<p>Sakky, I do not believe the ethical issues behind cap-and-trade are that ambiguous.</p>
<p>There is common agreement that IF (an assumption) the climate change scenarios do come to fruition and millions eventually die, with many more displaced (due to a variety of reasons, such as rising sea levels, ocean acidification, crop disruption due to pests, extreme weather, spread of disease due to spread of vectors (such as flies), this result would be very, very destructive from a policy standpoint.</p>
<p>We are not comparing the Appalachian economy vs. the Bangladesh economy. If we were, climate change would involve a different discussion.</p>
<p>Now, granted, a climatologist is not, by virtue of being a scientist, eminently qualified to opine on ethics, philosophy, etc.
However, a climatologist is qualified to construct climate models from available data, and then conclude that there is a strong probability of X effect, and X number of deaths. And we also have to keep in mind that the science behind the effects of climate change is a collaborative effort between climatologists, economists, epidemiologists, etc., who individually are qualified in their respective fields.</p>
<p>Furthermore, now that they have this conclusion which they are qualified to give, and this conclusion informs them of the destructive effects of not taking action to stop climate change (through, as one example, cap-and-trade), then I certainly see nothing inherently wrong with expressing their belief that the policy should be passed, an opinion which they are certainly not “qualified” in any objective sense to give, but one which is certainly reasonable.</p>
<p>Then again, NO ONE is “qualified” by any sort of virtue or standard to be the final word on any moral or ethical matters (only something like God would, if you believe in God). You are criticizing scientists for expressing opinions on a topic they are unqualified for yet, ignore the fact that we are ALL unqualified to authoritatively judge morals and ethics. In this sense the use of the word “ideologues” to label certain climatologists is meaningless, because we all hold opinions for which we are not qualified for.</p>
<p>The climate change “controversy” does not lie in ethics and morals. Anyone can agree that preventing future suffering on a global scale is ethically “good” (in this context, “good” is defined as whatever society agrees is “good”).</p>
<p>No. Politicians will argue against policies like cap-and-trade because they refuse to believe in the effects of climate change and its potential casualties. Now this IS an area that scientists are qualified to talk about.</p>
<p>Now, it certainly may seem like politicians are talking about ethics. After all, the common argument against cap-and-trade is that it is a “jobs-killer,” implying of course that saving jobs is to be valued over the benefits of taking measures to halt (or slow) climate change now. However, unless you are saying that politicians value saving jobs over the scientifically-evidenced future destruction that would be wrought by climate change, I think the only explanation here is that politicians refuse to believe and downplay the science behind the effects of climate change.</p>
<p>In criticizing this ignorance of science, climatologists are qualified.</p>
<p>Actually, sure they have been. The unpopularity of the capital gains and dividend taxes, due to their impacts on capital formation, have been core elements of the Republican platform since at least the large-scale tax cuts of Reagan. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, again in defense of the Republican Party - which now apparently largely repudiates much of the Bush domestic policy anyway - Medicare Part D was a political tradeoff as part of the complete Medical Modernization Act (MMA). The tradeoff was deemed necessary to also implement Health Savings Accounts along with enhancements to Medicare Advantage (Medicare Part C), which are clear steps towards the privatization of either Medicare (as in Part C) or in health-care entirely in the case of HSA’s. </p>
<p>And even the implementation of Medicare Part D was done not through the government directly but rather through private plans, whether standalone or through an accompanying Part C plan, and each private plan would offer its own formulary and package of benefits. It was therefore yet another step towards the overall privatization of Medicare. Indeed, the costs of Medicare Part D have been substantially smaller than initially feared (although admittedly still quite extensive).</p>
<p>And let me stop you right there to ask the questions: will millions of people in fact die, with millions of others being displaced? Or will society successfully adapt? It is precisely that second question to which climatologists are eminently unqualified to answer.</p>
<p>Lest you think that question is simply being obstructionist, I would simply point out that much of the nation of the Netherlands shouldn’t even exist at all but rather should have been washed away by the North Sea centuries ago due to extensive peat mining that has repeatedly lowered the sea level of the nation. Indeed, the very name of ‘The Netherlands’ means a ‘low-lying lands’. Yet are the people of the Netherlands dying, being displaced, or otherwise suffering from living in lands that for climatic purposes should have been flooded long ago? Last time I checked, the Netherlands was one of the most prosperous and safest places to live in the world. The last major flood in the Netherlands happened 60 years ago, and while thousands did sadly die, that also prompted the construction of the Delta and Zuiderzee Works, which are widely recognized as some of the most impressive civil engineering projects in world history. And while the people of the Netherlands must obviously remain vigilant to climate change, I would feel far safer living in the Netherlands than, frankly, in many parts of the United States, especially the inner cities. </p>
<p>Modern-day Netherlands is just one example of man’s ability to (literally) stem the flows of nature. At least since the dawn of civilization, man has known that the Nile River would flood annually. Indeed, the ancient Egyptians who thought that the flooding represented the goddess Isis’s tears of sorrow shed for her husband Osiris, actually designed their agricultural calendar to track the flooding. Modern-day Egyptians celebrate the Wafaa El-Nil holiday to mark the cycle of the flooding of the Nile. The Yellow (Hwang Ho) River is infamously known as “China’s Sorrow” for the deadly, devastating floods that it has wreaked on China since antiquity - the 1931 flood may have killed up to 4 million people. However, both rivers have been largely tamed with modern-day flood control mechanisms. indeed, the annual flooding of the Nile has entirely ceased after the construction of the Aswan High Dam in 1970. </p>
<p>The upshot is that climatologists are indeed qualified to discuss potential climate change in response to changes in the environment, what they are unqualified to discuss is how society will respond to those environmental changes. Why would they be qualified? That’s not what they study. The ability of man to adapt in response to different climatic conditions is fundamentally the province of economics, engineering, political-science, sociology, diplomacy, and other such disciplines that study society. After all, climatology models would have predicted that much of the Netherlands would have long ago washed away or be rendered uninhabitable. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that is what we’re talking about. Mitigation of climate change ultimately involves costs. After all, it was truly costless, we would all easily do it. The real question then is whether the costs of mitigation are worth the costs of simply adapting to the effects of climate change, as the Netherlands has done to adapt to its sinking geography. But the weighing of those relative costs is outside the realm of climatology. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, my issue is not with climatologists for behaving as ideologues. I have already said that everybody is obviously free to express whatever their beliefs they want. This is a free country.</p>
<p>Rather, my issue is simply that once we agree that climatologists are indeed free to express unscientific opinions (that is, opinions regarding topics for which they have no scientific knowledge), then we have no right to complain when others do the same. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I cannot agree, and I would certainly qualify as falling within the category of “anyone”. </p>
<p>As a case in point (and I take this example from Jim Manzi), it is widely understood that eventually the Earth will suffer a catastrophic asteroid strike. We don’t know when, but it is surely a mathematical certainty that some day, we shall suffer such a strike. Indeed, one such strike in the past is likely to have ended the realm of the dinosaurs. And clearly a future strike would entail immense world suffering, indeed, probably result in an apocalyptic conclusion of the age of man. </p>
<p>So does that mean that the entire world should drop everything it is doing now, and immiserate the world to devote every single resource to a asteroid detection and collision-avoidance technology skunk-works? After all, doing so would surely prevent future suffering and hence, under your definition, would be “ethically good”, right? </p>
<p>Surely very few of us - probably including you - would support such a decision. Your counterargument would likely be some version of the statement: “The costs of such a large-scale asteroid-collision mitigation program would not justify its benefits.”</p>
<p>Yet that is my point as well. Climate control mitigation is not costless. Indeed, it is rather expensive. The relevant question on the table once again then is whether those costs justify the benefits. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I obviously can’t speak for all politicians - maybe some truly don’t believe in the possibility of climate change. But for many others, the issue comes down to relative costs and resource tradeoffs, and this is clearly not an area that scientists are qualified to discuss. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, frankly, yes, politicians often times value jobs (or, more broadly speaking, the preservation of the economy) over any potential future destruction that may occur all the time, without having anything to do with the ignorance or refusal to understand science. </p>
<p>Let me give you an example. I doubt that you could find a single politician who would disagree that smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in the entire world. Indeed, even the executives of tobacco firms have long conceded that tobacco is a deadly, addictive product Yet the fact remains that the US is one of the leading manufacturers and marketers of cigarettes in the entire world. Tobacco firms serve not only the domestic market, but also export billions of dollars of goods to the rest of the world. Indeed, today some of the leading markets for US tobacco firms are in Asia and Africa. </p>
<p>Despite the consensus opinion regarding the destructive nature of tobacco, politicians allow the industry to exist anyway. Why? Because tobacco farming and manufacturing serve as important sources of jobs in North/South Carolina and Kentucky. Cigarette excise taxes are key sources of revenue for both the Federal government and especially the states - indeed many state governments would be bankrupt without such tax revenue. </p>
<p>Gambling could be viewed in the same light. Other than the small minority of skill-based games such as poker, gambling is mathematically established to be an overall losing bet for customers. State lotteries are widely derided as being “taxes on the poor/stupid”, or specifically, taxes on those who fail to understand the laws of statistics. Gambling addiction (ludomania) is a well-established medical disorder. Yet the fact is, the vast majority of states not only authorize private-sector gambling licenses, but also run their own lotteries. Again, the rationale is that gambling serves as an key source of economic growth government revenue. Casinos provide thousands of jobs. Politicians are loath to raise taxes, so they garner revenue through the ‘voluntary’ mechanism of gambling (although in the case of gambling addicts, it is questionable how ‘voluntary’ gambling really is). </p>
<p>The point is, given that no politician is seriously proposing to ban gambling or tobacco despite their scientifically established destructive natures because of their economic importance, is it really so surprising that politicians might also balk at the costs of climate change mitigation? That extends to the American people as well. Let’s face it - whether we’re talking about cap-and-trade or carbon taxation or any other means, a large-scale mitigation policy would result in widespread increases in the energy bills of American households. Many (probably most) Americans are not willing to foot those bills, even if doing so might mean entail future destruction. After all, I doubt that most Americans would support a complete ban on smoking, alcohol, or gambling, despite the widespread destruction that they wreak. {Alcohol perhaps being the most egregious case of all, for it not only hurts the individual drinker through alcoholism, but also hurts non-drinkers through alcohol-induced violence and drunk-driving.}</p>
<p>Medicare Part D is still an expansion of the government without provision to pay for it; that Medicare may be delivered through private entities (the optional Medicare Advantage) is not privatization any more than government spending to build a road or bridge contracted out to a private company instead of using the government’s own employees.</p>
<p>Re: capital gains taxes</p>
<p>The Republicans favor lower capital gains taxes simply because the top 0.1% income bracket collects about half of all capital gains, and another quarter is collected by the next 0.9%.</p>
<p>Also, different rates for capital gains create incentives for shenanigans to compensate employees in ways that turn ordinary pay into capital gains, so that more complicated tax laws (particularly with respect to employee stock options, stock grants, and stock purchase plans) are made to prevent such shenanigans.</p>
<p>Actually, that analogy is not apropos because, at least during modern American history, new roads/bridges are practically never built by private entities alone. The building of practically all new roads/bridges involve some level of government involvement. If the government were to choose not to build a particular road/bridge, then nobody would build it. </p>
<p>But in the case of prescription drugs, seniors were already buying them anyway. What the Federal government is offering is an alternative mechanism for coordinating and funding private-sector purchases that were already being made anyway. It should also be noted that the Part D is entirely optional. Insurance companies and seniors who prefer not to participate are entirely free not to join. If this is a ‘government takeover’ of the prescription drug market, it is surely the mildest type of government takeover ever, as nobody is being forced to do anything that they don’t want to do. </p>
<p>I also fail to see what the fact that Medicare Part D may not have been fully funded has anything to do with the issue. Are you saying that if it was fully funded, it would not constitute a government takeover? Neither the Bush tax cuts nor the Obama stimulus were fully funded either (in terms of matching spending cuts or other tax increases) - does that mean that they also constituted ‘government takeovers’? If not, then why do you keep raising the issue? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, so what? The issue is not the overall desirability of a capital gains tax cut. I didn’t come here to take a position on the capital gains tax cut.</p>
<p>Rather, I am simply pointing out the fact that the capital gains tax cut has been a signature issue of the Republican Party for decades, yet is supported by far fewer Democrats. It therefore can be seen as a differentiating issue between the two parties. Whether the tax cut is actually beneficial for society is an entirely different issue.</p>
<p>However, it was an increased government subsidy of such items – basically free money for those who were buying them. How is that not an (unfunded) increase in big government?</p>
<p>Another example of big government: during the Bush (43) administration, government jobs increased by 1.7 million, while private sector jobs decreased by 653,000. Yes, a net of about a million jobs, but under deficit spending during better economic times (despite inheriting a budget surplus), so that there were fewer options when better economic times came to an end.</p>
<p>Under the Obama administration, government payrolls are shrinking, while private sector payrolls are increasing.</p>
<p>So by your definition, an increase in big government is simply (unfunded) spending? Really? So I suppose by that argument, the Bush tax cuts were also ‘big government’, because they were unfunded? Heck, any tax cuts that are not offset with other tax increases or decreased spending are ‘big government’. If a President were to drop all taxes to zero, you would consider that to be the biggest increase in government in history! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait, so now you’re defining big government simply by hiring patterns? Private sector jobs are far more sensitive to the state of the economy than are government jobs. So, during a recession, when private sector jobs decline but government jobs stay the same, or even increase, then that’s considered ‘big government’? </p>
<p>Look, the upshot is that we should put the notion that the Medicare Modernization Act was an increase of ‘big government’ to bed, for it surely seemed to me that that was an overall increase in privatization. Nobody is forced to enroll in Medicare Part C or D, and nobody is being forced to open a Health Savings Account. What you instead seem to be complaining about is unfunded spending, which is an entirely different argument that does not differentiate between the two parties. Both parties are guilty of unfunded spending.</p>
<p>This discussion has veered way off topic because Sakky keeps introducing red herrings into the discussion. You obviously aren’t here to have a propper discussion because every time someone brings up a valid point you go off to Wikipedia and dig up some counter arguement to regurgitate here. My original point stands that endorsing carbon reduction policy is not ideology because it is not based on myth or doctrine. For you to keep arguing your point in such a way speaks to your ability to reason and your maturity. Your long diatribes that are cut and pasted from Google/Wikipedia speak to your need to be seen as intelligent by others. Good luck to everybody who continues to try to reason with such a person.</p>
<p>Actually, I’m afraid that it is based on myth and doctrine. Granted, it might be well-meaning myth and doctrine, but that is still myth/doctrine. At the end of the day, climatologists can only tell us about the climate. They’re not social scientists, not diplomats, and certainly not philosophers or ethicists and hence have no scientific standing to tell us what we should do about the climate. For them to endorse policies is an ideological step. </p>
<p>I therefore reiterate my stance: if we are to allow climatologists to make ideological statements, no matter how much we may support them, then we can’t complain when others do the same. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The epitome of irony: somebody who stoops to personal insults while appealing to maturity and reason. </p>
<p>If you are truly so frustrated with this thread as to have to resort to personal insults, why do you even continue to participate in the thread at all? If you don’t like my posts, fine, do us both a favor and don’t read them. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.</p>
<p>To clarify regarding this particular point, I used very little Google/Wikipedia/general-Internet-searching at all on this particular thread. The vast majority of what I have posted on this thread is what I already knew from past reading and discussion on this particular topic. </p>
<p>But even if I had utilized Google/Wikipedia or some other general information resource, well, so what? Is that bad? In any discussion, shouldn’t people marshal information resources to support their opinion? Isn’t that far better than having people state opinions that are supported by nothing? </p>
<p>I fully admit that I try to bring my A-game to any discussion that I enter. I believe that others should do the same, and if they don’t, well, that’s not my fault. If people disagree with me about a particular point, they are perfectly free to leverage whatever information resource that they desire to bolster their argument. Indeed, I encourage them to do so. </p>
<p>I’d actually like to hear a reasonable counterargument as to why people shouldn’t leverage whatever information resources they have to support their opinion. That is, if such a reasonable counterargument can even be made at all.</p>
<p>If the information resource contains false information, or makes a false implication by citing only cetain statistics while intentionally ignoring others to make it’s readers or viewers more likely to come up with biased and most likely incorrect interpretations. </p>
<p>Which btw I believe pertains to all human information, since data is the only unbiased element (assuming no tampering) and information IS NOT data, it is generally an interpretation of data). </p>
<p>So I guess everything is a lie, and in the same sense, everything is the truth, all arguments and goals in life are pointless since they can never be won once they pass what I call the “quantitative threshold”, which is the point when a pure quantitative argument can no longer be made because the issue is too complex, and there can never be enough polling/statistics/data that captures all of the issue’s angles and thus cannot be properly analyzed. And thus opposing opinions will exist till the end of time resulting in the never ending revival of this thread.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that you have done this though Sakky, I just wanted to answer your question :P</p>
<p>I continue to ask the question: regardless of how biased the information source might be, isn’t leveraging it still better than using no information at all but rather mere assertions? Seems to me that all such debates always end up as a variant of: “Nuh-uh”, “Yeah-huh”, “Nuh-uh”, to perpetuity. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I don’t know that I would take it to that relativistic extreme endpoint. Arguments are won, in the sense that certain positions lose popularity over time. I think it’s safe to say that both Communism and Fascism have effectively lost in the sense that they are far less popular than they were, say, 80 years ago. Sure, proponents of those systems continue to linger, but they are clearly in the minority. Similarly, only a tiny minority of people in the world continue to support a government under absolute monarchy, despite it being the dominant form of government for the overwhelming majority of human history.</p>