Author Topic: Rant - math literacy  (Read 306 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2936
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #75 on: May 01, 2019, 05:07:04 pm »
The climate system does not operate on the scale of human lifetimes and if catastrophe occurs it will happen no matter what we do.

Man has made significant environmental changes in a very short time. Look at the rain forest, oceans, arctic tundra, fisheries, buffalo, etc. To pretend that man has no impact on the natural world, and in short order, is absurd.

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8036
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #76 on: May 01, 2019, 05:08:32 pm »
Nonsense. Historically speaking "rapidly" is over the course of thousands of years or more. The idea that we are near some catastrophic tipping point and there is something we can do to stop it over the course of a few years is delusional BS. The climate system does not operate on the scale of human lifetimes and if catastrophe occurs it will happen no matter what we do.

Ironically, the narrative you want to peddle only provides more support for the argument that we should not hobble the economy with misguided efforts to decarbonize because we will need access to cheap energy to ensure we can afford to adapt rapidly.

What's actually "delusional BS" is trying to ignore what is a well researched and documented reality.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #77 on: May 01, 2019, 05:39:18 pm »
Man has made significant environmental changes in a very short time. Look at the rain forest, oceans, arctic tundra, fisheries, buffalo, etc. To pretend that man has no impact on the natural world, and in short order, is absurd.
Change is a not catastrophe or even a problem. Human activity has also contributed a large increases in plant growth: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
The flawed premise you cling to is that there is some sort of catastrophe coming if we don't act immediately. That premise is BS because if one is coming we can't stop it in a few years. If a catastrophe is coming then the only prudent action is to save resources that will be needed for adaptation.  More likely the slow warming will continue and humans will adapt without trying too hard just like we have adapted to all of the challenges that came before. CO2 reduction is something that should be done if and when cost effective technologies become available.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2019, 10:49:55 pm by TimG »

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #78 on: May 01, 2019, 06:06:27 pm »
Math always kinda made my brain hurt.  I leave such things to computers and people who don't get laid (human computers).

THE KING IN THE NORTH!
"The economy has been relatively strong but Trudeau has chosen to run deficits year after year & has said will continue to do so well into the future.  This means we'll be in a worse & more vulnerable financial position when a recession hits when we HAVE to run deficits again." - Me, Oct. 3, 2019

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3757
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #79 on: May 02, 2019, 12:48:37 am »
Quote
The present study presents updated estimates based on a revised DICE model (DICE-2016R). The study estimates that the SCC is $31 per ton of CO2 in 2010 US$ for the current period (2015). This study will be an important step in developing the next generation of estimates of the SCC in the United States and other countries.
IOW, the future costs of carbon are more than captured by Trudeau's current carbon tax. Any further resources spent on mitigation would exceed the cost of future harms according to that model.

care to remind viewers just where the current carbon price initiates from? As in the days of Harper/Kenney when the Harper Conservative government formally signed on to the concept - to the "social cost" of carbon... setting it @ $40.70 per tonne (Canadian dollars). By the by, care to do the conversion math between that Canadian $40.70 and your referenced $31 U.S. dollars (from your presented model example)?

notwithstanding you're really mixing, liberally mixing, your references to current versus future costs of carbon with your summary statement, "the future costs of carbon are more than captured by Trudeau's current carbon tax."

in any case, here... ignore this again - really odd that you would drop a reference to a model and not properly present its full options/projections - yes?

as an example... you put forward the Nordhaus model. If you don't accept the Nordhaus IAM (and the related... and projected SCC) do you have a preferred alternate {IAM} based model that better fits/suits your position, notably your position against mitigating CO2 emissions?

additionally, as you provided it, what do you interpret as the "Nordhaus politics" that have influenced the creation of the respective DICE/RICE models... and any politics associated with your (I expect, I presume) preferred alternative IAM.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #80 on: May 02, 2019, 01:54:09 am »
By the by, care to do the conversion math between that Canadian $40.70 and your referenced $31 U.S. dollars (from your presented model example)?
$31 USD in 2010 with a 3% per year increase gives $40 USD in 2019 or about $50 CAD. It is likely not a co-incidence that Trudeau came up with that number. Of course, Trudeau's tax is in addition to a large number of taxes on fossil fuels today so the real carbon tax in Canada is much higher than the current SCC. (Aside: it is simply absurd to argue that current fuel taxes are not carbon taxes because the carbon tax rational does not care about the reason for tax - only that the tax must exist. So when calculating whether Canadians are paying the current SCC all fuel taxes must be factored in and we are currently paying more than what we should given the estimates of future harm).
Bad Spelling Bad Spelling x 1 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2720
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #81 on: May 02, 2019, 08:23:49 am »
Man has made significant environmental changes in a very short time. Look at the rain forest, oceans, arctic tundra, fisheries, buffalo, etc. To pretend that man has no impact on the natural world, and in short order, is absurd.
Ozone layer is another key example that shows how policies targeting aerosols generated positive improvements

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #82 on: May 02, 2019, 08:38:02 am »
Ozone layer is another key example that shows how policies targeting aerosols generated positive improvements
And the ozone treaty was not signed until governments were certain that cost effective alternatives existed and could be deployed at the scale required. With CO2, we can only nibble at the margins of the problem because there are no cost effective and politically acceptable alternatives that can supply all or even a significant portion of our energy needs.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2019, 08:40:10 am by TimG »

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3757
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #83 on: May 02, 2019, 10:48:17 am »
$31 USD in 2010 with a 3% per year increase gives $40 USD in 2019 or about $50 CAD. It is likely not a co-incidence that Trudeau came up with that number. Of course, Trudeau's tax is in addition to a large number of taxes on fossil fuels today so the real carbon tax in Canada is much higher than the current SCC. (Aside: it is simply absurd to argue that current fuel taxes are not carbon taxes because the carbon tax rational does not care about the reason for tax - only that the tax must exist. So when calculating whether Canadians are paying the current SCC all fuel taxes must be factored in and we are currently paying more than what we should given the estimates of future harm).

for completeness in a thread about math literacy: it's actually $31 USD in 2015 (at a 2010 dollar value)... brings the increase to half your calculation @~$35 U.S. or about ~$47 CAD.

again, in terms of the origins of the Canadian SCC, that ties to Harper Conservatives aligning the Canadian cost to that developed by the Americans... the reasons behind that alignment are, in themselves, open for discussion/debate. In any case, that Harper Conservative carbon costing (initial/Previous Central & as adjusted/Updated Central in 2016... by Harper Conservatives):



the actual Liberal governement/PM Trudeau carbon pricing which you keep... Harpering on about... reflects upon this summary statement: "The federal carbon pollution price will start low at $20 per ton in 2019, rising at $10 per ton per year until reaching $50 per ton in 2022. The carbon tax will stay at that level unless the legislation is revisited and revised."

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3757
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #84 on: May 02, 2019, 11:10:04 am »
95% consensus of expert economists: cut carbon pollution --- A {2015} survey of economists with climate expertise finds a consensus that climate change is expensive and carbon pollution cuts are needed

Quote
of the survey responding economic experts, 81% said a market-based system (carbon tax or cap and trade system) would be the most economically efficient method of reducing carbon pollution; 13% of respondents answered that coordinated performance standards and programs that prioritize cleaner fuels and energy efficiency would be most economically efficient.

Quote
of the survey responding economic experts, 51% answered that the US government’s estimate for the “social cost of carbon” ($37 per metric ton), which is largely based on past estimates from related economic models, is too low. 18% of the experts said that value is about right, and just 8% said it’s too high.

Quote
77% of the number of expert economists survey respondents stated that the US should cut its emissions. A further 18% said that if other countries agree to cut their emissions, the US should follow suit => a 95% consensus among expert climate economists that the US should follow through with its pledges to cut carbon pollution in the wake of the Paris international climate negotiations... and more than three out of four agreed that the US should take action to curb global warming no matter what.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3757
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #85 on: May 02, 2019, 11:36:51 am »
And the ozone treaty was not signed until governments were certain that cost effective alternatives existed and could be deployed at the scale required.

no - my take/interpretation of the 'decade or so long' negotiations leading up to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol reflected upon:

Quote
resourceful ways of reaching compromise between the U.S. and European Commission positions, reaching effective burden-sharing arrangements, arriving at solutions which mitigated regional conflicts of interest, and engaging industry representatives in the negotiations

your summary attachment to realizing "cost effective alternatives" was in the mix - it wasn't the 'end all, be all' factor... or perhaps you could cite to that end - yes?

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8036
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #86 on: May 02, 2019, 11:41:13 am »
And the ozone treaty was not signed until governments were certain that cost effective alternatives existed and could be deployed at the scale required. With CO2, we can only nibble at the margins of the problem because there are no cost effective and politically acceptable alternatives that can supply all or even a significant portion of our energy needs.

Every country in the UN signed onto the Montreal Protocol because they all realized the damage the hole in the ozone was going to do to the environment, not because it was going to be "cost effective". I guess if we all had your attitude to ignore such issues simply based on cost, we would all be severely sun burnt by now.
No thanks.