indirectly. You can see it in the complaining in these comments. Technology overwhelmingly comes from the US and the west, but Greens only want to complain that the US isn’t as poor as some other places.
the Greens' political power
LOL.
It's leveraging CO2 to destroy civilization.
Disagreeing with you on the cost/benefits of nuclear is not a signal that environmentalists are a luddite conspiracy.
I agree we need a lot more nuclear, but going to full nuclear is also asking for trouble.
Anybody who says we need to be carbon free but no nukes is not a serious person and should not be considered as such.
I think they're wrong, ad would fight any overt forbidding of nuclear energy growth, but I'm not sure I'm willing to go so far as to fully dismiss them as nonserious.
Partially because I don't think we yet know the upsides of renewables - a lot of foundational research has yet to be done.
“A lot of foundational research to be done”.
Which is precisely why we don’t want to shut everything else down and bet the farm on renewables. Unfortunately our better sore doing exactly that. “I’ll bet the country’s future energy grid on red!!!!!” Idiots mutually masterbatimg each other because it feels good but not on the same planet as science.
Do you see how the person you laid out at 1:33 pm became a different person at 4:31 pm?
Yeah, the extremist advocating for only renewals immediately is not worth listening to. But someone who is irrational about nuclear, but otherwise realistic, is not worth writing off.
I (probably) don’t agree with them on the cost/benefits of NEW nuclear plants either, but anyone can clearly see that closing down operating nuclear plants is destructive.
And stopping pipelines that are currently under construction is destructive. And preventing new pipelines so (for example) residents of Massachusetts need to get fuel oil from ships instead of natural gas piped in from nearby drilling is the opposite of civilization.
Also Green anti-civilization:
- opposition to roads
- opposition to housing
- opposition to power lines
- making Europe dependent on Russian fossil fuels
- opposition to US natural gas export terminals
- opposition to air travel
- trains to replace air travel
- opposition to pesticide use
- opposition to GMOs
- opposition to mining (causing it to move to places where environmental controls are lax)
- biofuels
- opposition to basic energy infrastructure in Africa
Etc.
"I (probably) don’t agree with them on the cost/benefits of NEW nuclear plants either"
The current cost/benefit of new nuclear plants isn't inherent in the technology, it's largely a product of measures already in place whose purpose was to render nuclear power economically unviable.
Yeah. But that’s the existing reality. If it changes and the economics change then I will agree that the new reality exists.
Carl Sagan and four other scientists mathematically proved that climate change can be fixed with just 100 megatons of explosions.
http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWbd0.html
Did you mean to link to a star wars fan site?
But the ship isn't sinking. The temperature has changed 1c or 1.8f in the hundred and forty years of NASA's GISS data set, which is available here:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.csv
The temperature can change more than that in 5 minutes if the sun goes behind a cloud.
But if we go one year without using fossil fuels the ship will definitely sink: mass starvation, people dying of thirst, freezing to death, mass exfiltration from cities that no longer are sustainable to a countryside that can't support them.
Real Pol Pot shit. Not only is it not politically tenable, it's not tenable at all.
It could be achieved in 50-75 years with a massive nuclear power program. But nothing else is scalable, renewables are just play acting.
In addition, a point about global warming that is seldom mentioned in panicked accounts:
The night warms more than the day.
The higher latitudes warm more than the equator.
The winter warms more than the summer.
Perfectly understandable from a thermodynamics standpoint: There isn't more energy coming into the system, there's just more insulation slowing its exit. So temperature differences decline as a result.
Hard to get people worked up about milder winters and balmier nights, so they don't talk about it.
And, yes, the total temperature change they're talking about is comparable to an hour's change in the temperature over the course of the day, or perhaps walking 50 miles towards the equator.