Flagged as inappropriate for HN, but if we're going to have this discussion:
It would greatly help the "we must do something" crowd if they spent some time working out exactly what that "something" would be, posting it for public comment and refining as needed.
I am sympathetic to the idea that leveling off and eventually reducing global CO2 emissions would be a sensible thing to do, but the key word there is "global". China is already the world's leading emitter by a good margin and will likely continue to increase their emissions, regardless of what happens in the West. Indeed, if we make energy and its uses more expensive here, the likelihood is that at least some of those emissions will simply migrate to China, where they will be cheaper but likely greater for the same degree of production.
I have yet to hear a proposal that is likely to both have an effect that justifies its cost (carbon taxes are wildly regressive, and removing that feature is tricky!), and is not absurdly unlikely to ever come to pass.
The cap and trade bill mentioned in this article fails the first test, I believe.
And yes, we do need to agree at a global level and be willing to pay more for certain goods/services as a result. The entire economic system will just re-balance itself around that, if we as a global society agree that the costs of inaction are greater.
I am not sure that carbon taxes NEED to be regressive - we could definitely use some of the revenue from carbon taxes to offset lower-income groups, as is sometimes done with other regressive taxes.
Another way to look at this is a simple cost-benefit analysis: is the cost (I mean more just than the monetary face value) of having a regressive tax more than the cost of potential issues that result from not addressing emissions? If so, we should do it anyways.
Here is a political scientist with a strong climate science background discussing how Sandy is at this moment, is #17 in terms of all time damage, but could move into the top 10.
For me the question is what kept damages from Sandy down, is it because a) it really wasn't that bad, or b) it really was that bad but East Coast resources, modern construction, and recent experiences with Katrina, etc., minimized damages?
Regardless, I find articles written a day or two after an event, by a layman, attributing causality to that event fairly vacuous.
What do you mean by "what kept damages from Sandy down"? The damages for Sandy huge for a weak category 1 hurricane.
By contrast, study the infographic linked below. Florida was hit by Charley, Frances, Jeane, Rita, and Wilma in the span of two years (2004-2005). These were all category 1 or 2 storms at landfall. They weren't nearly as large as Sandy, but we're talking five separate storms of greater intensity. Some of them made landfall or passed over densely populated South Florida regions. In total, these storms added up to around $75b in damages; a mark I wouldn't be surprised if Sandy passes. Individually, none of them passed the $20b mark.
Sandy did tremendous damage in the northeast for a weak category 1 hurricane. No single factor is to blame. There are many:
* Sandy was large... LARGE
* Sandy hit an extremely densely populated area
* Coastal topology in the region made it susceptible to storm surge
That last point can't be made strongly enough. Once again, we see that it is the water (ocean) that poses the greatest threat. The wind and rain are bad, but even a small amount of water can pass wind and rain damage by a long shot. It also takes far more lives.
People have a powerful bias towards recent history. Perhaps 1938 was a 100 year storm, and perhaps this was another. But nobody lives to be 300 years old to where a 100 year storm isn't ZOMG WORST STORM EVAR!!!1!one!
> Yes, yes, it’s unsophisticated to blame any given storm on climate change
It is pretty much an established fact that climate change affects the environment, and that part of the change is caused by humans. Considering the increasing rate at which the environment is degrading, it is not completely unreasonable to think that climate would be affected.
It would greatly help the "we must do something" crowd if they spent some time working out exactly what that "something" would be, posting it for public comment and refining as needed.
I am sympathetic to the idea that leveling off and eventually reducing global CO2 emissions would be a sensible thing to do, but the key word there is "global". China is already the world's leading emitter by a good margin and will likely continue to increase their emissions, regardless of what happens in the West. Indeed, if we make energy and its uses more expensive here, the likelihood is that at least some of those emissions will simply migrate to China, where they will be cheaper but likely greater for the same degree of production.
I have yet to hear a proposal that is likely to both have an effect that justifies its cost (carbon taxes are wildly regressive, and removing that feature is tricky!), and is not absurdly unlikely to ever come to pass.
The cap and trade bill mentioned in this article fails the first test, I believe.