Tobias: What is the basis for the following two statements?
"Of course the Republicans are right about this. If Trump had kept the country in the Paris Agreement, it would have cost the US economy $3 trillion per year by 2050, while preventing only (optimistically) $20 billion in damages.” "A similar logic was used in Trump’s justification for revoking CAFE fuel economy standards – high cost and no real benefit in terms of reducing warming.” I only ask because there is a rather extensive, peer-reviewed literature that runs counter to them. I won’t even bother addressing the first statement because it is simply ridiculous. With regard to the second, the CAFE fuel standards and tax incentives for electric vehicles (EVs) are policies that are driving electrification of the light vehicle fleet. EVs are already less expensive to operate in the long run than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, and within the next few years, there will be no need for subsidies because the upfront costs of EVs will be cheaper, too. So, we get less expensive, more reliable vehicles and reduce GHG emissions of the transportation sector at the same time. Seems like a win-win to me unless you’re heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry. The reason that the “current liberal consensus" on tackling climate change has not worked is because it has never been given a chance due to a political system corrupted by the wealth and unethical behavior of the fossil fuel industry. Had GHG emissions been properly regulated 40 years ago, when Exxon had already reached the same conclusions that the IPCC only reported definitively a decade ago, we wouldn’t be facing the huge challenges confronting society today. If Democrats and anybody who actually understands the stakes involved do not double down on a “New Green Deal”, then everybody’s future is at risk. Chuck Greene On Feb 7, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Tobias Schultz <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The American’s public acceptance of climate change, even amongst conservatives, has been growing – though still relatively low among Republicans. But there is a very large disagreement between Democrats and Republicans is the best ways to address climate change. A Pew 2016 survey looked into this and found Republicans highly skeptical that current efforts (restricting power plants, international agreements, etc.) will make a big difference in addressing climate issues. http://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/ Of course the Republicans are right about this. If Trump had kept the country in the Paris Agreement, it would have cost the US economy $3 trillion per year by 2050, while preventing only (optimistically) $20 billion in damages. That’s a nonsensical direction for a country to take – any country – no rational policymaker would ever choose it. A similar logic was used in Trump’s justification for revoking CAFE fuel economy standards – high cost and no real benefit in terms of reducing warming. It’s also at the root of the French yellow vest movement, Australia’s repeal of the carbon tax, etc. As the Democrats double down on a “New Green Deal” they risk their political future, and all for nothing. The current liberal “consensus” on how to tackle climate change HAS NOT worked, demonstrably, and there is no indication it will work. Of course if MCB or some of these other technologies really have the potential that all climate modeling seems to indicate, it would be a game-changer. If that doesn’t pan out, perhaps I will eventually move to Montana, Idaho, or Washington in anticipation of their balmy winters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tobias Schultz Director of Research & Development SCS Global Services 2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600, Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.6389 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> www.SCSglobalservices.com<http://www.scsglobalservices.com/> Connect with me on LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tobias-schultz-85690a22> From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Kevin Lister Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 8:26 AM To: Stephen Salter <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [geo] Costs of climate change by US region Interestingly, the states being hit the hardest are the Trump states. On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, 16:12 Stephen Salter <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: Hi All Nature has an article from the Brookings Institute about how the costs of climate change affect regions of the US. [cid:[email protected]] One feels that no comment is necessary. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2FWWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk%2Fshs&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7C92743b0c36c34b41233b08d68d1b40f2%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636851545541976726&sdata=jbXRgwwgQQEnHeod0JfTEEJLHHua0L4s585ehUNvRLY%3D&reserved=0>, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Fgeoengineering&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7C92743b0c36c34b41233b08d68d1b40f2%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636851545541986734&sdata=Cbkya8l8euddlrPKAk%2BCEEWDa7sKydpJNBUZ3KMJGYE%3D&reserved=0>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Foptout&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7C92743b0c36c34b41233b08d68d1b40f2%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636851545541996743&sdata=hxmuHfxu4OMaGs0jbh1THv7kWF1%2Bv49GeGq5CI4cUbw%3D&reserved=0>. The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Fgeoengineering&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7C92743b0c36c34b41233b08d68d1b40f2%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636851545541996743&sdata=iGQuCgt3zksmJrBdH%2FPQXfC4k6d7vAdt6jK25ZYBhFg%3D&reserved=0>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Foptout&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7C92743b0c36c34b41233b08d68d1b40f2%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636851545542006751&sdata=%2FZsbw0%2B1YGz9rrIEBe3eliTmyOloFfaRLKnRElAnQzU%3D&reserved=0>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Fgeoengineering&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7C92743b0c36c34b41233b08d68d1b40f2%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636851545542016759&sdata=u2mGK8G5jhPw4B20UtukwGExwYDptVwdK6CtcAv0hGk%3D&reserved=0>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Foptout&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7C92743b0c36c34b41233b08d68d1b40f2%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636851545542016759&sdata=sSmltqL9LeBqjokaJJ4cEWk1BZbaG%2BlGjz9HIbsjyH4%3D&reserved=0>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
