Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Fighting climate change was an expensive prospect until Covid happened   (motherjones.com) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4085 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 25 Oct 2020 at 4:25 AM (25 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



77 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-10-25 2:06:28 PM  
This entire country could live in caves and stop driving cars, traveling and curb its consumerism and it would have zero effect on global warming.  India, china, etc negate everything we try and do.
 
2020-10-25 2:08:56 PM  

Smoking GNU: And Covid has also shown that huge portions of the population will refuse to save themselves with disease and death littering the streets, literally.


I work outside and in the public. I haven't seen any bodies in the streets.
 
2020-10-25 2:18:28 PM  
dailygrinds

You forgot the totals, and can we afford it? Not just the US as well, but the USG currently has negative 20 trillion dollars.

This guy is saying "we can afford it" based on a one time emergency spend. And isn't backing up that assertion. I don't think Biden's tax plan will cover this, and I'm not savvy to the other 200 countries' finances to speculate. Care to have a go?
 
2020-10-25 2:32:42 PM  
The fossil fuel economy itself exists through extensive government support - basically industrial policy, which every government has. What the argument is about is changing the focus of industrial policy, and of course existing industry doesn't like that one bit.
 
2020-10-25 2:37:09 PM  

adamatari: The fossil fuel economy itself exists through extensive government support - basically industrial policy, which every government has. What the argument is about is changing the focus of industrial policy, and of course existing industry doesn't like that one bit.


One proven dirty industry to a new industry that has a proven track record of failure.

It really is no choice at all.
 
2020-10-25 2:39:20 PM  

Kit Fister: hissatsu: Yeah but...

[Fark user image 850x566]

I feel like I want this cartoon to be updated, with the dude on stage being replaced with an artistic rendering of that Swedish girl that became the postergirl for Climate Change efforts.


The title of the cartoon should be, "I don't understand opportunity cost."

Alternatively, "Pascal's wager: not just for fundies anymore."
 
2020-10-25 2:42:48 PM  

Xenu's Giant Pink Replicock: dailygrinds

You forgot the totals, and can we afford it? Not just the US as well, but the USG currently has negative 20 trillion dollars.

This guy is saying "we can afford it" based on a one time emergency spend. And isn't backing up that assertion. I don't think Biden's tax plan will cover this, and I'm not savvy to the other 200 countries' finances to speculate. Care to have a go?


You bring up an interesting point, the U.S. national debt is around $20 trillion. What you're missing is that the debt is denominated in U.S. dollars. This graphic shows how many U.S. Dollars the U.S. federal government has -
i.pinimg.comView Full Size

The federal government has the unique ability to spend money into existence. Spending federal dollars on green energy initiatives puts money directly into consumers pockets. It will boost the economy at all levels as the rest of the economy ramps up to meet new demands. The fed has recently acknowledged that no amount of federal spending yet has increased inflation. I fail to see any impediment besides political will due to the poisoning of the conversation by fossil fuel industry propaganda and the politicians they employ.
 
2020-10-25 2:43:14 PM  

dailygrinds: To save the farking world with a massive jobs program that will massively boost our economy. How can we afford to not do that?


Hurr durr trickle down magical thinking.
 
2020-10-25 2:49:42 PM  

BMFPitt: dailygrinds: To save the farking world with a massive jobs program that will massively boost our economy. How can we afford to not do that?

Hurr durr trickle down magical thinking.


Federal government places order for fleet of hydrogen fuel cell powered forklifts for the military. Stipulates in bid request that production must be in the U.S. by a U.S. owned corporation and that employees must be compensated to a certain level and receive adequate benefits. This is not trickle down economics.
 
2020-10-25 2:57:33 PM  

dailygrinds: Federal government places order for fleet of hydrogen fuel cell powered forklifts for the military. Stipulates in bid request that production must be in the U.S. by a U.S. owned corporation and that employees must be compensated to a certain level and receive adequate benefits. This is not trickle down economics.


It's every bit as much of a pure fantasy.  Finding an economist to tell you otherwise would be about as easy as finding a climatologist to say everything is fine and there's nothing to see here.
 
2020-10-25 3:00:43 PM  

BMFPitt: dailygrinds: Federal government places order for fleet of hydrogen fuel cell powered forklifts for the military. Stipulates in bid request that production must be in the U.S. by a U.S. owned corporation and that employees must be compensated to a certain level and receive adequate benefits. This is not trickle down economics.

It's every bit as much of a pure fantasy.  Finding an economist to tell you otherwise would be about as easy as finding a climatologist to say everything is fine and there's nothing to see here.


How is this a fantasy? Biden explicitly stated that he would use the purchasing power of the federal government in this way.
 
2020-10-25 3:05:12 PM  

dailygrinds: How is this a fantasy? Biden explicitly stated that he would use the purchasing power of the federal government in this way.


Not the part about him doing it.  The part about it boosting the economy.
 
2020-10-25 3:08:51 PM  

Kit Fister: Nadie_AZ: Covid is an byproduct of climate change. Whether you want to change or not, it is going to happen.

Uhm, what? COVID is a byproduct of climate change? How do you figure that? Viruses are organisms, and as such, mutate/develop new strains all the damn time, as mutation/evolution in simple organisms such as Viruses and Bacteria is extremely simple compared to change in higher organisms.

Combine that with the fact that there is a very high probability of any number of unknown strains or unique viruses/bacteria that only exist in very specific ecosystems that we'll only discover through the encroachment of humanity on these ecosystems, and you've got, under any circumstances, an extremely high probability of encountering illnesses that are new or unique.

Climate change can certainly impact the number and variation of viruses and bacteria as the change to environments will inevitably provoke new alterations in response as a natural part of survival, just the same as it has for the span of history.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Climate Change is directly responsible for this mutation/variation, though, since it's next to impossible to track back and identify the specific factors that caused it. That's really only possible with mutations that occur in a closed/controlled environment, such as the creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.


You never heard the intro to Phoenix Point?

"In what may be the hottest year on record..." BOOM. Pandoravirus.
 
2020-10-25 3:09:16 PM  

BMFPitt: dailygrinds: How is this a fantasy? Biden explicitly stated that he would use the purchasing power of the federal government in this way.

Not the part about him doing it.  The part about it boosting the economy.


Are familiar with The New Deal or perhaps WWII? Both were massive federal jobs programs funded by deficit spending that most economists agree had a measurably positive effect on the economy.
How do suppose creating more and better paying jobs will not boost the economy?
 
2020-10-25 3:13:25 PM  

dailygrinds: Are familiar with The New Deal or perhaps WWII? Both were massive federal jobs programs funded by deficit spending that most economists agree had a measurably positive effect on the economy.
How do suppose creating more and better paying jobs will not boost the economy?


The consensus on the New Deal isn't quite what you think it is, and that's in the context of the Great Depression.  Doing that in "normal" times would be a terrible, terrible policy.

As far as I'm aware, no economist anywhere sees war as economically beneficial.
 
2020-10-25 3:19:34 PM  
This will change things
And this won't change things.

One consistent thing about humans is our inconsistency.
Much less conflict of interest and neglect for bonus.

BUT, at least this has shown it's possible and not pie in the sky.
Both the funding/logistcs and the planet showing it can recover fairly rapid.
This puts the skeptics back on their heels.

It won't be a all or nothing scenario
But it will be a war of attrition...but one that been shown doable.

Just like any battle worth winning...gotta get out the vote, collect the donations, ramp up the workers, create the programs, etc.
It will be a long war, but it can be won.
For the right reasons.
A good war.
 
2020-10-25 3:40:09 PM  

BMFPitt: dailygrinds: Are familiar with The New Deal or perhaps WWII? Both were massive federal jobs programs funded by deficit spending that most economists agree had a measurably positive effect on the economy.
How do suppose creating more and better paying jobs will not boost the economy?

The consensus on the New Deal isn't quite what you think it is, and that's in the context of the Great Depression.  Doing that in "normal" times would be a terrible, terrible policy.

As far as I'm aware, no economist anywhere sees war as economically beneficial.


The New Deal inched us towards recovery, WWII clinched it. The "failure" of The New Deal was the same as the "failure" of the Obama recovery - it didn't go far enough, didn't spend enough money. I've never heard anyone attempt to argue that WWII wasn't a tremendous benefit to our economy, and that was focused on spending money moving things around and blowing stuff up. Imagine that kind of work put towards positive things.
 
2020-10-25 4:10:05 PM  
There was never an option to not pay for climate change, it was just a choice between paying now in money, or paying later in money, lives, and destroyed infrastructure. We've largely been going with the pay later option for 40 years now.
 
2020-10-25 4:46:49 PM  

Likwit: I'll take it. I have two daughters and I'm concerned for their future. If this slight pause in global warming means my baby girls will have to murder just one less person for water or bullets as they roam the apocalyptic hellscape, it will have been worth it.


Even better, your girls could star in a post-apoc music video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy6Mp​s​DPKts


dailygrinds:
The federal government has the unique ability to spend money into existence. Spending federal dollars on green energy initiatives puts money directly into consumers pockets. It will boost the economy at all levels as the rest of the economy ramps up to meet new demands. The fed has recently acknowledged that no amount of federal spending yet has increased inflation. I fail to see any impediment besides political will due to the poisoning of the conversation by fossil fuel industry propaganda and the politicians they employ.

IIRC inflation is caused by excess money circulating, so I think I know why there hasn't been any inflation:

There is no money circulating, the federal bailouts went to people who save money and don't spend it
 
2020-10-25 4:47:10 PM  

dailygrinds: The New Deal inched us towards recovery, WWII clinched it. The "failure" of The New Deal was the same as the "failure" of the Obama recovery - it didn't go far enough, didn't spend enough money.


That's what your want to be true.  Wanting it doesn't make it actually true.

I've never heard anyone attempt to argue that WWII wasn't a tremendous benefit to our economy,

You know how I know you've never read an economic analysis of WW2?

and that was focused on spending money moving things around and blowing stuff up.

Yeah.  Essentially all of which is a deadweight loss to the actual economy.

Imagine that kind of work put towards positive things.

Yeah, imagine if you could actually just get a booming economy like that.  Despite at the times it was ever tried but working.  Imagine if ice cream cured COVID.  Imagine if Republicans could be reasoned with.
 
2020-10-25 5:02:10 PM  

BMFPitt: dailygrinds: The New Deal inched us towards recovery, WWII clinched it. The "failure" of The New Deal was the same as the "failure" of the Obama recovery - it didn't go far enough, didn't spend enough money.

That's what your want to be true.  Wanting it doesn't make it actually true.

I've never heard anyone attempt to argue that WWII wasn't a tremendous benefit to our economy,

You know how I know you've never read an economic analysis of WW2?

and that was focused on spending money moving things around and blowing stuff up.

Yeah.  Essentially all of which is a deadweight loss to the actual economy.

Imagine that kind of work put towards positive things.

Yeah, imagine if you could actually just get a booming economy like that.  Despite at the times it was ever tried but working.  Imagine if ice cream cured COVID.  Imagine if Republicans could be reasoned with.


Imagine responding to a comment with anything more insightful than "nuh-huh".
 
2020-10-25 6:28:43 PM  

Nonpo: The whole "we can't pay for green energy because it's too expensive" line was always clearly belied by the fact that we can just literally print as much money as we want for zero cost now using computers. When they start printing up trillions of dollars and handing it to billionaires to maintain the status quo even the least-informed start to take notice.


You should take a grade school level econ course
 
2020-10-25 6:55:51 PM  

dailygrinds: Xenu's Giant Pink Replicock: "If just 12 percent of currently pledged COVID-19 stimulus funding were spent every year through 2024"

Huge difference between one time costs and recurring costs. You've got to prove we can afford that, on top of what we've already spent, to make your argument make any sense.

Let me do some difficult math for ya - 2020 though 2025 = 5 years
5 X 12% of current Covid stimulus funding = 60% of current Covid stimulus funding
To save the farking world with a massive jobs program that will massively boost our economy. How can we afford to not do that?
Speaking of can we afford it, how much money does the U.S. federal government have?


Don't do math for anyone if you can't count
 
2020-10-25 9:11:23 PM  

dailygrinds: BMFPitt: dailygrinds: Are familiar with The New Deal or perhaps WWII? Both were massive federal jobs programs funded by deficit spending that most economists agree had a measurably positive effect on the economy.
How do suppose creating more and better paying jobs will not boost the economy?

The consensus on the New Deal isn't quite what you think it is, and that's in the context of the Great Depression.  Doing that in "normal" times would be a terrible, terrible policy.

As far as I'm aware, no economist anywhere sees war as economically beneficial.

The New Deal inched us towards recovery, WWII clinched it. The "failure" of The New Deal was the same as the "failure" of the Obama recovery - it didn't go far enough, didn't spend enough money. I've never heard anyone attempt to argue that WWII wasn't a tremendous benefit to our economy, and that was focused on spending money moving things around and blowing stuff up. Imagine that kind of work put towards positive things.


The benefit to our economy was that our manufacturing infrastructure wasn't destroyed like everyone else's.
 
2020-10-26 1:51:19 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: dailygrinds: BMFPitt: dailygrinds: Are familiar with The New Deal or perhaps WWII? Both were massive federal jobs programs funded by deficit spending that most economists agree had a measurably positive effect on the economy.
How do suppose creating more and better paying jobs will not boost the economy?

The consensus on the New Deal isn't quite what you think it is, and that's in the context of the Great Depression.  Doing that in "normal" times would be a terrible, terrible policy.

As far as I'm aware, no economist anywhere sees war as economically beneficial.

The New Deal inched us towards recovery, WWII clinched it. The "failure" of The New Deal was the same as the "failure" of the Obama recovery - it didn't go far enough, didn't spend enough money. I've never heard anyone attempt to argue that WWII wasn't a tremendous benefit to our economy, and that was focused on spending money moving things around and blowing stuff up. Imagine that kind of work put towards positive things.

The benefit to our economy was that our manufacturing infrastructure was destroying everyone else's.

FTFY

 
2020-10-26 7:53:16 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-26 8:53:16 AM  

Daer21: Shakin_Haitian: dailygrinds: BMFPitt: dailygrinds: Are familiar with The New Deal or perhaps WWII? Both were massive federal jobs programs funded by deficit spending that most economists agree had a measurably positive effect on the economy.
How do suppose creating more and better paying jobs will not boost the economy?

The consensus on the New Deal isn't quite what you think it is, and that's in the context of the Great Depression.  Doing that in "normal" times would be a terrible, terrible policy.

As far as I'm aware, no economist anywhere sees war as economically beneficial.

The New Deal inched us towards recovery, WWII clinched it. The "failure" of The New Deal was the same as the "failure" of the Obama recovery - it didn't go far enough, didn't spend enough money. I've never heard anyone attempt to argue that WWII wasn't a tremendous benefit to our economy, and that was focused on spending money moving things around and blowing stuff up. Imagine that kind of work put towards positive things.

The benefit to our economy was that our manufacturing infrastructure was destroying everyone else's.

FTFY


Nothing screams roaring economy more than rations.
 
Displayed 27 of 77 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.