What, another hurricane menacing the coast?
Category 2? Pffff…
Actually, no: hurricanes are like bullets – the size doesn’t matter as much as where they hit you.
I think they should start naming the hurricanes after global warming denialists and high carbon-output corporations (after all, corporations are people, too!) – “Hurricane Exxon is bearing down on Tampa, Florida” has a more realistic ring to it.
The more I think about it the more obvious it seems, to me, that we should declare a global 20-year pause and cease-fire for all warfare. Instead of spending $1trillion on new nuclear weapons, the US should spend that money on carbon reduction. And the Russians – whose “defense” spending is dwarfed by ours, could stop building new military gear for 20 years and build windmill farms, or whatever. It’s completely foolhardy that we have a president berating NATO members for not spending enough on defense, when there is This Great Big Much More Important Thing they should be spending their money and effort upon. Imagine the plaudits that would accrue to any president who managed to stop the US and Saudis from bombing Yemen back into the stone age, and spent that money turning Yemen into a solar farm?
Of course it’s not going to happen. But, it could.
Laying out a 200,000gal fuel bladder, 380th Air Wing
When philosophy majors play a trolley car experiment on you, or some other consequentialist moral dilemma, one of the tricks embedded in the thought experiment is that this very unlikely situation could happen. We are expected to ponder the practical effect of throwing someone in front of a train and weigh those consequences as if that sort of scenario is remotely plausible. Or, when we are considering the simulation hypothesis, we are expected to deal with the highly unlikely probability that, given all the possible realities, a bunch of them are fake. If your reaction to my suggestion that humans get their heads out of their asses and stop fighting for 20 years was that it’s absurd and unlikely, just remember it’s less absurd and unlikely than the highly unlikely scenarios that philosophers keep throwing at us. In fact, we are already (collectively) the guys standing on the one fork, with the train bearing down on us. Are we going to collectively take some action, or just stand there until we can read the fine print on the front of the train?
War consumes millions of gallons of fuel; it is not only expensive, it’s one of the most energy-profligate things humans do. Read this a couple times: [mil]
the Air Force is the largest consumer of jet fuel among the military services and spent $7.2 billion on 2.7 billion gallons of fuel in 2010
The 380th Air Expeditionary Logistics Wing supplies the bombing of Mosul, Yemen, etc. [mil]
“On an average day, we issue 383,000 gallons (or 2.5 million pounds) of fuel to various aircraft”
That’s just the air force. The Army and Navy are also profligate wastes of energy with a carbon footprint the size of Godzilla. They don’t just buy that fuel, they burn it. [Annual automotive fuel use is around 160 billion gallons]
Meanwhile, in some related WTF, the coalition is starving Yemen for: fuel. [hrw]
(Beirut) – The Saudi Arabia-led coalition’s blockade of Yemen is keeping out fuel needed for the Yemeni population’s survival in violation of the laws of war. Yemen is in urgent need of fuel to power generators for hospitals overwhelmed with wounded from the fighting and to pump water to civilian residences.
The 10-country coalition, which has United States logistics and intelligence support, should urgently implement measures for the rapid processing of oil tankers to allow the safe, secure, and speedy distribution of fuel supplies to the civilian population. The Houthis and other armed groups controlling port areas should permit the safe transfer of fuel to hospitals and other civilian entities. Fuel should be allowed to go through whether or not a proposed ceasefire takes effect.
Perhaps humanity is just too foolish to survive.
In related news, the Mississippi legislator just loves tornadoes and hurricanes. That’s why they are taxing electric and hybrid cars. ;) http://news.cchgroup.com/2018/08/31/mississippi-imposes-new-taxes-on-electric-and-hybrid-vehicles/
I think in a bullet comparison, windspeed (or storm category) would be the bullet’s speed, and total storm energy (better predictor of damage) would be the bullet’s kinetic energy (a function of speed and mass).
Category 2? Pffff…
Hurricane Michael, after moving very slowly over very very warm Gulf waters, will hit the Florida panhandle as a Category Four cyclone.
That crunching sound you hear? Records breaking, again. Michael, as a hurricane name, will face permanent retirement.
Local survivors will probably not use the word “inured” very much; not even the luckier/wealthier ones who can call themselves “insured”.
This is deliberate. “The coalition” is firmly under Saudi control–yes, this includes the US–who are the people who want the Yemenis dead. This is another goddamn genocide. It’s inverse Hanlon’s Razor happening here: don’t mistake malice for incompetence.
The sad thing is that while there is no argument against this it is unlikely to happen (absurd or not).
Industry has slowly been catching up to the idea that “carbon reduction” often equates to “energy saving.” Translated for even the most single-minded capitalist that’s “cost reduction” or “profit gain”. The major problems with this idea are, as far as I can tell, that a) there isn’t always a clear technical solution to get the reduction and b) short-term thinking. It costs money now and really pays off in ten years? No deal!
The US (the abstract entity, not neccessarily the people) really likes its wars on [thing]. And, fine, if we had to we could live with that and turn it to something useful. A “war on climate change” would, while stupid in general, would still be more helpful than, say, a space force. If you want a trade war with China, why not compete with them in solar and wind power (domestic and export)? Not only would that not screw up the world economy (quite the opposite), it’ll actually do something about the climate change. It’s another space race: a prestige-project to justify the cost and effort that should ultimately prove very useful indeed. As an added bonus the US could demonstrate the utter superiority of run-away capitalism to the rest of the world. Cue patriotic hooting and flag-waving!
Meanwhile the US military – clearly not going anywhere – could make itself useful by helping mitigate the natural disasters – going everywhere – with some large-scale, professional disaster relief. Maybe then they could justify that carbon footprint of theirs for a change. The military already has a global presence anyway, so if they got rid of the guns and bombs I’m sure they could carry a lot of blankets, rations and emergency shelters. Plus, they have all the specialists you could want in a disaster zone, which is just a more generic kind of warzone, after all.
Perhaps that might even qualify for some of that “greatness” the US – again the abstract entity – craves so much.
By now, I have already started getting inured to bad weather. An unusually hot summer? Sure, it’s no longer unusual. A drought? Yep, those are starting to become more common. A weird warm winter with no snow? Not the first one.
I believe this to be the case.
When Trump said this, it seriously annoyed me. Basically, Trump was saying the he wants my country (and me as a taxpayer) to finance his stupid wars of conquest. USA is sending their troops abroad for aggressive military campaigns with the goal of ensuring a global hegemony. Most EU countries don’t want to engage in aggressive warfare. For us NATO is necessary just to ensure that no other country attacks us. Unlike the USA, we don’t want to start wars or send our troops abroad. Why the fuck should we finance American wars? We don’t even gain anything from the USA invading yet another place in the Middle-East, all we get are refugees coming to the EU. (OK, I know that different EU countries have various military goals, and some NATO countries seem happier than others when it comes to sending their troops wherever the fuck Americans want to start yet another war. This is why what I said applies only to a part of EU states.) Anyway, it’s not like the USA is being attacked. It’s the exact opposite with the USA being the one who sends their troops abroad and attacks other countries. Why the fuck should my country, as a member of NATO, financially support American wars?
Speaking of refugees coming to the EU, it pisses me off each time European nationalists start talking nonsense about how they dislike (Syrian or any other) refugees. Nationalists shouldn’t hate the refugees, it’s not like they even had any choice about leaving their country. Instead nationalists should hate politicians (especially American ones) who start all those wars that result is refugees showing up after being forced to leave the place where they were born.
@#1
The linked article doesn’t say how conventional cars are taxed. Thus it’s impossible to compare whether electric cars are being taxed more or less or the same as any other car.
In general, I don’t know what my opinion about taxing electric cars is, I think it would be better to handle this on a case-by-case basis (it makes sense for different countries to approach this question differently). I’ll start by saying that I support a welfare state, which also means high taxes, thus I’m fine with cars being taxed. The question is, whether electric cars should have lower taxes, and if yes, then by how much. I’d say that it depends.
First question: will reducing taxes make more people switch from conventional cars to electric ones? A new electric car costs thousands of dollars. Will a $100 tax cut really motivate people to switch? Probably no. Should the state offer some other larger perks to electric car owners then, assuming the goal is to make people switch?
Second question: is it fair to give a tax cut to the wealthy? Poor people usually use old and inefficient cars not because they want to, but because they simply cannot afford a new and better car. The end result would be that those who are already rich and can afford an electric car would get a tax cut. The poor would pay higher taxes for their cars. I don’t support schemes that make poor people pay higher taxes compared to what rich people have to pay.
Moreover, the amount of tax money a state has is limited. Assuming the goal is to reduce the environmental impact, we should look at which state actions are the most effective ones. Scenario #1: a wealthy country that already produces all its electricity from renewable sources and where the average citizen is pretty rich (something like Norway, for example). Here it makes sense for the state to try to motivate its citizens to switch to electric cars. Scenario #2: a poor country that produces electricity by burning coal. Here it would be more reasonable to spend the available tax money on something else, for example, investing in the public transportation system or subsidizing bicycle purchases. Subsidizing electric cars would no longer be such a good idea in a poor country where only 0.01% of all the citizens could possibly afford to buy one.
The problem with what on the surface looks like a green technology is that you need to analyze it in context and look at the whole life-cycle. You also have to compare it with the available alternatives.
Just about any change in military goals would require the vast majority of businesses (even the huge and socially dysfunctional ones) to realize that bashing “furriners” and letting the military iindustrial complex make piles of money is silly. It would require playing to their greed. Why shouldn’t Tehran have a McDonalds? (caveat: can’t tell if they do or not but if they do its newish) Why let some moron yap about bombing Iran when any idiot can tell there’s more money to be had by doing business there?
That’s the business side. The political side involves continuing the slide toward soft power. Less tanks and guns and more money transfers. This has some really sick consequences when it goes wrong – just look at Puerto Rico – but when used well it tends to steer away from blatant screwups like that because they do nothing but generate bad will, the opposite of the goal.
Unless one or most likely both of these things happen we won’t see climate change taken seriously by anyone who can do anything about it until it inconveniences a bunch if rich assholes. They probably know it’s real but like Trump and his wall, they’re bound and determined that someone else pay for it.
In other news, Richard Branson rips into the troglodytes currently in charge of the Australian Government:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-10/richard-branson-climate-change-hits-out-at-australia/10361330
Pierce R. Butler@#3:
Hurricane Michael, after moving very slowly over very very warm Gulf waters, will hit the Florida panhandle as a Category Four cyclone.
That crunching sound you hear? Records breaking, again. Michael, as a hurricane name, will face permanent retirement.
At the time I wrote this, Michael was a Category 2. Yes, I know that they tend to get more powerful, depending on things, before they landfall.
I’m worried about my friends in Florida but they’re sensible and will probably be OK. I have to admit that it seems like every year I am worrying about my friends in Florida. Maybe I wish they didn’t live in Florida, although one of them is moving to Los Angeles where they’ll probably be surrounded by firestorms.
lanir@#7:
Just about any change in military goals would require the vast majority of businesses (even the huge and socially dysfunctional ones) to realize that bashing “furriners” and letting the military iindustrial complex make piles of money is silly.
There’s a tremendous amount of business re-alignment to come, as global warming’s side-effects set in. So I’m willing to expect them to take it in stride.
I saw someone projecting that a response to global warming could actually save a great deal of money, without requiring a complete low-tech civilization. I’m not sure I am convinced. But, then, I am becoming an oddball and I seriously wonder if humanity would be better served skipping a couple breeding generations and letting the population shrink so radically that the entire remaining population could move to, say, France, and let the rest of the planet lie fallow for a few generations.
The choices seem to be: radically cut back on population by allowing an age-out, or radically cut back on technology, or hope for a miracle and go through the chaos and die-off and wind up with radical cut backs in both. The last time I gave those paths serious thought, the cut back low-tech civilization looks sort of like ancient Greece except with a knowledge of bacteriology, basic public health, and virology. There would be libraries of high tech, but high tech would be mostly banned. It could actually be eutopian, except for to people coming from our current civilization it would look distinctly dystopian.
FWIW, Mississippi does have ad valorem taxes on vehicles. It also does not require emissions testing. https://www.dor.ms.gov/Pages/MotorVehicle-FAQs.aspx#421
So ask yourself, why would it impose new taxes on electric and hybrid vehicles? (Mississippi is Trump country, if that helps. ;))
Eutopian? How? I can only imagine such a society as absolutely awful.
That’s generally how empires work. Plus, Trump didn’t get where he is today by paying for stuff he could get other people to pay for instead.
… like ancient Greece except with a knowledge of bacteriology, basic public health, and virology.
What about the slavery, sequestration of women, and wars of conquest and pillage?
Pierce R. Butler @#14
Yep, that’s exactly what springs to my mind when I think about Ancient Greece. Back when I was a child, I used to read novels portraying idealized life in ancient societies. Then I thought that living in such a place would be fun. I was so wrong. Now, instead, I consider myself incredibly lucky that I wasn’t born in a different time or a different place.
I’m not denying that Ancient Greece was a nice place to live in for a few people. Those, who:
1) were male;
2) were rich;
3) were born with a healthy body;
4) didn’t catch any illnesses;
5) didn’t get injured;
6) didn’t have to face the very real prospect of dying during childbirth each year, because contraception didn’t even exist, etc.
For majority of humanity, having no access to modern technology really sucks.
Losing modern technology would also make it challenging for women to maintain their rights and gender equality. In a technologically advanced society physical strength is irrelevant. You don’t need muscle power for a desk job. It’s a whole different situation in an agrarian society where all jobs are done with primitive tools and no oil powered vehicles. There physical strength matters a lot. Women would also lose the option to be independent. Nowadays, a young woman doesn’t depend on her father nor is she pressured to marry as quickly as possible; instead she can just get some desk job and support herself. This kind of independence is hard to achieve in an agrarian society.
leva, in your enumeration above, #1 and #6 are mutually exclusive.
(Also, “niceness” is a relative concept, not an absolute one)
—
Finally, do you know the difference between “Eutopian” and “Utopian”? Not the same thing.