We are still screwed: the coming climate disaster

Politics and religion
3484

Yeah, people still seem to be in the mindset that ocean level rises are going to happen at some indeterminate future time, rather than a process that has gradually been making things worse for decades already.

But the politics of abandoning major cities is so difficult that we will probably just keep sinking money into them until the overall situation becomes completely impossible to ignore. Kind of like the overall issue.

Climate change by itself is worrisome, but I find it extra depressing how we seem to be failing at the necessary collective action needed to head off very serious problems. It’s not like climate change is the only difficult collective action problem we are going to face this century but taken as a whole we seem to be about as dumb as rocks about this sort of thing. All the energy goes to tribal warfare and status competitions.

3485

There was an article in Politico recently, about how the federal government essentially gives money to rich people through federal subsidies of flood insurance.

The government blows billions on this, as the premiums people pay for that insurance don’t even approach the amount that ends up being paid out… and the Federal government is WAY in the hole on it.

And these properties are, statistically, owned the the wealthiest members of society, because waterfront property is generally the most expensive.

So we’re basically subsidizing the repeated rebuilding of rich peoples’ homes.

3486

See, the 1% are the real job creators!

3487

giphy

3488

WTF. That cannot be sustainable. And apparently the more they pump, the worse it gets.

3489

It hasn’t helped that the petrochemical, oil and gas industry has ravaged the coast line that (used) to act as a sponge. I believe the state under Jindal also passed a low preventing raising any taxes on those industries to pay for repair.

David Roberts on the ‘leaked’ climate report:

But this scientific report won’t make Trump, or the GOP, do anything
It’s impossible to predict what Trump, or his Environmental Protection Agency, will do about (or to) the report, especially now that the Times has drawn attention to it.

I hesitate to predict whether he will do damage to the report. What I will predict is that the report won’t do damage to him. It will not, as the Times argued in a follow-up piece, “force President Trump to choose between accepting the conclusions of his administration’s scientists and the demands of his conservative supporters.” It won’t force him to do anything.

Government scientists have been saying anthropocentric climate change is real for decades now. So have non-government scientists. So have scientific journals and research institutions. So have the vast majority of the world’s governments.

3490

I once got into an argument with a coworker about the first season of Game of Thrones. His point was, “if there’s this dangerous threat beyond the Wall, why is everyone quibbling over mundane political stuff?”

Ex-coworker, I point you to America’s attitude about climate change.

Al Gore’s sending ravens from the Night’s Watch on behalf of a thousand scientists, and meanwhile everyone else is all, “let’s avenge our slain uncle and back [X] for the throne!!!”

Ok, this analogy just made me explode with nerddom.

3491

Long before the election, when I couldn’t imagine Trump as a possibility, I just wanted to get it over with so we could focus on climate change. It’s utterly depressing to deal with the horrifying Trump presidency knowing that as terrible as it is, it’s a meaningless distraction compared to climate change.

3492

Except insofar as he personally is walking our policy backwards on climate change for apparently no more considered reason than that he loves to play coal-miner and anything Obama liked is prima facie bad.

I’m just thankful that state governments and some private industries actually give a fuck about keeping Earth habitable.

3493

WASHINGTON — When career employees of the Environmental Protection Agency are summoned to a meeting with the agency’s administrator, Scott Pruitt, at agency headquarters, they no longer can count on easy access to the floor where his office is, according to interviews with employees of the federal agency.

Doors to the floor are now frequently locked, and employees have to have an escort to gain entrance.

Some employees say they are also told to leave behind their cellphones when they meet with Mr. Pruitt, and are sometimes told not to take notes.

Mr. Pruitt, according to the employees, who requested anonymity out of fear of losing their jobs, often makes important phone calls from other offices rather than use the phone in his office, and he is accompanied, even at E.P.A. headquarters, by armed guards, the first head of the agency to ever request round-the-clock security.

A former Oklahoma attorney general who built his career suing the E.P.A., and whose LinkedIn profile still describes him as “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda,” Mr. Pruitt has made it clear that he sees his mission to be dismantling the agency’s policies — and even portions of the institution itself.

But as he works to roll back regulations, close offices and eliminate staff at the agency charged with protecting the nation’s environment and public health, Mr. Pruitt is taking extraordinary measures to conceal his actions, according to interviews with more than 20 current and former agency employees.

3494

Yes, I’ve been making this analogy for a while now and I think the writers are well aware of it as well. A recent episode had someone (Davos? Tyron?) musing that people tend to willfully ignore existential threats that are abstract and difficult to wrap ones mind around

3495

Tyrion to Danerys, I think, as justification for the… thing. In the caves.

3496

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/20/the-trump-administration-just-disbanded-a-federal-advisory-committee-on-climate-change/

The charter for the 15-person Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment — which includes academics as well as local officials and corporate representatives — expires Sunday. On Friday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s acting administrator, Ben Friedman, informed the committee’s chair that the agency would not renew the panel.

The National Climate Assessment is supposed to be issued every four years but has come out only three times since passage of the 1990 law calling for such analysis. The next one, due for release in 2018, already has become a contentious issue for the Trump administration.
[…]
Moss said members of the group intend to keep working on their report, which is due out next spring, even though it now will lack the official imprimatur of the federal government. “It won’t have the same weight as if we were issuing it as a federal advisory committee,” he said.

3497

I don’t want to clutter up the Mother 'F thread where people are truly having a hard time in Houston and soon to be Louisiana, but damn we need to get better at how we handle Flood Insurance and/or helping people relocate gracefully out of flood prone areas. It’s just going to get worse.

From this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/29/where-harvey-is-hitting-hardest-four-out-of-five-homeowners-lack-flood-insurance/?utm_term=.1522d05e44d6

Moore, a forklift driver, used to buy flood insurance from the government when it cost $200 a year, but he says the premium rose above $300, so he stopped. His home had never flooded before Harvey until now.

Private insurers largely avoid offering flood insurance because it’s hard to price the risk and they lose money. The federal program is struggling financially. The NFIP is $25 billion in debt after paying out damages for hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. It will probably have to borrow more money to pay for Harvey, which is on track to be one of the most destructive in U.S. history. The NFIP is only authorized to borrow up to about $30 billion, meaning the agency could hit its limit after all the Harvey claims come in.

3498
3499

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-two-decade-crusade-by-conservative-charities-fueled-trumps-exit-from-paris-climate-accord/2017/09/05/fcb8d9fe-6726-11e7-9928-22d00a47778f_story.html

The Cooler Heads have received more than $11 million in donations over the years from coal and oil companies. They’ve taken in tens of millions more from nonprofit foundations, such as those controlled by the wealthy Koch brothers, and the Scaife and Mercer families, according to interviews and Internal Revenue Service filings.

Robert Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University, said that members of the Cooler Heads Coalition are allied with trade groups, public relations companies and lobbyists working to influence public debate about global warming.

“Public charities serve as so-called independent think tanks, providing analysis to create the appearance they are independent, third-party voices,” Brulle said. “It becomes so complicated and so sophisticated. This is how modern politics operates.”
**
Long dismissed as cranks by mainstream scientists and politicians in both parties, Ebell and his Cooler Heads colleagues were embraced last year by the Trump campaign. Ebell served as the transition director at the Environmental Protection Agency. This spring, he leveraged those connections to arrange a White House briefing in opposition to the Paris agreement, according to an email from Ebell to participants that was obtained by The Post.

After long questioning global warming, Ebell now acknowledges that “climate change is occurring and human beings have a role in it.” But he said global warming still is not a crisis. He frames climate change as an ideological issue, saying that giving the government more authority to address it would stimulate a “regulatory onslaught,” damage the U.S. economy and subvert human freedom.

Ebell, who is not a scientist, said he and his colleagues respect the scientific process. But he said he thinks many climate researchers endorse prevailing views on global warming only to cash in on government grants.

3500

The idiot in chief is actually touring one such facility today in Bismark, ND, a “clean” coal facility.

What are the chances of any of these deniers actually understanding that the crazy weather is affecting all of this? Is there a tracking website for politicians on this issue that I’ve not seen?

3501

On the upside, warmer global temperatures may accelerate the evolution of a whole range of new plastic-eating microbes, due to the high pollution concentration everywhere?

3502

Not that I’m aware of, but sounds like a good idea.

3503

Over in the weather thread some forum members chafe at climate change posts because they are political. Now, that’s true and understandable to a degree, but it’s really only true for American (so called) conservatives. I started to wonder (admittedly this is somewhat passive aggressive) if we should start putting all science related posts in P&R, as climate change (along with maybe evolution, I guess) is the only scientifically proven phenomena treated this way, and the MSM is as much to blame as The Heartland Institute.

Dave Roberts addresses this quite forcibly - I just wish it was treated this way everywhere. :(

I mean, it’s getting a little ridiculous. When 97 percent of scientific literature in a mature field agrees about something, we just say it’s true. When 97 percent of scientists agree about something, we just say all scientists agree. We don’t parse these tiny percentages; we don’t track down every individual that disagrees and refute them one by one.

Scientists figured this stuff out. Then they reviewed each other’s work, comprehensively, multiple times. They made the case. We live our lives and structure our society based on theories far less scientifically supported than anthropogenic climate change (see: anything in psychology, economics, or nutrition). Ninety-seven percent is extremely confident!

Now climate researchers are out wandering the landscape, seeking out the last remaining climate skeptic arguments, hunting them down one by one. At this rate, pretty soon every jackass in the comment section is going to have his own personal PhD student assigned to persuade him.

At a certain point, one has to question whether more of this is going to work, whether there is a substantial subset of people unconvinced by 97 percent confident findings who might be convinced by 98 percent confidence.

The evidence seems to show, rather, that the increasing strength of the climate case has made no dent whatsoever on the US conservative movement’s denial. Whatever their opinions might be sensitive to, it is not the work of scientists.

Roberts also wrote an accompanying tweetstorm (I know, so I transcribed it with the help of Threadbard):

I made a point at the very end of this post. Since no on reads past the 1st screen, I wanna highlight it. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/7/16258848/us-climate-politics-farce
(Just kidding, I know my readers always read the whole post, because of how smart and good looking they are. But just in case.)
As background: ever since climate became a political issue in the US, one of the most ubiquitous topics of climate discussion has been. … “how can conservatives be persuaded to accept climate science & join in the productive search for solutions?” I have read, no joke … MILLIONS of words on that subject. Been following that conversation long enough to notice it has certain recurring features. The weirdest aspect is that it almost always treats conservatives & their denial as a kind of feature of the landscape, like a mountain.

It’s something that just IS, something other people have to maneuver around, or overcome, or otherwise deal with. It is not treated as a CHOICE, made by grown-ass adults who could choose differently, for which they are responsible.
Another (related) weird aspect is, it’s almost always treated as something that the right’s political opponents caused. Al Gore caused it. Strident rhetoric or “alarmism” caused it. Enviro aversion to nuclear power (or CCS, or geoengineering) caused it. It’s always discussed as a result of something enviros or the left did–and something they could undo, if they just acted/talked right. “If environmentalists stopped doing [thing that personally annoys me], they’d be winning over the right” is a ubiquitous template. But it’s bullshit. The question of what shapes conservative opinion is not some deep mystery about which your gut impulses … carry any insight. It’s an intensely studied question in social science & has been, as least to a decent approximation, answered.

I recommend this @Jerry_Taylor post, summarizing John Zaller’s book The Nature & Origins of Mass Opinion. https://niskanencenter.org/blog/how-to-change-public-opinion/
@Jerry_Taylor To very briefly summarize: people don’t know anything; they don’t have strong opinions on political “issues”; they form opinions by following the cues of leaders in their various social tribes. We are social creatures; tribal ties (not “issues”) are primary. So conservatives believe … what conservatives believe. And they find out what conservatives believe from conservative elites. That means conservative pols, celebs, and local leaders, but especially, in US conservatism circa 2017, media figures.

Conservative media plays an enormous role in shaping con opinion & has dragged it steadily rightward. https://www.vox.com/2015/7/30/9074761/conservative-media-republican-party
So we can say with confidence that cons deny climate change because that’s what con pol/media elites do. Elite cues are what matter. It follows that the only reliable way to get cons to stop denying climate change is for con pol/media elites to stop. That’s it. You might think that Al Gore should STFU, enviros should support nuclear, green journalists should avoid “doomism” and all the other things that VSPs are always scolding greens for. Fine. Think what you want. Scold away.

But there is no evidence, and no reason to think, that any of those changes would have any material effect on con climate denialism. Cons will change their tune on climate when the people they see on Fox & Breitbart change their tune. Until then, clever arguments and magic words (“national security!” “conserving God’s gift!”) are futile for everything except meeting think-piece word counts. Con elites & media are to blame for con ignorance & obstruction on climate. Not greens, not Dems, not Al Gore, not That Guy on Twitter. What they are doing is a monstrous crime that will directly result in enormous suffering. And they are grown-ass adults fully capable of understanding the consequences. They are responsible for their own actions & deserve to be called out for them. Basically, con elites are to blame for climate paralysis & only con elites can change it. I don’t like it, but there it is.Step one for everyone ought to be telling the damn truth about it. Quit finding “clever,” “counterintuitive” ways to blame others, FFS.

As Ornstein & Mann said (more broadly, but it applies here as well), “Republicans are the problem.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html