Conservatism and the Environment

[Deleted member 18]

I agree with most of this. Trying to make it a economic numbers game, and only reasoning via that level of dialog, is absolutely counter-productive.

Yes, some people do need economic incentives to get them to care about our ecosystem. But there are also plenty of conservatives who are less Reaganite and more Roosevelt, who understand the value of our ecosystem goes beyond mere dollars and spreadsheets.

However I think there are ways to deal with this that don't necessitate globalist intervention or regulation. No one wants to live in squalor and smog, and everyone would like to keep the oceans from becoming toxic cesspools. Using something like the UN as a pulpit to encourage growth of eco-friendly, but not radical greenie, industry and tech is about as far as I feel the 'global' arena can truly help the situation. Anything more gets bogged down in bureaucracy and budget/interest fights between powers.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting creating the UN Ministry of Environmental Control or anything like. Countries agree to meet targets, exchange technologies, harmonize incentives, and so on outside the UN all the time. There are plenty of multilateral conservation treaties which have been resounding successes, like the international convention on seal-hunting in the North Pacific or fisheries management for Pacific salmon and so on where agreement and cooperation on catch limits are necessary, or the ban on whaling that (with a few exceptions) has at least given most cetacean populations breathing room to recover. Those are better models than any imagined UN bureaucracy.

 

[Speaker4thesilent]

Hmmm, I'm late to the party here. Going back a touch, I'm a conservative and a Christian. That means I believe in Good Stewardship, including of the environment. I like having clean air and water and would like for my sister's children (and any I may some day have) to enjoy such as well.

Part of Good Stewardship is trying to preserve natural beauty: National parks are a good thing, in my view, so long as they are not taken to excess.

Conservation of endangered species, likewise, though my threshold of 'reasonable protection' is lower than some people's. At a certain point, if a species can't adapt, then it has earned its Darwin Award.

 

[7 Gold Eye Heals the Wise]

It's a great element to add to a carbon tax based system, but outside of that, it falls completely to the "commons" issue.

No, a carbon Tariff on countries like India & China.

They want to pollute like crazy?

The US is the world's only super-power, less "shoot ourselves in the foot" unenforceable treaties where we shoulder all of the burden, more "we will literally bankrupt you if you don't comply" when it comes to addressing global pollution.

Also, stop giving direct aid to developing regions in the form of food, cement, or money. If we're doing this green thing, any aid to developing nation's to get with the program comes in the form of building their energy, industry, & medical infrastructure in a joint effort with the locals, including training for their people in the cases where such might be needed. It stops unsustainable population levels with shit infrastructure that rely on inefficient & wasteful methods due to said aforementioned shitty energy & industry infrastructure. It also creates jobs.

China is not a developing nation, we should stop acting like it is.

 

[Marduk]

No, a carbon Tariff on countries like India & China.

Then a trade war it is. I doubt that China will see one with the excuse of CO2 much differently than one with the excuse of trade imbalances, market manipulation and national interest. It just feeds into the establishment impulse to be ashamed of doing things in the name of the latter.

Of course the watermelons who are very plentiful among any "climate activists" and company won't be happy with that anyway due to the "red" part being their core.

 

[7 Gold Eye Heals the Wise]

Then a trade war it is. I doubt that China will see one with the excuse of CO2 much differently than one with the excuse of trade imbalances, market manipulation and national interest. It just feeds into the establishment impulse to be ashamed of doing things in the name of the latter.

Of course the watermelons who are very plentiful among any "climate activists" and company won't be happy with that anyway due to the "red" part being their core.

Well, either the problem is real & merits drastic action, or it isn't & it can be ignored. Call their bluff, if it is one.

 

[Marduk]

Well, either the problem is real & merits drastic action, or it isn't & it can be ignored. Call their bluff, if it is one.

Just because a problem is real does not necessarily mean it merits drastic action.
It may well be that the solutions to this problem (and doubly so "solutions in search of a problem" that have seen an opportunity and attached themselves to this one, see watermelons) would have worse consequences than the problem itself.
It would be quite interesting to know how much of "climate skepticism" is in fact encouraged or driven by two particular harsh truths: said "drastic action" that all the activists call for has a warning sign attached to it in the use of the term "drastic" and rightfully so, while both the side effects of CO2 levels increase and costs of preventing them are dependent both on one's valuation of some ecological effects, and on economic and geographical setup of any particular country, creating a wide variety of lenses to see this problem and the solutions from, a fact that the UN and any mainstream greens would very much prefer not to speak about.
But that doesn't mean no one else does - here's a fun study i've found once when discussing this topic, and spoken of in Russian media, for a good reason....

Russia to Reap Benefits from Climate Change

While numerous countries around the world fear the humanitarian and economic crises climate change is expected to bring, Mongolia — and to a lesser extent Russia and several other CEE/CIS countries — will reap significant economic benefits from a modest rise in global temperatures, a new...

www.themoscowtimes.com

It's based on an IMF study, and it's a quite different perspective from anything that one can see in mainstream western media.
Many more "western mainstream independent" societies and governments, some openly and some behind closed doors, i would expect to do a similar thing - think through the issue not with the media friendly focus on "the world", polar bears, some tiny island being flooded or some African countries on the brink of starvation being pushed to the other side of it, but with consideration of "how does it impact us specifically, how does impact our friends/enemies/competitors current and future, how much will any efforts at mitigation, exploitation or prevention cost compared to that, and what combination of those will get *us* closest to the top in the end." And some wealthy/highly industrial countries may end up with very controversial results for that analysis.

 

[Edgeplay_cgo]

No, a carbon Tariff on countries like India & China.

They want to pollute like crazy?

I'm a carbon infidel; more concerned about traditional pollution. But by not tarrifing exporters' pollution levels, be it carbon or BOD, or whatever, we are outsourcing our pollution. We're not limiting pollution, we're moving it over there. We accomplish little by punishing ourselves for the sins of others.

The US is the world's only super-power, less "shoot ourselves in the foot" unenforceable treaties where we shoulder all of the burden, more "we will literally bankrupt you if you don't comply" when it comes to addressing global pollution.

There are two aspects here. Some treaties, sponsored by the Watermelons, are designed specifically to harm the US (e.g. the Paris Accords). Their point is to weaken the US economy and strengthen those of others. The other issue is that, for us, a treaty is the Law of the Land, superior to everything but The Constitution. We must obey them. For other countries, they can shrug their shoulders and say FU. They did that with Paris, and Kyoto, when they couldn't or wouldn't meet their goals. Again, we have to be careful to not shoot ourself in the foot.

 

[Battlegrinder]

As far as solutions to climate issues, I think the main lesson to be learned is that while prevention is theoretical the most effective route, it always assumes a level of cooperation and support that in reality isn't there, and efforts to force or convince people to go along don't work well enough or fast enough. Add in other issues with most prevention schemes (like the fact that some people have a vested interest in opposing them and the resources to do it, or stuff like the green new deal that provided a lot of evidence for the "the eco movement is full of watermelons and we can't trust them" crowd being totally right), and I think it's evident that at this point pushing prevention is a waste of time and effort.

That means the best method to address the issue is to actively work to mitigate the damage, via carbon sequestration, geo-engineering, etc. Something that there's no vested interest opposing, and that can be passed via a bit of good old fashioned horse trading, since the only issue at stake is funding. However, I suspect that won't happen, because it would involve compromising with the other party, giving up a route to control, and admitting error/defeat on the part of all involved, and our current crop of politicians aren't willing to do any of that.

 

[Marduk]

That means the best method to address the issue is to actively work to mitigate the damage, via carbon sequestration, geo-engineering, etc. Something that there's no vested interest opposing, and that can be passed via a bit of good old fashioned horse trading, since the only issue at stake is funding. However, I suspect that won't happen, because it would involve compromising with the other party, giving up a route to control, and admitting error/defeat on the part of all involved, and our current crop of politicians aren't willing to do any of that.

As i said, the issue with carbon sequestration, but in some degree also geo-engineering, is the question of who will pay?
The pros and cons of a warmer climate are distributed in such a way that those most needing it paid would not be able to, and those with money may have mixed feelings. Unless some kind of breakthrough in one of these happens that will make it a relatively non-impactful proposition for G8 budgets, don't see it, earlier i've done some math on the carbon sequestration figures and doing it would imply massive energy price hikes (or equivalent taxes elsewhere) for most countries.

 

[Battlegrinder]

As i said, the issue with carbon sequestration, but in some degree also geo-engineering, is the question of who will pay?
The pros and cons of a warmer climate are distributed in such a way that those most needing it paid would not be able to, and those with money may have mixed feelings. Unless some kind of breakthrough in one of these happens that will make it a relatively non-impactful proposition for G8 budgets, don't see it, earlier i've done some math on the carbon sequestration figures and doing it would imply massive energy price hikes (or equivalent taxes elsewhere) for most countries.

Like you say, It'd have to be taxes. Ideally this would be some kind of international venture between as many countries as possible (since the overall cost is fixed) to spread the tax burden as wide as possible, and if people really want to pass it, they'd try to cut some current spending in order to make the tax hike as small as possible.

That said, I think sequestration is not the best route, as you say it's not cheap. I think I saw an article a while ago about using orbital mirrors or something to limit the amount of sunlight coming in, that might be cheaper since it can piggyback off of existing launch infrastructure.

 

[Bacle]

As i said, the issue with carbon sequestration, but in some degree also geo-engineering, is the question of who will pay?
The pros and cons of a warmer climate are distributed in such a way that those most needing it paid would not be able to, and those with money may have mixed feelings. Unless some kind of breakthrough in one of these happens that will make it a relatively non-impactful proposition for G8 budgets, don't see it, earlier i've done some math on the carbon sequestration figures and doing it would imply massive energy price hikes (or equivalent taxes elsewhere) for most countries.

Well, offering tax breaks on any funding spent on such projects could get private enterprise more invested. Or create a prize, similar to the X-Prize that existed for private spaceflight, for implementing tech that does this stuff. A prize for X amount of carbon sequestered per year over a certain time span could be the way to go.

People like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and Warren Buffett are the sorts who would back this stuff or develop the tech to make it economically feasible.

 

[Marduk]

Well, offering tax breaks on any funding spent on such projects could get private enterprise more invested. Or create a prize, similar to the X-Prize that existed for private spaceflight, for implementing tech that does this stuff. A prize for X amount of carbon sequestered per year over a certain time span could be the way to go.

People like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and Warren Buffett are the sorts who would back this stuff or develop the tech to make it economically feasible.

I don't think you are considering the numbers here. Research, sure. But in terms of results?
The global CO2 emissions are about 37 gigatons per year now. The near future figures for sequestration can be estimated as something in range of 150$? 100$, 50$? Per ton...
A meager 10% emission sequestration nets us 185-555 billions USD per year.
The whole fortune of Bill Gates does not even get to the lower boundry of that. For one year. The upper boundry of that is slightly below whole US defense spending, and that's quite a lot of money even by US standards obviously. Or alternatively, a third of Russia's whole GDP. And that's just for sequestering 10% of current global emissions.
Compare that with all the green activists demanding their countries go "carbon neutral" by 2030 or 2050, depending on how radical they are feeling.

Like you say, It'd have to be taxes. Ideally this would be some kind of international venture between as many countries as possible (since the overall cost is fixed) to spread the tax burden as wide as possible, and if people really want to pass it, they'd try to cut some current spending in order to make the tax hike as small as possible.

The tax burden acceptable to poorer countries won't meet the program's needs, and if sufficient to do so either won't meet their willingness to engage, or will be an indirect international money redistribution program that the watermelons always wanted.

That said, I think sequestration is not the best route, as you say it's not cheap. I think I saw an article a while ago about using orbital mirrors or something to limit the amount of sunlight coming in, that might be cheaper since it can piggyback off of existing launch infrastructure.

That's a quite attractive option if it shows up, when it shows up - currently it's in the realm of sci fi.

 

[Yokkiziikzekker]

Theodore (he hated Teddy) Roosevelt is not the best example to use if you're wanting to separate environmentalism from leftism and bash the latter over the head with it... just saying. -thumbs up-

 

[Bacle]

Theodore (he hated Teddy) Roosevelt is not the best example to use if you're wanting to separate environmentalism from leftism and bash the latter over the head with it... just saying. -thumbs up-

How exactly was TR a leftist?

Also, this conversation isn't about bashing the left over the head with anything; it's about countering their narrative about conservatives and the environment while taking a more practical, and less ideological, approach to ecological/environmental issues.

 

[Battlegrinder]

The tax burden acceptable to poorer countries won't meet the program's needs, and if sufficient to do so either won't meet their willingness to engage, or will be an indirect international money redistribution program that the watermelons always wanted.

Possibly, but I have doubts (and this would be less wealth redistribution and more like a progressive tax). The Paris accords and like were basically the old "pay farmers not to plant X" subsidies on an international scale, this would be more like the ISS or some similar international joint venture. Just building a sequestration facility somewhere doesn't do much in terms of international aid.

That's a quite attractive option if it shows up, when it shows up - currently it's in the realm of sci fi.

True. Then again most solutions are either sci-fi, or just plain fantasy in the case of a lot of current plans.

Theodore (he hated Teddy) Roosevelt is not the best example to use if you're wanting to separate environmentalism from leftism and bash the latter over the head with it... just saying. -thumbs up-

I don't follow, can you explain?

 

[Marduk]

Possibly, but I have doubts (and this would be less wealth redistribution and more like a progressive tax). The Paris accords and like were basically the old "pay farmers not to plant X" subsidies on an international scale, this would be more like the ISS or some similar international joint venture. Just building a sequestration facility somewhere doesn't do much in terms of international aid.

Is there any global international venture operating on anything near this level of budget?
It's something we can measure in multiples of US defense budget, about 9 of them to go globally "carbon zero", in recurring, yearly spending.
For comparison, ISS has cost about quarter a US defense budget, in all spending to date, spread over more than a decade.

 

[Bacle]

Is there any global international venture operating on anything near this level of budget?
It's something we can measure in multiples of US defense budget, about 9 of them to go globally "carbon zero", in recurring, yearly spending.
For comparison, ISS has cost about quarter a US defense budget, in all spending to date, spread over more than a decade.

The Catholic Church?

I mean, maybe that is the sort of angle to look at, is a group less concerned with balancing the books and more concerned with actually getting stuff done.

 

[Marduk]

The Catholic Church?

I mean, maybe that is the sort of angle to look at, is a group less concerned with balancing the books and more concerned with actually getting stuff done.

It's not a convenient example as it's not an organization famous for financial transparency...
However, this estimates $170 bn operating budget in the USA, with about 80m people.
But being USA that's has to be disproportionately high by world standards, but for our little hypothetical Carbon Sequestration Church estimate purposes, we could go with twice that for Europe and once that for the rest of the world, totalling slightly more than one US defense budget. That's what an equivalent organization focused solely on sponsoring carbon sequestration would get you, disregarding the chances of an equivalent amount of people with equivalent generosity volunteering. So, that would be something, but a ~13% (up to 40% if the tech gets very optimistically cheap) reduction is hardly a gamechanger.

 

[Bacle]

It's not a convenient example as it's not an organization famous for financial transparency...
However, this estimates $170 bn operating budget in the USA, with about 80m people.
But being USA that's has to be disproportionate, but for our little hypothetical Carbon Sequestration Church estimate purposes, we could go with twice that for Europe and once that for the rest of the world, totalling slightly more than one US defense budget. That's what an equivalent organization focused solely on sponsoring carbon sequestration would get you, disregarding the chances of an equivalent amount of people with equivalent generosity volunteering. So, that would be something, but a ~12% reduction is hardly a gamechanger.

You are trying to play this too much as a numbers game. It's not.

Have good fiscal reasoning for an environmental project is useful in getting it done, but it is not the only metric that matters. Getting the ball rolling, as it were, is more important than trying to pin specific dollar amounts to it.

This is where the a lot of the current conservative mindset has failed itself, and why the radical left dominate the narrative. Knowing how much it might cost is one thing, but consider what the costs of NOT doing it will be. The longer it takes to get this stuff going, the more expensive it will be in the long run.

 

[Marduk]

You are trying to play this too much as a numbers game. It's not.

Have good fiscal reasoning for an environmental project is useful in getting it done, but it is not the only metric that matters. Getting the ball rolling, as it were, is more important than trying to pin specific dollar amounts to it.

This is where the a lot of the current conservative mindset has failed itself, and why the radical left dominate the narrative. Knowing how much it might cost is one thing, but consider what the costs of NOT doing it will be. The longer it takes to get this stuff going, the more expensive it will be in the long run.

Environmentalism or not, this is an engineering project, one of cost scale that i'm trying to convey here. It's way beyond the magnitude of any usual environmental initiative, period.

Largest environmentalist organizations operate with budgets of tens of millions $, not hundreds of billions. That's why "getting the ball rolling", getting some publicity and random people to donate a 2-3 digit sum makes a difference in the budget.
But it's a different scale of numbers we are working with here.

The costs of *not* doing that? Plenty of estimates of that too. The unfortunate thing is that the countries likely to take the brunt of that are those neither willing nor able to throw a lot of money at that.