Climate change sentences to ponder

But shame is the wrong emotion. “The more we try to change other people’s behavior — especially by making them feel bad — the less likely we will be to succeed,” Edward Maibach of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University told me.

That is from Seth Kugel at the NYT.


I’m not so sure . Here in the city in France was where I live using plastic bags for groceries gets you disapproving glances . The few times I’ve had to use plastic bags recently I’ve felt embarrassed and self conscious and as a result I rarely forget to take a reusable bag with me

I wonder how many disapproving glances the French give those among them who allow millions of migrants to come from nations with low greenhouse gas emissions per capita to one with high greenhouse gas emissions per capita.

France is not a high greenhouse gas emissions per capita country (4.6 tons par capita and per year in 2014, compare for instance to US. 16.5, Saudi Arabia 19.5, Qatar 45.4, Germany 8.9, Algeria 3.7, Libya 9.2, China 7.5, etc.). It is medium range. Migrants coming to France from the Arab world come from countries with similar or higher emission per capita. Migrants coming from subsaharan Africa come from countries with indeed significantly lower emissions (Senegal 0.6, Mali 0.1 for instances).

Per-capita greenhouse gas emissions in Saudi Arabia and Qatar (and, presumably to a lesser degree, other Arab nations) are high because much of their respective economies revolve around oil/gas production for export to the rest of the world. To the extent that France or Europe in general receive Saudi or Qatari migrants we can probably assume they emit much less greenhouse gases due to their lifestyles than the average for their home nations.

The point is that enabling mass migration to first-world countries is likely going to significantly increase emissions as those formerly living in poverty take advantage of the creature comforts of the West. One might argue that the benefits of raising migrants out of poverty outweighs the damage done to the environment; however, in light of the alleged gravity of the problem, as well as the inane proposals to combat it (e.g., the aforementioned plastic bags), it seems odd that this receives little attention, doesn't it?

Let us at least admit that the AGW scam is a scam. Be honest at least. I am embarrassed for you trying to sell it as reality.

I would never claim to be smarter than 97% of scientists, whether they are agreeing on climate change or what brand of toothpaste I should use.

The 97% figure was obtained through cherry picking yet the deceit sticks apparently.

The real issue isn't whether or not humans have caused warming but by how much, and you just need to look at surveys of climate scientists.

Here is one from a few years ago:
What fraction of global warming since the mid 20th century can be attributed to human induced increases greenhouse gases?

More than 100%… 17%
76% to 100%……….32%
51% to 75%………..17%
26% to 50%………….5%
0% to 25%……………7%
I don’t know…………8%
Other…………………. 3%

put me in the don't know category...and you don't need scientific studies to understand that trying to shame someone into changing their behaviour doesn't work...that is basic commonsense...something the AGW brigade doesn't have

End all air travel. Air travel uses about 15% of all the oil burned today so end it. All private and commercial air traffic period.

You left out "less than zero."

But seriously, my answer would be "Probably a lot, but not all, but I really have no idea." What bucket does that fit into?

The scientists that matter are the subject experts, not scientists in general. People are opinionated and fashion-driven, scientists should know better but they are also subject to social forces.

Most people have no skin in this particular game, other than loss of face with their in-group. If you are an actual climate scientist and you put your name on something stupid hopefully you wear it.

That survey was of 1800 climate scientists, although I'd say 25% shouldn't have been included as they predict impacts. There is another study which reveals 25% of those surveyed were policy makers, who also should have been excluded. Both will bias the results upward in terms of percentage of warming due to human activity.

If you are an actual climate scientist and you put your name on something stupid you get a new research grant. It's an almost completely corrupt discipline.

That's because nobody would give a toss about climate science unless it were predicting that we'll all roast in hell. Whereas you can do research in, say, chemistry or mechanical engineering and your discipline will survive and thrive whatever you claim to have found.

In other words incentives matter. From which it follows that an economist who falls for the climate change nonsense is, as an economist, a bloody fool. Of course he might be a bloody fool in civilian life too.

Nice story. Any factual basis? Any real evidence other than that they come up with results that don't support your chosen narrative?

Ever set foot in an earth science department in a university? Did you find a bunch of con-artists?

More importantly, do you have any serious capacity to refute either basic greenhouse physics, the plethora of real world "out-there" data, or the combined results of many different atmospheric modelling. I doubt it. What you can do is strong priors and rhetoric. Anyone can do that and it's not science. Any skin in the game, or are you just doing a social alignment exercise?

Well played, I award 10 internet points

If the criterion is "disapproving glances in France," I think there's likely to be a big problem with false positives.

If you don't shame people, then what? From the article, it basically says pass more laws. True you don't have to shame people when we can throw them in jail. But is that what we want? Shame to me seems to be the lesser of two evils.

That opinion piece is priceless. As with so many other leftist crusades, it's much more important to coerce other people into action than it is to actually engage in any amygdala-stimulating activities on your own.

That's not actually what it said, but your version is certainly the action opposition's goto spin.

What it really said, and what's true, is that personal choices are pissing in the ocean for something this big. Whether you, as one individual, just bought a Prius or an F150 Raptor, the atmosphere don't care. For the atmosphere to notice you need to significantly move the aggregate emissions.

For that you don't need guilt. You need a serious carbon tax or energy mandates. Covering everyone from me to you.

Still on the sailing, Greta gets a beautiful experience, and random dicks don't get to say "She flew! She's just a mini Al Gore!"

None of the Democrat Party candidates have any coherent plan. They are no different from Trump. It’s virtue signaling all the way down.

Not one favors a carbon tax.
Not one favors incentives for nuclear power.
Not one favors paying carbon capture firms.

Some want to spend $15 trillion on job programs. That’s the closest we get.

Even Mother Jones gave every Democrat Party nominee a failing grade.

In this election, not one candidate will actually have an effective plan for climate mitigation.

Global lack of response to global warming is a very human problem.

But I think the humans willing to enact plans are ahead of those still denying that any response is necessary.

You want 20 million immigrants a year.

It’s worth the carbon. Stop lying

I have never said I want 20m immigrants.

Seek treatment.

“But I think the humans WILLING to enact plans are ahead of those still denying that any response is necessary.” (Caps added to “willing”.)

How is this willing different from the signalling of virtue?

Well gosh, that's easy.

I said willing.

I did not say an empty lie by the unwilling.

I suppose we differ in that I don’t see virtue signalling as only ostentatious lying.

Many leftists are constantly signalling their moral goodness and being on the “correct” side but this doesn’t mean they are mere liars. They are closer to misguided theists, in my book.

So self deception can play a part too, not just lying. Perhaps my understanding of the concept is ideosyncratic.... I’m willing to accept that.

That's quite convenient, isn't it? Climate change is an existential problem, but not so existential that you and the other seven billion people on the planet need to do anything about it on a personal level. You just need to give your governments more power, so they can tell you to do all the things that you don't really need to do yourself. See? Everyone's happy.

Note that I'm not making light of the dilemma. It indeed must be very hard as a champion of social, environmental, and heretofore undiscovered types of justice to make these decisions on a daily basis. You want to go on vacation, but you don't want to increase your carbon emissions. But if you don't go, then you don't learn about diversity. But if you do go, then you support indigenous economies. But then you might also be appropriating and exploiting their culture. He loves me, he loves me not...

I have to admit that I'm jealous that I did not sail across the Atlantic as a teenager, however. I don't even begrudge her the return flight for herself and her crew

If you believe that, you should also have the mental flexibility to see the flip side.

Global warming could be a serious enough problem to justify government action, but some people could be blocked from agreeing, because they always oppose government action.

Who opposes government action on climate change?

I fully support, for example, the construction of a wall on America's southern border to stop the flow of illegal immigration into the US. While the wall itself obviously entails greenhouse gas emissions in its construction, it will be more than offset by the reduced emissions of immigrants living a first-world lifestyle.

Same goes for Europe and migrants, allowing them in just creates more anthromorphs changing the climate, as does welfare and other government benefits that subsidize having children.

And of course I support the Trump Administration's action against the #1 polluter in the world. There's no excuse for insisting that American corporations be allowed unfettered free trade with Chinese exporters simply to circumvent environmental regulations in the US.

Hopefully after the 2020 elections President Trump and Congress will act on the Republican Green New Deal, which of course entails revoking the citizenship of liberal activists and deporting them to South America and Africa to both allow them to set an example for sustainable and green living and also to spare them the torture of living through the aforementioned government actions.

Great, I'm sure you convinced everyone 100 yards right of center how cool you are.

A solid tribal member.

It's a collective action problem. Which is quite inconvenient, really.

The amygdala is literally engaged when emotions like shame are displayed. You are dumber than the leftists you mock.

"Emotions like shame" ≠ shame

In any case, leftists would need to actually feel shame, rather than just signal that they feel shame in order to further ingratiate themselves with the out-group. People who are ashamed of their actions typically don't, for example, write opinion pieces for it in the NYT.

If you read the link, you'd understand that "like" here means "including" not "similar to". Your neurobiology and reading comprehension stinks. Go ahead and insult the left and the NYT but don't pretend you understand science, signaling you are better than they are because you're not.

There's no mention of shame on that article, just like there's no mention of amygdala activity on the article on shame. You're grasping at straws.

It's all laid out for you but your reading comprehension sucks harder than your mom's $20 front and back specials.

Wow, that escalated quickly :))

Oh look, the brain picture thingy lights up! So cool!

A frank and honest assessment might offer a degree of clarity, or a modicum of blame might suffice:

Applied Technology giveth, and Applied Technology taketh away: blessed be the name of Applied Technology.

Instead — whether it’s global climate change or local vacation rental laws — the biggest impact a person can have comes from pressuring governments to address travel-related problems on a large scale. Likewise, so does engaging friends and family in conversations about those policies, and supporting research, advocacy organizations and candidates who take your issues seriously. Compared with that, your summer trip is small, if unorganic, potatoes.

'Eye-roller' really should be a term of art sort of like 'page-turner', 'pot-boiler' or 'head-scratcher'. And this one's an eye-roller. I guarantee that a single person will have more impact on CO2 emissions by actually, you know, emitting less than that same single-person will have by pressuring politicians and haranguing friends and family. A single person's emissions may be small potatoes, but their personal advocacy is even smaller potatoes. And that advocacy is likely to be all the less effective if they persist in jetting their family off to Italy for summer vacations. But a NY Times travel writer can hardly say, 'Reduce your carbon emissions AND enhance the impact of your advocacy by forgoing international jet travel'.

You're missing the point, my friend. It's not about effecting change, it's about appearing to effect change without inconveniencing yourself. And if you can keep up appearances while shaming other people into effecting change, then all the better!

I think nyt article forgot the offsetting impact of electric car. Isn’t this the most obvious way to reduce your carbon footprint ? Is air travel really such a big deal if I take 2-3 international flights a year but drive an electric car (and my local utility happens to generate power mostly through solar) ? Not sure how much shame I should be feeling here. Some of these movements are increasingly militant and losing track of reason.

Is air travel really such a big deal...not sure how much shame I should be feeling here

Depends on how important you think climate change is. If it really is a civilization-changing event, you should drive an electric car AND stop taking international flights AND feel shame about the carbon you still emit (so that you can reduce the amount even more).

Of course, people in general don't actually want to do much, if any, of that, which is the real reason nothing gets done.

Just did some math from google results. Seems the emissions impact of one10 hr flight x 2 for round trip is about the same (or 20% less) than driving a gasoline car for a year assuming average commutes. This is huge and answers my original question.

+1 for doing the research. There are still no so many people in the world flying, but at the individual level in the upper middle class of rich countries, flying is a huge contribution to one's emissions.

In France (and in the EU), add the fact that gasoline for cars is very heavily taxed while kerosene for planes is not, and you get one of the main cause of the yellow vests' protests. Shaming people is indeed counter-productive, especially when the shamers should be the most ashamed.

Given a choice between driving a normal car to Chicago from Atlanta vs flying there, the flight will produce quite a bit less CO2. However, here is the thing you apparently miss- you won't be driving from the US to Europe. In short, if you think climate change is a big deal, then you shouldn't be taking "international flights", right?

"Air transport is 2% of global human CO2 emissions. The CO2-cost of a return transatlantic flight is the rough equivalent of that of producing a kilo of beef."
Cut out the steaks, instead.

Cut out the steaks, instead.

But if the consequences of climate change are as dire as we constantly told they are, you should cut out the flights AND the steaks AND the driving from Chicago to Atlanta AND be horrified by the amount of carbon you still pumping out.

But, to a first approximation, no one wants to actually make such drastic changes to their lifestyle (and those than can only dream about such luxuries as international travel and a steady supply of beef want to get to the point where they can enjoy them as well), so, in the end, nothing gets done.

That did seem low. A 737 can house about 7000 gallons of fuel, it transports roughly 180 passengers, each galllon of fuel emits about 22 lbs of CO2, a kg of beef requires between 20-30 kg of CO2 depending upon raising practices, so flying across the Atlantic is about the same as ~35 kg of meat. About 3 mounts of the average American’s diet.

You gotta admit the real artistry is convincing them that there is no problem, but we really gotta buy Greenland, at the same time.

To be clear, any objective consideration of the merits of buying Greenland will be overshadowed by its being the brainchild of Orange Man.

However, I think there is potential in framing it as a last refuge for the climate apocalypse. Now obviously we can't relocate the entire world's population to Greenland, so we'd have to accept only the most vital individuals for the continuation of society. That means the Hollywood celebrities who are most conscientious about telling others about the environment, naturally. Of course, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition; for example, AOC would be needed to impart the genius of her nude green eel on the island.

With the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present GNP within say, twenty years. Regrettably, that would necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, as far as men were concerned; but it is a sacrifice required for the future of the human race...

Of course this plan would need to be enacted post-haste as estimates for irreversible climate change have ranged from 12 years from now to the year 1978, meaning it could happen any second now.

As for us unwashed masses, I can think of no more just punishment than for our top climate proselytizers, green Hollywood celebrities, politicians and their loyal followers to abandon us to our tragic, fiery demise while they go live in a green utopia north of the Arctic Circle.

To be clear, any objective consideration of the merits of buying Greenland will be overshadowed by the fact that Trump never asked the Greenlanders.

To this day he treats them as chattel, to be dispensed by (white) Danes.

He has never, and this is critical so correct me if I'm wrong, he has never appealed to natives.

I don't understand why you have to be so bigoted. This is just an extension of our newfound open borders policy. Some people lack the means to cross our borders to live in the US, so we're going to have our borders cross them instead. One and a half billion people want to live here so the odds are on our side.

Are you the same guy as that other troll? Or just high on the same supply ..

That means the Hollywood celebrities who are most conscientious about telling others about the environment,

If, during your higher educational experience, you had the opportunity to rub elbows at the local watering hole with any students or professors from the drama department, you would realize that those flakes have zero credibility on any subject other than fashion.

I'm pretty sure that if they weren't smart they wouldn't be famous.

'you would realize that those flakes have zero credibility on any subject other than fashion'

Shame you never hung out with the people doing sets, lighting, costumes, etc - but then, they are easily ignored by anyone talking about drama, instead of theater.

Agree, but there is also a way to market this, not as shame, but as superiority: I bought the plan with the lowest carbon footprint, or my trip took me to this place where they showed me how to save this species, etc.

If you introduce an attribute like sustainability or environmental sensitivity of the offering into the mix, you might get competition to offer less environmentally unattractive offerings. You will notice that some programs indicate that they will make a contribution to a wildlife organization, for example, as part of the trip, or engage people into participating in a clean up project.

For your sins, your penance will be $20 to the Sierra Club.

Go in peace.

I justify foreign vacation travel by arguing that I am contributing to their local economy and by purchasing their goods and services lifting them out of poverty, or at least, improving their income.

In other words, you are helping them increase their emissions, right, Bill?

Look, there is nothing wrong with you taking international flights, just don't look like a fool when trying to justify it. It is ok to admit that you are hypocrite.


You have no sense of humor. You don't get the joke.

Did you go through your childhood reading comic books as non-fiction?

there is no shame whatsoever in ignoring climate-change (AGW).
it is the biggest scientific hoax in world history.
But AGW true-believers just can't understand why rational others do not share their extreme emotional & political fantasies.

Without the Montreal Protocol there would be no AGW controversy. The banning of chloroflourocarbon refrigerants in the developed world was inspired by a computer model, never proven in fact, that was a daily feature in the media during the '80s. Children were supposedly unable to attend school in Tierra del Fuego because of the ultraviolet light that wasn't intercepted by the diminished ozone layer. Sheep in Argentina were said to be wandering about blindly for the same reason. The day that the Protocol was signed those stories became extinct, even though R-12 and R-502, the main culprits, remained in production in the rest of the world.

The success of this craziness has inspired a whole generation of climate fraudsters who have moved on from refrigerants to AGW. The fact is that climate has never been a steady-state phenomenon, it has always changed. A geologically short 8000 years ago much of the what's now the northern US was covered by a mile layer of ice. No one can really predict what the world's climate will be like in even the relatively near future regardless of the activities of men or governments.

They are going after refrigerants again as well. We are into another major change of refrigerants, including hydrocarbons such as propane and isobutane.

Shaming sucks but political pressure is pointless when the governing party has doubled down a hundredfold on the wrong position. How can they pivot on this without a major defeat and reorganization?
Supposedly shaming did kill off the Hummer and Excursion brands, but there are easier substitutes for those than for air travel and meat.

Mass tourism has eroded the value of travel as a positional good. Nothing is taking its place. Flight shaming will develop as a tool to reclaim travel for elites.

Travel as positional good is the only way the author’s viewpoint makes any sense. “Don’t feel shame about your personal travel. Do focus on persuading governments to ration everyone’s travel. If you succeed, you’ll travel less without losing any status.”

Well, what would actually happen is that the government would ration travel for everyone but create exceptions for themselves and other well-connected individuals. This is consistent with most other initiatives (cf. Obamacare). Basically, as per usual, the left is trying to nationalize class differences.

As I've said before online, one way for Trump to fight climate change and still keep his base is to tax China's exports based on Greenhouse Gas emissions. But he's not smart enough to do this (nor his advisors).

He's on record for saying climate change is a Chinese hoax. He can't fight what doesn't exist in his head.

Maibach is described as a “Communications Scientist.” Is that a fancy term for propagandist?

Here are a few (undisputed) points that could be communicated:

1. Climate models are typically based on the historical correlation between CO2 levels and temperature found in ice cores.

2. Analysis of ice core data finds that increases in CO2 *lag* temperature increases by about 800 years, with a 95 confidence interval of plus or minus 600 years.

3. This politically incorrect inversion of cause and effect is explained away by an appeal to a vicious cycle. Although admittedly the initial increase in temperature is not caused by CO2 (rather, by changes in the position and tilt of the earth relative to the sun), the rising temperature reduces the solubility of CO2 in the oceans, thereby releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, and it is to this subsequent increase in CO2 that the bulk of the warming should be attributed. (Much as an epidemic in a rural village might have a virus as its initial spur, but the viral outbreak induces physicians to visit the village, who of course are the true cause of subsequent deaths.)

3. Climate models overpredict modern temperature increases from CO2 by factors of three- to seven-fold. This problem is fixed by assiduously changing the parameters of other factors until the model’s CO2 effects are brought into line with priors.

Yay, science!

You missed one - none of the current climate models are accurate when describing what is actually happening in polar regions, based on empirical data. One possible reason due to a lack of accurate modelling of albedo in terms of sea ice.

Really, it is not just about CO2 when talking about jet stream interaction, for example, it is also about temperature gradients and how they arise.


Well, climate alarmists will subjectively dispute anything that they perceive as hindering their crusade.

The global Greenhouse Effect and AGW remain merely theories -- but are treated as indisputable fact.

The public has been led to believe that increased carbon dioxide from human activities is causing a greenhouse effect that is heating the planet. But carbon dioxide comprises only 0.035% of our atmosphere and is a very weak greenhouse gas at best. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas and accounts for at least 95% of any theoretical greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide accounts for only about 3%, with the remainder due to methane and several other gases.

Not only is carbon dioxide's total greenhouse effect puny, mankind's contribution to it is minuscule. The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere comes from nature -- not from man.

'The global Greenhouse Effect and AGW remain merely theories'

However, what is going in the polar regions is indisputable fact, based on empirical data.

Amusingly (in a dark way), all the models predicting longer term polar conditions have been inaccurate to extremely inaccurate, yet you never seem to hear those who claim climate science is inaccurate point to an actual fact based case where that inaccuracy is blatantly true.

The public has been led to believe that increased carbon dioxide from human activities is causing a greenhouse effect that is heating the planet. But carbon dioxide comprises only 0.035% of our atmosphere and is a very weak greenhouse gas at best. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas and accounts for at least 95% of any theoretical greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide accounts for only about 3%, with the remainder due to methane and several other gases.

Stupid. Since 'only' 0.035% certainly can't cause anything dramatic to happen care to ingest that portion of your body weight in Arsenic?

Also no appreciation for scale here. An earth that is, say, five degrees warmer than the present one will from a very far distance look a lot like earth. It won't be hot like Venus or cold like Mars. So what? You don't live far away but right here. Your thermostat set a few degrees warmer or colder will make your home feel very different to you, even though relative to the hottest and coldest spot on earth it is only a tiny variation.

Anyway water vapor may be a larger % of greenhouse gas and have a more potent effect but no one is adding water to the earth. The amount of water vapor follows from the temperature so unfortunately CO2's impact is accelerated because it will add more water vapor to the atmosphere.

The problem is this should be policies and not about 'convincing people to change their behavior'. Thinking about ones behavior is expensive cognitively. Yes you can bend over backwards to do it in a nice way, to be supportive and not shaming of people, etc. etc. but at the end of the day the reason we have habits is to avoid the mental bandwidth of thinking a lot about each and every small decision you make every day.

If you want to effect climate change then you need cap-n-trade or a carbon tax offset either with other tax cuts or a UBI. Done. The impact of carbon will become embedded in prices points which is the whole purpose of a price to begin with.

How about recognizing that it is a technical issue and approaching it in that way? All you are doing is increasing the cost of energy. Low cost energy is the source of our prosperity. The solution requires a vigorous economy able to afford the very difficult and expensive learning curves and dead end ideas. Much of this is already happening, and there is no simple answer. It is a hard problem. It isn't simply a matter of using less, or making everyone poorer. For one thing that will kill the political incentives and support, which will doom the whole endeavor.

This is missing the economics. The cost of energy includes internal and external costs. Internal costs are good, external are bad.

Internal costs are the costs you pay directly to get the energy. For example, you pay workers directly to work on your well, you pay a supplier for parts, you pay a landowner to put your well on his land or buy the land directly from him etc.

Direct costs are good because it lets the very complicated questions get boiled into a single price. Should you get energy to sell to the market from nuclear, solar panels, oil, gas etc.? Look at the price per unit for each and act accordingly.

Indirect costs are the costs put on other people to play. Dump your waste in a stream the people downstream bear the cost but you don't. Have the gov't build a trillion dollar nuclear waste dump, taxpayers pay but you don't. Dump your CO2 into the air, everyone else pays but you don't.

I'm not increasing the cost of energy. I'm decreasing it. The cost of anything is the sum of direct and indirect costs. The more costs are direct, the more they go down because there is a direct economic incentive to lower direct costs and there is almost no incentive to address indirect costs.

There are two kinds of people. People who don't feel shame and people who don't respond well to being shamed.

I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who claim it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis.

Wake me when they ban air-conditioning in DC.

I'd strongly encourage them to set a personal example - give up meat, out of season fruit and vegetable delivered by air, private cars, recreational travel, artificial climate control between 50-90 degrees, elevators, dryers, second homes, and hot water for showers. I can only applaud their commitment.

Of course my culture requires all these things, and I've been told such people are firmly committed to respecting and validating other cultures, so I'll happily continue my consumption without any guilt and welcome their validation of my personal choices.

Perhaps apply a fee to all air travel based upon a percentage of personal income?

No one did much about the threat of a nuclear holocaust, yet that was very real:

You mean no one did much besides not having a nuclear war, decommissioning thousands of armed weapons, working out various arms control and non-proliferation agreements, and setting up protocols (such as the 'red phone') to limit the chance of a launch caused by misunderstanding.

There's nothing wrong with you being obese and pre-diabetic if your doctor is overweight.

E.g. the Obamas purchasing a $15M beachfront estate on Martha’s Vineyard. Apparently BHO believes his own rhetoric about stopping the oceans’ rise.

"If you can’t resist Airbnb (and I can’t, because I don’t like hotel clerks and breakfast buffets standing between me and the people and cuisine of my destination) at least seek out a home that an actual local lives in most of the year — you know, what Airbnb used to be. Such vestiges still remain on the site, if you look hard enough."

Is the cuck argument supposed to be that staying in an Airbnb that acts as a hotel is bad because it raises housing costs for locals, but that an official hotel somehow doesn't raise housing costs for locals?

"Most of this will make travel more expensive — and that may mean traveling even less. Think of it as a progressive tax paid by those lucky enough to travel for damaging the world those who can’t travel must live in. It is a small price to pay. And maybe it will make you feel a little less shame."

Another way is to actually give money directly. But that makes it hard to virtue-signal about, if you bring it up, it's clear you're just bragging. These kinds of complicated "good deeds" allow you to tell a story about what an adventure you had in doing them.

As I noted earlier, it must be exhausting to analyze every single decision you make in your daily life to make sure you're maximizing your opportunities to right the injustices of the world. Doesn't seem like much of a vacation! Maybe staying at home would be good not just for the environment but also for these guys' mental health.

Shame on Brazil for not allowing US or Portuguese fire fighting teams to fight the Amazon forest fire, which is releasing CO2 at an unprecedented rate. So says the Brazil Green Party guy here:

The New Green Deals are fouled up so many ways, this one little hick up is nothing.

I totally disagree with shame as a coercion mechanism.

Albeit, look at the Catholic Church, healthy as ever ;)

I don't want shame, I want a carbon price that increases until it equals the cost of removing CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it. (Presumably this will cause it to max out at around $50 a tonne, but we'll have to see.) Note this does not need to increase taxes. You can keep your country's government revenue the same, increase it, or decrease it. That's up to you.

"Presumably this will cause it to max out at around $50 a tonne, but we'll have to see."

The cost of atmospheric carbon sequestration is far higher than that. And in any case it would be ridiculous to drive the price of carbon that high. If the world kept it's current rate of CO2 production, but didn't increase, the Global Temperatures would stabilize at roughly the current level.

I might be able to do it for $60 a tonne agriculturally and then bring costs down.

If greenhouse gas emissions were cut by 80%+ atmospheric CO2 concentrations would stabilize with their exact level dependent on how quickly they were cut. If emissions are kept as they are -- this won't happen, but if they are -- then that's about 4 degrees warming by the end of the century with it continuing to rise.

This Moody's report has a graph showing predicted results of different emissions scenarios on page 3:

You could build or purchase the equipment to sequester carbon yourself. Don't expect others to do what is so vitally necessary, do it yourself. now.

Do you seriously not understand externalities and why it is important to incentives correct so their cost is factored in, or is this just an act?

In case it is the former, here is the wikipedia article on the topic:

As Lao Tzu used to say, A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. Somebody has to take that first single step. It could be you.
However, AGW concern actually fulfills the requirements of most religions in that refusal to accept its tenets is catastrophe for everyone, not only the disbelievers. If the skeptics don't come around, everyone will pay the price. Of course, when that final payment comes due is an unknown, just as is the date of the rapture. It gets predicted, as Al Gore has done, but it doesn't seem like it will arrive in our lifetimes. As Marie A. said, Apres nous, le deluge.

In my country the polite term for what you are is a loony. We have several less polite terms, but you may not like them. Finland introduce a carbon price in 1990. Sweden in 1991. Germany got the ball rolling on the large scale commercialization of solar PV and Australia brought down the cost of rooftop solar so it is now the lowest cost source of electrical energy for homes and businesses. The passenger car with the fastest growing sales in the US is electric. Around one half of new cars sold in Norway are electric. Apparently one third of new cars sold in the Netherlands are Tesla Model 3s. My state went from almost no renewable generation 10 years ago to 50% today. There have been so many first steps we could have used them to walk around the world and come up behind you and said "boo!"

>Here in the city in France was where I live using plastic bags for groceries gets you disapproving glances .

Here in a city in Austria I would probably growl something ugly at the disapproving lookers, something like "communist faggots". (Rote Tunten)

Why should one be polite with those kinds of people? They suck. They believe mainstream media bullshit and turn it into moral posturing.

Maybe the GMU Climate Change Marketing Department can take advantage of the populist tide and promote drastically scaling back global trade and migration, ending endless central bank stimulus, and building more nuclear power plants? Because unless you're talking about all those you're not to be taken seriously.

Didn’t Michael Mann refuse to show his work and the court found against him?

Why would you stop the Brazilian farmers from prepping their land for planting? They do that each year.

The really funny aspect of the Brazilian fires mob is that many (most?) of the photos that are being so emotionally tweeted are of fires not in Brazil, and from years ago.

Their land? Who did they buy it from? I can't burn leaves on my land and I have a clear title to it. Do they?

I need a burger.

The US hasn’t warmed in 15 years. The Poles want to switch; the North Pole keeps moving into Canada. No one was keeping records the last time this happened.

We can’t control the sun.

What would be most effective is shaming that people don't recognize and resent as shaming.

I find it hard to comprehend how so many people can be so uninformed about AGW.

Just blatantly wrong ideas spouted, and my favorite is the % thing, which simply provides numbers with no link to where in the world they come from. Though the claim against Michael Mann is a close second.

Total waste of time reading these comments, though some of them raised chuckles.

Comments for this post are closed