Federal report says climate change will wallop U.S. economy

[SaysWho?]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-report-says-climate-change-will-wallop-u-s-economy-n939521

 

Quote

"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities," says the report, which was filed on behalf of 13 different federal agencies.

 

"The impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future — but the severity of future impacts will depend largely on actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the changes that will occur."

 

Quote

"I think something's happening. Something's changing and it'll change back again," [Trump] said.

 

The report found it's not changing back any time soon — and said the country has to be prepared.

It says global warming helped stoke the wildfires in California and powerful hurricanes in the South. Those problems will only get worse, the report says, with potential drought and wildfire issues looming in the South, and more flooding likely to strike the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

 

Quote

"Expected increases in the severity and frequency of heavy precipitation events will affect inland infrastructure in every region, including access to roads, the viability of bridges, and the safety of pipelines. Flooding from heavy rainfall, storm surge, and rising high tides is expected to compound existing issues with aging infrastructure in the Northeast."

 

While much of the damage is already done, the effects could be lessened by continuing to cut down on greenhouse emissions and upgrading aging infrastructure, the report says.

 

"Actions to plan for and adapt to more frequent, widespread, and severe coastal flooding, such as shoreline protection and conservation of coastal ecosystems, would decrease direct losses and cascading impacts on other sectors and parts of the country," the study says.

 

 

[mclumber1]

Carbon tax dividend.  Pay me to reduce carbon use, and I will. 

[chakoo]

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

Carbon tax dividend.  Pay me to reduce carbon use, and I will. 

Canada is planning to do something like that where people will get a tax rebate starting next year (so when people file their 2018 taxes). The amount back depends on how many in the household and location).

[mclumber1]

11 minutes ago, chakoo said:

Canada is planning to do something like that where people will get a tax rebate starting next year (so when people file their 2018 taxes). The amount back depends on how many in the household and location).

 

Cool.  I think regular dividend payments are the way to go still.  They offer a better incentive to consumers.  A tax rebate is sort of nebulous. A monthly check or direct deposit is very real.

[CitizenVectron]

2 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

Carbon tax dividend.  Pay me to reduce carbon use, and I will. 

 

Carbon taxes have been the conservative ideal for decades...but when a liberal government in Canada implemented one, conservative parties opposed it and are taking them to court to stop it. The same will happen in the US. Kind of like how the ACA was a conservative idea until Obama did it, and now the GOP hates it.

[SaysWho?]

13 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Carbon taxes have been the conservative ideal for decades...but when a liberal government in Canada implemented one, conservative parties opposed it and are taking them to court to stop it. The same will happen in the US. Kind of like how the ACA was a conservative idea until Obama did it, and now the GOP hates it.

 

Fun fact for those who forgot: McCain proposed a cap-and-trade policy in 2008, as well as introducing bills for it in the 2000s, before opposing it because Obama existed.

[Jason]

5 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Fun fact for those who forgot: McCain proposed a cap-and-trade policy in 2008, as well as introducing bills for it in the 2000s, before opposing it because Obama existed.

 

Maverick McCivil.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

19 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Carbon taxes have been the conservative ideal for decades...but when a liberal government in Canada implemented one, conservative parties opposed it and are taking them to court to stop it. The same will happen in the US. Kind of like how the ACA was a conservative idea until Obama did it, and now the GOP hates it.

The power to tax income from any source is very strong and well defined in the Constitution. A tax on the income from the sale of fossil fuels at $x/ton of carbon sold is very constitutional. And a dividend is just another version of social security, also constitutional (or would quickly get added to the Constitution should any activist conservative judges rule social security unconstitutional)

[CitizenVectron]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The power to tax income from any source is very strong and well defined in the Constitution. A tax on the income from the sale of fossil fuels at $x/ton of carbon sold is very constitutional. And a dividend is just another version of social security, also constitutional (or would quickly get added to the Constitution should any activist conservative judges rule social security unconstitutional)

 

Yes and conservatives will still oppose it because it will mean less money for the rich.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, CitizenVectron said:

 

Yes and conservatives will still oppose it because it will mean less money for the rich.

They'd support kicking puppies if it meant a liberal got triggered. They don't stand for anything but the dangerous status quo, and they have nothing to stand on here from the science to the economics, and many of the reasonably intelligent ones know it. so they're just another obstacle that needs rebutted to gather public opinion (which is already on the side of a carbon tax in some form) to pass something ambitious.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Further proof that cnn is garbage:

 

 

 

Also read that whole thread for media coverage of this report. It actually got some airtime which is nice. But overall it was pathetic.

[TwinIon]

Just to make sure I wasn't going nuts, I had to go back and find some evidence that at some point, the GOP was at least partially on board with the idea of climate change.

 

The 2008 GOP party platform section on the environment starts off with "the same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere." It's a firm confirmation that climate change is real, and that humans are the cause. Now, it quickly goes on to question the actual effects and focuses a lot on not harming the economy, but there is also a real recognition of climate change and contains calls to action to mitigate it. It mentions international cooperation and using cash rewards to encourage innovation.There's a lot of talk about technology solutions and an emphasis on science. So maybe the party wasn't exactly on the same page on climate change, and they didn't really want to do anything real about it, but that's a far cry from outright denial.

 

I was going to blame the shift back towards denial on Trump, but the 2012 platform contains most of the same language we see today. The section on climate change starts with "the environment is getting cleaner and healthier," and then goes on about giving control over to private enterprise and needing to reign in the EPA. Most of that is unchanged by 2016, by which time "international cooperation" has turned into a demand to fight against the UN and particular attention was given to changing the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.

 

Still, I don't understand why conservative pundits and politicians are going backwards on this. As far as I can tell, polling on the subject  hasn't really changed much. Meanwhile, the science is increasingly well established and increasingly dire. Public opinion doesn't seem to be changing, but the rhetoric on the right is becoming more anti-science than the recent past. I just don't get it.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

Still, I don't understand why conservative pundits and politicians are going backwards on this.

 

Obama derangement syndrome

[GOD]

Don't worry, I got this!

[TwinIon]

4 minutes ago, Jason said:

Obama derangement syndrome

So they went for moderates in 2008 and didn't get them, so they just decided to move to the extreme opposite of Obama to energize the base, and now they're just continuing in that direction because Trump won?

[Jason]

11 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

So they went for moderates in 2008 and didn't get them, so they just decided to move to the extreme opposite of Obama to energize the base, and now they're just continuing in that direction because Trump won?

 

The first election the Tea Party had a significant influence on was the 2010 midterms.

[osxmatt]

 

[thewhyteboar]

 

[johnny]

BUT it was cold and rained today!  Checkmate scientists with much more knowledge on the situation as me 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Lol

[PaladinSolo]

On 11/26/2018 at 2:06 PM, TwinIon said:

Just to make sure I wasn't going nuts, I had to go back and find some evidence that at some point, the GOP was at least partially on board with the idea of climate change.

 

The 2008 GOP party platform section on the environment starts off with "the same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere." It's a firm confirmation that climate change is real, and that humans are the cause. Now, it quickly goes on to question the actual effects and focuses a lot on not harming the economy, but there is also a real recognition of climate change and contains calls to action to mitigate it. It mentions international cooperation and using cash rewards to encourage innovation.There's a lot of talk about technology solutions and an emphasis on science. So maybe the party wasn't exactly on the same page on climate change, and they didn't really want to do anything real about it, but that's a far cry from outright denial.

 

I was going to blame the shift back towards denial on Trump, but the 2012 platform contains most of the same language we see today. The section on climate change starts with "the environment is getting cleaner and healthier," and then goes on about giving control over to private enterprise and needing to reign in the EPA. Most of that is unchanged by 2016, by which time "international cooperation" has turned into a demand to fight against the UN and particular attention was given to changing the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.

 

Still, I don't understand why conservative pundits and politicians are going backwards on this. As far as I can tell, polling on the subject  hasn't really changed much. Meanwhile, the science is increasingly well established and increasingly dire. Public opinion doesn't seem to be changing, but the rhetoric on the right is becoming more anti-science than the recent past. I just don't get it.

 

[Chairslinger]

@PaladinSolo and @TwinIon 

 

My guess would be that, as with many other issues, the Republican Party has turned(even more) toxic and anti-reality on Climate science not because of overall support, but because of ever more extremist views of their true believer base.

 

It's the "trigger the lib" mindset. The more that 30% or so of Republicans thrive off of pure negativity, the more it is not enough to pay lip service or stay silent on the issue. If you want to speak to the GOP base, you have to verbally roll coal all over the opposition.

[BuckFly]

Ya know, there was a day and time when the US would lead the technology that would make a difference in climate change, while also making a profit seeking venture.

 

...we are tired.

[SaysWho?]

17 hours ago, BuckFly said:

Ya know, there was a day and time when the US would lead the technology that would make a difference in climate change, while also making a profit seeking venture.

 

...we are tired.

 

It's even simpler than that; one party says climate change is real and man contributes, and the other party has to "own" them by opposing it. It's been this way for ages.

[mclumber1]

17 hours ago, BuckFly said:

Ya know, there was a day and time when the US would lead the technology that would make a difference in climate change, while also making a profit seeking venture.

 

...we are tired.

 

I'm advocating for the carbon tax dividend.  A good solution that relies on market mechanics to lower carbon consumption, all while being not regressive to lower income people. 

[Remarkableriots]

19 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I'm advocating for the carbon tax dividend.  A good solution that relies on market mechanics to lower carbon consumption, all while being not regressive to lower income people. 

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060107547

Quote

A group of House lawmakers last night floated the first bipartisan carbon tax bill in nearly a decade, a move that boosters are calling a big step for climate policy heading into the next Congress.

The "Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act" would put a $15-per-metric-ton fee on carbon, rising by $10 per year, with net revenue given back to households as a rebate.

A co-chair of the Climate Solutions Caucus, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), is the lead sponsor of the bill, joined by Reps. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.), John Delaney (D-Md.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Charlie Crist (D-Fla.).

The bill isn't likely to pass in this Congress, but the co-sponsors say it would reduce U.S. carbon emissions by a third in only a decade and 90 percent by 2050, all compared with 2015 levels.

"I'd like to stress how significant this legislation is," Deutch said last night on a call with reporters, which was abbreviated due to technical difficulties.

He pointed to sea-level rise, stronger storms and shortened winter seasons affecting communities across the country.

 

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, Remarkableriots said:

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060107547

 

 

Almost perfect.  I'd rather see the dividend distributed as a direct-deposit instead of a tax rebate (I'm assuming that's what they mean by rebate) as it would be more quantifiable to most Americans.

[BuckFly]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

 

It's even simpler than that; one party says climate change is real and man contributes, and the other party has to "own" them by opposing it. It's been this way for ages.

 

 

I am a Republican, SaysWho?, believe me when I say it is not a position I am prideful of with respect to my party affiliation.

 

Those around here know me to be fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.  

 

However, climate change is something I am willing to be a little less fiscally conservative on.

 

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, BuckFly said:

 

 

I am a Republican, SaysWho?, believe me when I say it is not a position I am prideful of with respect to my party affiliation.

 

Those around here know me to be fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.  

 

However, climate change is something I am willing to be a little less fiscally conservative on.

 

 

I know, but what I'm saying is there's little internal pressure to get Republicans to take the correct position, instead of being against climate change to "own the libz." They need to get their ass kicked in the polls repeatedly over their stance.

 

Fiscal conservatives should be 100% for fighting man-made climate change and pollution since spending now means we don't have to spend more later.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

 

It's even simpler than that; one party says climate change is real and man contributes, and the other party has to "own" them by opposing it. It's been this way for ages.

Iirc, they're the only political party on the planet that doesn't so much as acknowledge that anthropogenic climate change is real and the vast majority of current climate change is due to it. Nevermind actually doing anything about it.

[BuckFly]

36 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I know, but what I'm saying is there's little internal pressure to get Republicans to take the correct position, instead of being against climate change to "own the libz." They need to get their ass kicked in the polls repeatedly over their stance.

 

Fiscal conservatives should be 100% for fighting man-made climate change and pollution since spending now means we don't have to spend more later.

 

 

I absolutely get what you are saying.

 

Let me give you what I hope you will interpret as a somewhat comparable example.  I have been for gay marriage since my high school days in the 80s (yes, I am that old! ) and part of my reason in feeling that way was an honest belief that not allowing gays to marry goes against Republican ideals.

 

No...I am being serious.  Sure, part of the reason was that I didn't think there was any good enough reason not to let gays marry, but the other part was I believe (then, and now) that we should pursue the freedom and protection of the individual.  Therefore, it bothered me that not letting consenting adults in a free society marry was contrary to our ideals and...further honestly...un-American.

 

I felt the same about gays in the military.  You me to tell me someone is willing to pick up a weapon and be in that bunker defending our country and we are going to question them on that?!

 

No, sorry...that's ridiculous.  I'd be thanking them and protecting their desire and willingness to defend this country.

 

So, you are damn right...spend money now on CC to save money in the future AND by riding the technology wave of doing so is very American and SHOULD (SHOULD!) be a very Republican idea.

 

...and unfortunately I am sitting with only a few people on that island.  

[Xbob42]

On 11/26/2018 at 6:10 AM, mclumber1 said:

Carbon tax dividend.  Pay me to reduce carbon use, and I will. 

How about if you don't, then someone comes to your house and beats the everliving fuck out of you?

 

I think that would incentivize people way more than a retard hand-out every once in a while.

 

You can be green or we can make you black and blue!

[mclumber1]

12 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

How about if you don't, then someone comes to your house and beats the everliving fuck out of you?

 

I think that would incentivize people way more than a retard hand-out every once in a while.

 

You can be green or we can make you black and blue!

 

Eat a dick my plan rules.

[CitizenVectron]

3 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Almost perfect.  I'd rather see the dividend distributed as a direct-deposit instead of a tax rebate (I'm assuming that's what they mean by rebate) as it would be more quantifiable to most Americans.

 

In fact, this is what Canada is implementing right now (though with higher tax/tonne). Provinces are allowed to come up with their own plan (that has to meet certain requirements) and can use the money as they wish, but if they choose not to make a plan, then the Federal government's plan kicks in which will collect the tax and then redistribute 100% of it back to residents of that province. People will actually get back more than they spend because business do not get rebates, only individuals. It will also be scaled to income, so poor people get more (as a % of income).