One of the biggest climate change threats -- Rain

[Schmelzer]

I found it pretty easy - can't answer for you.

No. You claim so, without evidence. Evidence would be the links to what you have found.

It's especially common when some feature of climate like "variability" or "range" or "season" is involved, and the original agricultural regime was highly adapted, maximally productive.

There might be, of course, circumstances when it is unreasonable to switch. Say, because the climate change is not that relevant.

The Civil War was about slavery and nothing else.

Discuss this in the relevant thread.

Without the very large state subsidies of fossil fuels it would have been able to take advantage of economies of scale far earlier - saving the economy and the taxpayer a lot of money directly, and probably the cost of two major wars.

I do not support subsidies of fossil fuels too.

Major technological changes do not emerge from free markets - government supports them, charity supports them, or they never happen.

Nonsense. (Of course, the government is today involved in almost everything, so a major technological change will not happen without the governments also doing something. But if this is really supported, even more if the support is really necessary, is another question.)

The war was over economic freedom, and that was based on slavery. The South wanted the right to keep slaves to support their economy; without slaves, their economy would have to change drastically. The North opposed it.

Discuss this in the relevant thread.

You claim that expensive, taxpayer subsidized research is not really risky. But tax cuts for renewables are harmful. Quite the double standard you have there.

Some spendings made by states are reasonable and would have to be made in a stateless society too (roads, police and fire forces etc). Others are simply a loss of money, redistribution (claimed to be from rich to poor, but in reality from poor to rich). As a libertarian, I have to make differences, to distinguish between the useful things, which would have to be done in a libertarian society too, and those things which are harmful. Scientific research in the Western tradition (open publication, freedom of scientific research) is certainly a useful common good, worth to be paid for. Supporting particular industries with good-paying lobbies with taxpayer money is not.

Given that China is rapidly becoming the #1 supplier of solar panels, your claim is provably wrong.

No. China is becoming #1 because it has developed panels which have been better and much cheaper than those Western industries have created before with taxpayers subsidies.

 

[billvon]

Discuss this in the relevant thread.

I am. You made a false claim; I am correcting it.

Some spendings made by states are reasonable and would have to be made in a stateless society too (roads, police and fire forces etc). Others are simply a loss of money, redistribution (claimed to be from rich to poor, but in reality from poor to rich).

Exactly. And developing and promoting an energy source that does not depend on limited fossil fuel deposits is a very reasonable use of them. But you don't even have to worry about that; most renewable incentives are simple tax breaks, not subsidies.

As a libertarian, I have to make differences, to distinguish between the useful things, which would have to be done in a libertarian society too, and those things which are harmful. Scientific research in the Western tradition (open publication, freedom of scientific research) is certainly a useful common good, worth to be paid for. Supporting particular industries with good-paying lobbies with taxpayer money is not.

And what of scientists who are developing breakthrough technologies in solar-PV fabrication and efficiency?

No. China is becoming #1 because it has developed panels which have been better and much cheaper than those Western industries have created before with taxpayers subsidies.

So you have gone from:
"No. Those who have lost their jobs somewhere in the Third World because the US invested taxpayers money in renewable energy instead of economically more useful things."
to
"China has lots of renewable energy jobs because US invested in renewable energy" (paraphrase)

Complete flipflop in only two posts!

 

[Schmelzer]

And developing and promoting an energy source that does not depend on limited fossil fuel deposits is a very reasonable use of them.

This would be reasonable, to some degree. The reduction of CO2 emissions would be a side effect. But to spend a lot of money simply to reduce CO2 emissions would be a loss.

But you don't even have to worry about that; most renewable incentives are simple tax breaks, not subsidies.

This is a formality. All subsidies can be renamed into tax reductions simply by a formal increase of the overall tax. It remains a redistribution by taxation. If you pay taxes, and I'm not, but we receive the same common goods, that's a redistribution from you to me.

And what of scientists who are developing breakthrough technologies in solar-PV fabrication and efficiency?

Such applied scientists are paid by the firms.

So you have gone from:
"No. Those who have lost their jobs somewhere in the Third World because the US invested taxpayers money in renewable energy instead of economically more useful things."
to
"China has lots of renewable energy jobs because US invested in renewable energy" (paraphrase)

The Third World I have mentioned only because the part of these losses in Third World countries may cost human lives. The context was "And this also costs lives, now, simply by increasing poverty now everywhere as a side effect."

So I have not gone from to, but there are different things. On the one hand, the question who gains the money the US is throwing away for renewable energy (China probably gained some part of it, namely from the part not given to the US firms directly, but to the buyers of panels), and on the other hand, the question who pays for this. This is, first of all, the US taxpayer. But he is rich, imports a lot of things, so the losses will be distributed globally too.

Which part is more important - the gains or the losses caused by the redistribution? Given that the redistribution process itself always leads to losses, it is the losses which are more important. But the losers are all the people, to identify the loss for a particular person is close to impossible, so this will be usually completely ignored.

 

[iceaura]

No. You claim so, without evidence. Evidence would be the links to what you have found.

Repeatedly posting the same evidence over and over wastes my time.

There might be, of course, circumstances when it is unreasonable to switch. Say, because the climate change is not that relevant.

Not unreasonable. Impossible.

No. China is becoming #1 because it has developed panels which have been better and much cheaper than those Western industries have created before with taxpayers subsidies.

That's because the Chinese government subsidies were much larger and more firmly dedicated, enough to establish economies of scale and reward risky innovation.
The US tried to get market forces to do that - a foolish mistake.

In general, competitive markets can't support basic research - the payoffs are likely to go to others, the innovators will be put out of business by the costs, they can see that, and so they don't do it.

Given that the redistribution process itself always leads to losses,

It often leads to large gains.

 

[Schmelzer]

In general, competitive markets can't support basic research - the payoffs are likely to go to others, the innovators will be put out of business by the costs, they can see that, and so they don't do it.

The research done by the scientific community and published creates, of course, a public good. But applied science can be done by competitive markets. The payoffs which go to the leaders in research are big enough, even without patent laws. There are cases where copying is easy, but in other cases, copying is far from easy. But even in the cases where it is easy the payoff of being the first remains big.

It often leads to large gains.

Given that the costs are usually completely ignored, and even to estimate them is difficult, one can at least claim so, without fear of being proven wrong.

 

[billvon]

This would be reasonable, to some degree. The reduction of CO2 emissions would be a side effect. But to spend a lot of money simply to reduce CO2 emissions would be a loss.

Nope. It would be a net gain; less losses due to a warming climate. Fewer people to be relocated, fewer species dying off, fewer farmers to give welfare to, fewer industries to move.

Fun fact - it is now so warm in some places that nuclear power plants have to throttle back because they can't get enough water to cool the plant. Are you just going to "relocate" them?

This is a formality. All subsidies can be renamed into tax reductions simply by a formal increase of the overall tax. It remains a redistribution by taxation.

Yes, it does. We do this all the time. We decide there are good causes (disease research, climate change prevention, scientific research, veteran's benefits) and use tax laws to promote that which we think is important. It is one of the better parts of our society - a willingness to put immediate profit aside for the long term good.

Such applied scientists are paid by the firms.

SETO from the US DoE funds such research directly.

Other research is indeed done by manufacturers. We should incentivize this through the tax code, so that the US's position as the leader in PV technologies is maintained.

The Third World I have mentioned only because the part of these losses in Third World countries may cost human lives. The context was "And this also costs lives, now, simply by increasing poverty now everywhere as a side effect."

So solar gives people jobs in Third World countries. And it makes them poorer.

If that passes for logic from you, then just quit your job! You will no doubt become much richer as your money-sucking job ends.

Which part is more important - the gains or the losses caused by the redistribution? Given that the redistribution process itself always leads to losses, it is the losses which are more important. But the losers are all the people, to identify the loss for a particular person is close to impossible, so this will be usually completely ignored.

Both, of course. A great many people win. The people who will not die of emphysema because the coal plant near them was shut down. The millions employed by the solar industry. The new industries made possible by solar. The grandchildren of today's society who will not have to move out of their homes due to rising waters, and who will not die of heatstroke.

Other people will lose, of course. Coal power plant owners. Doctors who specialize in treatment of emphysema, COPD, lung cancer and black lung. EPA inspectors.

This is progress. When the car arrived, a lot of buggy whip manufacturers lost their jobs. Hundreds of thousand of people - stablehands, sanitation workers, blacksmiths, farmers, haulers - lost their jobs as horses became more scarce in cities. That is sad. But overall cars improved people's lives, not harmed them.

 

[iceaura]

Given that the costs are usually completely ignored, and even to estimate them is difficult, one can at least claim so, without fear of being proven wrong.

Since the costs are not ignored, and your claims are in general ridiculous (in conflict with established fact), the question of "fear" doesn't arise.

If you were afraid of being wrong about AGW, if it mattered to you whether or not you were wrong, you would have paid attention to the findings of researchers and the established facts of biology and so forth. You didn't.

But applied science can be done by competitive markets.

The topic was basic research, which generally cannot.

Meanwhile the Chinese PV panel industry, contrasted with the US, provides a handy example of the role of government in technological progress.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

so a major technological change will not happen without the governments also doing something.

Cambridge analytica ?

But even in the cases where it is easy the payoff of being the first remains big.

to which market ?
the ignorant consumer ?

being 1st means nothing if you do not have the distribution

the assumption that the premise only applies to already established mega companys tends to invalidate its core principal.

what do you mean ?

 

[Schmelzer]

Nope. It would be a net gain; less losses due to a warming climate. Fewer people to be relocated, fewer species dying off, fewer farmers to give welfare to, fewer industries to move.

You may have recognized that I doubt that warming if it is moderate and slow enough, leads to losses.

Fun fact - it is now so warm in some places that nuclear power plants have to throttle back because they can't get enough water to cool the plant. Are you just going to "relocate" them?

Why? Following the green alarmists, one would better close them anyway, so that such a reduction would have to be counted as something positive.

So solar gives people jobs in Third World countries. And it makes them poorer.

Learn to read. Some get jobs, others lose jobs and become poorer. This is what happens if you redistribute money.

This is progress. When the car arrived, a lot of buggy whip manufacturers lost their jobs. Hundreds of thousand of people - stablehands, sanitation workers, blacksmiths, farmers, haulers - lost their jobs as horses became more scarce in cities. That is sad. But overall cars improved people's lives, not harmed them.

"This" is not progress. We have talked about the intentional redistribution of money by the state, by politicians with certain political interests (under the influence of lobbies), and not about some redistributions of money as a side effect of progress. These are quite different things. Given that state-made redistribution is always related with losses (tax collection is not for free, there are tax avoidance side effects and so on) it is clear that there is in the average a loss. Progress is, instead, something which leads to gains.

There is, of course, some part of the redistribution which is spend for useful common goods. Fundamental science would be an example. But most of the redistribution cannot be justified in this way. Most of the state monopolies are also harmful.

 

[Schmelzer]

to which market ?

It should not be trivial to copy the invention, but require some time. This gives some time when you are the only one who sells the new thing, and you can use this time to improve it. Then you remain even some more time better than the competitors. The brand will be famous for being the first and being better quality, and this value of the brand remains a quite long time, much longer than it is justified.

the assumption that the premise only applies to already established mega companys tends to invalidate its core principal.

This is not assumed.

Since the costs are not ignored,

The costs of redistributions are ignored. I have never heard a politician who claimed that, while his action will lead to more jobs in industry X, it will also lead to fewer jobs in all other industries.

Meanwhile the Chinese PV panel industry, contrasted with the US, provides a handy example of the role of government in technological progress.

This is a handy example of such ignorance. You mention the progress of Chinese PV panel industry but ignore the consequences for all the other Chinese industries.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

we are seeing massive rain storms in china and asia and in the usa and india
flooding events from massive rain fall is increasing

the news is filled with

 

[iceaura]

This is a handy example of such ignorance. You mention the progress of Chinese PV panel industry but ignore the consequences for all the other Chinese industries

So?
You have no idea what those consequences are, or even whether they are negative (it's likely they are positive - PV technology is handy to have around)

and they are likely to be better than the consequences to various American industries of having to rely on Chinese sources for their PV panels and a lot of related tech and capabilities, even before your guy Trump started his trade war.

And the US citizenry, of course, loses out in several ways - not that you would include them in your analysis, but I thought I'd mention the factor.

The costs of redistributions are ignored. I have never heard a politician who claimed that, while his action will lead to more jobs in industry X, it will also lead to fewer jobs in all other industries.

Things are not "ignored" because your favored sources fail to tell you about politicians mentioning them. "Redistribution" costs, in particular, receive considerable attention in my sources.
And in general a root level technology innovation center like PV panels boosts job creation throughout an economy. As the standard capitalist saying puts it: It's not a zero sum game.

The point remains: no government support, no basic research, and a trivialization of much applied research. Most basic research has no expected payoff to any given capitalist corporation - it's money thrown into a wishing well, that their competition is using to increase production efficiency, incrementally improve products, and eat their lunch.

Maybe the US hope here is that the extra suffering AGW is predicted to inflict on China - torrential rainfall among the rest - will keep the US in the game. China is not handling its environmental problems in general well enough to avoid major damage in the near future. The US could regain it advantage, there, if we can restore competence to government.

 

[Schmelzer]

So?
You have no idea what those consequences are, or even whether they are negative (it's likely they are positive - PV technology is handy to have around)

The idea is quite simple. If one makes a transfer of money to one industry, it is taken away from some other industries. Taking away money from other industries with high probability harms them.

In principle, the overall effect may be nonetheless positive - if the leadership of the government has some deep insight into whatever, say, that those industries which are harmed will lose their importance anyway. Feel free to believe such things about the deep insight of the leadership.

There are also some less deep insights, namely there are some common good problems, and the state is a player which can make investments to solve the related problems. So, a real investment by the state into the production of common goods may be positive. But how probable is this? Certainly, it is not very probable if the firms, via their lobbies, fight for the support of the state power in favor of their industries. (The costs of such fights are certainly a loss.)

And the US citizenry, of course, loses out in several ways - not that you would include them in your analysis, but I thought I'd mention the factor.

In general considerations about the state, it is, of course, included. As the loser, of course. In the consideration above, as the winner of those ideal dream state which invests only in infrastructure and other common goods.

"Redistribution" costs, in particular, receive considerable attention in my sources.

Of course, those who study at least some economic literature will have heard about them. My remark was about mass media and political discussions, not about economic literature.

And in general a root level technology innovation center like PV panels boosts job creation throughout an economy. As the standard capitalist saying puts it: It's not a zero sum game.

Of course, investment in fundamental science and root level technologies are common goods for the regions where they are developed.

The point remains: no government support, no basic research, and a trivialization of much applied research. Most basic research has no expected payoff to any given capitalist corporation - it's money thrown into a wishing well, that their competition is using to increase production efficiency, incrementally improve products, and eat their lunch.

Agreement about this.

Maybe the US hope here is that the extra suffering AGW is predicted to inflict on China - torrential rainfall among the rest - will keep the US in the game. China is not handling its environmental problems in general well enough to avoid major damage in the near future. The US could regain it advantage, there, if we can restore competence to government.

China was a poor country, they had more important problems than to care about the environment. This becomes important if society becomes rich. So, this is nothing fixed forever but is likely to be improved in the future.

Given that your hopes depend on the competence of the government, it does not look good for you. Corporatism with the firms in the leading role is not known for giving competent leadership. The Chinese have better chances. Their imperial tradition is highly meritocratic, so they have a chance to get competent political leadership.

 

[billvon]

You may have recognized that I doubt that warming if it is moderate and slow enough, leads to losses.

It always leads to losses. That's what history has taught us. Far slower warmings than this one have resulted in mass extinctions.

Why? Following the green alarmists, one would better close them anyway, so that such a reduction would have to be counted as something positive.

Nope. It's low carbon energy.

Learn to read.

You always start in on the personal attacks when you are losing.

"This" is not progress. We have talked about the intentional redistribution of money by the state, by politicians with certain political interests (under the influence of lobbies)

Yep. The oil and coal industries have done this for decades. They are understandably upset that their garnering of tax monies is being threatened by scientific and technological process. It's one reason that republicans prefer a poorly educated electorate; people who don't understand science are easy targets for right wing propaganda.

Given that state-made redistribution is always related with losses (tax collection is not for free, there are tax avoidance side effects and so on) it is clear that there is in the average a loss.

Agreed. But less and less, as oil and gas wealth distribution declines.

 

[Schmelzer]

It always leads to losses. That's what history has taught us. Far slower warmings than this one have resulted in mass extinctions.

Learn to read. In particular, learn that there is a difference between "moderate and slow enough" and "slow enough".

Nope. It's low carbon energy.

Who cares? Fighting against atomic power is at least for the German green movement a religious dogma.

You always start in on the personal attacks when you are losing.

"Learn to read" is not a personal attack, it is just a funny way to say that you have misunderstood the content of the post.

It's one reason that republicans prefer a poorly educated electorate; people who don't understand science are easy targets for right wing propaganda.

I don't think there is such preference on the right side. The modern left is focussed on universities after they have given up to care about the working class. On the right side, I see no such focus.

There may be a tendency in the other direction - that poorly educated people are simply more conservative, skeptical about various reforms.

(People who "don't understand science" are anyway the large majority, certainly among the voters, and the politicians, but today I would suspect even at the universities.)

 

[billvon]

Learn to read . . . . Who cares?

I guess you are losing the argument quite badly.

I don't think there is such preference on the right side.

Donald Trump: "I love the poorly educated."
Recent Pew poll - 58% of republicans think higher education is a bad thing, 36% of democrats think it's a bad thing.

There may be a tendency in the other direction - that poorly educated people are simply more conservative, skeptical about various reforms.

And more likely to vote their ignorance.

 

[Schmelzer]

I guess you are losing the argument quite badly.

The one who has lost the argument are you. You have made the rather nonsensical claim that every climate change, even "if it is moderate and slow enough" (this was what I wrote) leads to losses. Simply by ignoring the "moderate". I would be interested to learn more about the losses caused by the warming following the little ice age.

 

[sculptor]

I find no compelling evidence nor argument that any of the 5 major extinction events (die-offs) were initiated by global warming.
Quite the contrary actually.

 

[wegs]

I don't think that humans will become extinct from global warming/climate change, but I wouldn't entirely rule it out.

I'm surprised to see the ''arguments'' going on in this thread against the idea that rainfall alone, has caused great devastation. Isn't it obvious?

 

[Write4U]

I find no compelling evidence nor argument that any of the 5 major extinction events (die-offs) were initiated by global warming.
Quite the contrary actually.

Most likely the main impact will be from secondary causes, not the rise of a few degrees in temparature.

Draughts, Crop failure, Migration, Landloss due to rising oean levels, Competition for habitat.
Nothing is going to happen at once, it'll be a steady chronology (domino effect) of continual hardship.

The problem with global events is that once a threshold has been breached, there follows a cascade of secondary events, most of which cannot be planned for.