I assume he was doing
$15/gal x 365 d/yr x 40 gal/bbl x 20Mbbl/d = $total/yr so show the implication of the $12-$17/gal range.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
I assume he was doing
$15/gal x 365 d/yr x 40 gal/bbl x 20Mbbl/d = $total/yr so show the implication of the $12-$17/gal range.
'Half my lung cancer patients are non-smokers': toxic air crisis chokes Delhi
Air pollution causing lung cancer among youths: Study
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lf-a-million-people-every-year/?noredirect=on
28-year-old non-smoker Delhi woman diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer due to air pollution - Times of India
juliusa
Active Member
juliusa
Active Member
That setlles it. Half lung cancer patients are non-smokers. Since about 10% of the population in India smokes, and 50% of the lung cancer patients are smokers, smokers are 5x more likely to develop lung cancer as non-smokers.
It seems there is more to lung cancer causation than smoking and polution. Here is the incidence of lung cancer by race in LA county.
Lung Cancer Incidence Rates (Los Angeles County, 2010) | California Pan-Ethnic Health Network.
How many non-smokers were killed by lung cancer in LA in the 1970s when polluition was bad? How many today? Here is your answer - incidence of lung cancer down slightly in men and flat in women. How much is due to lower incidence of smoking and how much is due to lower pollution? You decide. Page 54. https://keck.usc.edu/cancer-surveil...loads/sites/166/2016/08/Cancer-in-LA-2016.pdf
So dramatically cleaning the air in LA did not make much difference in the rate of lung cancer. Is there some other health ailment more impacted by air pollution than lung cancer? Maybe we could look at that.
Come again? They reference epidemiological data showing the correlations.
Also, argument from incredulity. Again.
Solid science, bro.
In case you're curious, yes, there are other ailments associated with highway emissions.
Long-term exposure to air pollution and the incidence of asthma: meta-analysis of cohort studies
juliusa
Active Member
Same result as lung cancer in LA - not a lot of impact on health symptoms.
"Of the total of 99 estimates, only a minority (29) were positive and statistically significant."
By the way, a "positive" was defined as a diagnosis of asthma or a "wheeze symptom". Not sure there is a lot of cost of lost work or health care associated with a "wheeze symptom". Did they quantify lost work or health cost differential in the minority population that had symptoms?
These "scientists" are making a lot of assumptions about a very large financial impact of air pollution that are just not supported by actual observations. They know that after spending $16T nobody will ever go back and audit their models - and if they do, they will say "oh well".
Their faith requires them to make up this nonsense - they are true believers that every pound of GHG or particulates removed from the atmosphere is progress, no matter the cost. They don't care if people die of poverty resulting from poor allocation of resources. Their faith is so strong that the end justifies the means. Just like lying about "you can keep your plan" "you can keep your doctor" "costs will go down" - their faith said they were doing the right thing, and therefore lying to achieve the end was justified.
This is religion - not science.
juliusa
Active Member
Come again? I saw no quantitative economic impact in that study.
Science would say there is correlation between air quality and health. Fake science then invents a financial impact with no basis in science. And remember the science showed correlation, not causation.
Lung cancer and asthma would seem to be likely diseases associated with air pollution. Lung cancer (all cancer for that matter) seems to show little correlation to air pollution based on LA. We can debate asthma, but few people in the US lose productivity or have high health costs due to asthma - it is easily controlled for most people. My guess is people lose more work days due to colds or workitus than asthma.
Last edited:
Facts Don't Really Change Minds | The Incidental Economist
Often, the people who hold to these ideas most stridently are the least knowledgeable about science, but BELIEVE they are the most knowledgeable about these subjects. Let’s talk about Dunning-Kruger and the paradox of incompetence.
Often, the people who hold to these ideas most stridently are the least knowledgeable about science, but BELIEVE they are the most knowledgeable about these subjects. Let’s talk about Dunning-Kruger and the paradox of incompetence.
The realism of the Green New Deal | SEI
The realism of the Green New Deal
Amid the debate, one thing is clear: the proposal is grounded in a realistic assessment of the societal mobilization required to meet the climate challenge.
The preamble of the resolution offers a concise – and accurate – summary of the potential impacts of climate change for the United States and for the world, as well as the need for action. Namely: to minimize the potential for serious climate change impacts, we should keep global average temperature within 1.5°C above the pre-industrial average. We’ve already crossed a line where there is some chance of this happening, but to keep chances relatively low would require global greenhouse gas emissions to fall to about half their 2010 levels by 2030 and to (nearly) zero by 2050.
As in the original New Deal and in the mobilization for World War II, this will require a massive expansion of investment in public infrastructure and private industry. But, also like the New Deal and war mobilization, it will also mean a lot of good and well-paying blue-collar jobs. That is a central message — and indeed the central purpose — of the resolution.
The realism of the Green New Deal
Amid the debate, one thing is clear: the proposal is grounded in a realistic assessment of the societal mobilization required to meet the climate challenge.
The preamble of the resolution offers a concise – and accurate – summary of the potential impacts of climate change for the United States and for the world, as well as the need for action. Namely: to minimize the potential for serious climate change impacts, we should keep global average temperature within 1.5°C above the pre-industrial average. We’ve already crossed a line where there is some chance of this happening, but to keep chances relatively low would require global greenhouse gas emissions to fall to about half their 2010 levels by 2030 and to (nearly) zero by 2050.
As in the original New Deal and in the mobilization for World War II, this will require a massive expansion of investment in public infrastructure and private industry. But, also like the New Deal and war mobilization, it will also mean a lot of good and well-paying blue-collar jobs. That is a central message — and indeed the central purpose — of the resolution.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
This narrative of global transition investment being expensive needs to go. Yes we'll need to upgrade a good bit of infrastructure, but the energy production itself(including storage) will in the end be far far cheaper than the status quo. Most of the cost being on the front end shouldn't mean anything when looking at a 30-50 year period of total energy cost, especially since we'll be starting in the most economically advantageous markets when the immediate incremental savings is greatest.
Germany, heavy industrial economy 1/4 the size of America, took their percent of electricity production via solar from 0% to 8% in just a relative handful of years. All while bearing the ENTIRE COST of scaling the ENTIRE GLOBAL MARKET which now sits ready to roll for anyone with the political will to take advantage. It cost them a lot, but not that much. And the premium is now pre-paid for everyone.
Perhaps we're all saying the same thing, but we're basically taking the very same trillions of dollars that would normally be handed to wealthy fossil investors/despots and handing it to employees of engineering firms. Total cost will be less, so a couple of those trillions simply stays in consumer's pockets.
Why we need the Green New Deal. Collective Action
Review by Bill McKibben
To Fight Global Warming, Think More About Systems Than About What You Consume
To go back to goats for a moment, as Schlossberg says, “it is not the fault of the consumer that cashmere is cheap, and it’s not wrong to want nice things or to buy them, sometimes. ... It’s not within your control how some company sources and produces its cashmere, or the size of the herd that they got it from. That should be the corporation’s burden … or governments should make sure they act responsibly.”
Governments and corporations, of course, don’t do such things automatically — they need citizens to push them. But it doesn’t require every citizen to push in order to make change (since apathy cuts both ways, social scientists estimate that getting 3 or 4 percent of people involved in a movement is often enough to force systemic change, whereas if they acted solely as consumers that same number would have relatively little effect). You can obviously do both, and all of us should try — but fighting for the Green New Deal makes more mathematical sense than trying to take on the planet one commodity at a time.
But in the end, the changes we make in our transportation lives will matter mostly if we make them “as a collective.” That is to say, instead of trying to figure out every single aspect of our lives, a carbon tax would have the effect of informing every one of those decisions, automatically and invisibly. The fuel efficiency standards that the Obama administration put forward and Trump is now gutting would result in stunningly different outcomes. And so on.
Review by Bill McKibben
To Fight Global Warming, Think More About Systems Than About What You Consume
To go back to goats for a moment, as Schlossberg says, “it is not the fault of the consumer that cashmere is cheap, and it’s not wrong to want nice things or to buy them, sometimes. ... It’s not within your control how some company sources and produces its cashmere, or the size of the herd that they got it from. That should be the corporation’s burden … or governments should make sure they act responsibly.”
Governments and corporations, of course, don’t do such things automatically — they need citizens to push them. But it doesn’t require every citizen to push in order to make change (since apathy cuts both ways, social scientists estimate that getting 3 or 4 percent of people involved in a movement is often enough to force systemic change, whereas if they acted solely as consumers that same number would have relatively little effect). You can obviously do both, and all of us should try — but fighting for the Green New Deal makes more mathematical sense than trying to take on the planet one commodity at a time.
But in the end, the changes we make in our transportation lives will matter mostly if we make them “as a collective.” That is to say, instead of trying to figure out every single aspect of our lives, a carbon tax would have the effect of informing every one of those decisions, automatically and invisibly. The fuel efficiency standards that the Obama administration put forward and Trump is now gutting would result in stunningly different outcomes. And so on.
To rescue democracy, we must revive the reforms of the Progressive Era
In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville offered a prescient warning for “the friends of democracy”. In a chapter called “How Aristocracy Could Issue from Industry” he observed that industrial capitalism would create economic inequality between owners and wage-workers and divide them culturally, morally, and socially.
Almost 200 years later, Tocqueville’s fears seem prescient. We live in a second Gilded Age – an era of extreme economic inequality and monopoly power. Wages for workers have been largely stagnant for a generation, while CEO pay has skyrocketed. A small number of firms now dominate many sectors of the economy. And the consequence for democracy is dire: study after study in political science shows that government is responsive to the preferences of the wealthy and their interest groups, but not to ordinary people. This creates a vicious cycle in which the wealthy and corporations can rig the political rules to benefit themselves. And the rigged system only makes them wealthier and more powerful. The danger of “a permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy” is upon us.
Theodore Roosevelt once wrote that “there can be no real political democracy without something approaching an economic democracy.” The truth is that the two work hand in hand. Political democracy helps foster economic democracy as the people work to make the country more egalitarian. And a more economically equal society feeds into political democracy, as no one accumulates so much power that they can dominate government or their fellow citizens.
Antitrust, regulation, tax, democracy reforms – these were rules that made industrial capitalism work, and kept it from destroying democracy. Even though it’s been gathering dust for decades, this Gilded Age and Progressive Era playbook is the essential starting point for reform today. We must reinvigorate antitrust laws and create a more competitive economy. This means breaking up big tech, big pharma, big banks – and restructuring and empowering the antitrust agencies so they are empowered to act with courage and vigor.
In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville offered a prescient warning for “the friends of democracy”. In a chapter called “How Aristocracy Could Issue from Industry” he observed that industrial capitalism would create economic inequality between owners and wage-workers and divide them culturally, morally, and socially.
Almost 200 years later, Tocqueville’s fears seem prescient. We live in a second Gilded Age – an era of extreme economic inequality and monopoly power. Wages for workers have been largely stagnant for a generation, while CEO pay has skyrocketed. A small number of firms now dominate many sectors of the economy. And the consequence for democracy is dire: study after study in political science shows that government is responsive to the preferences of the wealthy and their interest groups, but not to ordinary people. This creates a vicious cycle in which the wealthy and corporations can rig the political rules to benefit themselves. And the rigged system only makes them wealthier and more powerful. The danger of “a permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy” is upon us.
Theodore Roosevelt once wrote that “there can be no real political democracy without something approaching an economic democracy.” The truth is that the two work hand in hand. Political democracy helps foster economic democracy as the people work to make the country more egalitarian. And a more economically equal society feeds into political democracy, as no one accumulates so much power that they can dominate government or their fellow citizens.
Antitrust, regulation, tax, democracy reforms – these were rules that made industrial capitalism work, and kept it from destroying democracy. Even though it’s been gathering dust for decades, this Gilded Age and Progressive Era playbook is the essential starting point for reform today. We must reinvigorate antitrust laws and create a more competitive economy. This means breaking up big tech, big pharma, big banks – and restructuring and empowering the antitrust agencies so they are empowered to act with courage and vigor.
Welcome to the US, Greta. With your help we can save the planet and ourselves | Rebecca Solnit
Right now the US is the country of Donald Trump and of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of climate destroyers and climate protectors. Sometimes the Truths and the Carsons have won. I believe it is more than possible for Ocasio-Cortez and the Green New Deal to win, for the spirit of generosity and inclusion and the protection of nature to win – but that depends on what we do now. Which is why I’m so grateful that you have arrived to galvanize us with your clarity of vision and passionate commitment.
The old energy system was about centralized control and the malevolent power of Gazprom and BP, Shell and Chevron, and the governments warped into serving them rather than humanity. The new system must not only be about localized energy, but democratized decision-making, about the rights of nature and the rights of the vulnerable and the future, over profit.
Worldwide, we are in the midst of an energy revolution that dwarfs the industrial revolution: human beings will for the first time not use fire, will not release carbon into the sky, to get most of our energy. We will inevitably transition away from fossil fuels as a primary energy source, and the question is only when. If we do it swiftly, we minimize damage to the climate; if we wait, we maximize it. The damage is here, and it’s not only destroying nature, it’s killing us.
To be a climate activist anywhere on Earth now is to stand at a crossroads: heaven on one side and hell on the other. Heaven because the transition we need to make and are making – just not big enough or fast enough – is not only an power-generation revolution, but a decentralization of political power, a shift away from the big energy companies who used governments to make wars and make profits for them, a shift away from the poisonousness of fossil fuel
Right now the US is the country of Donald Trump and of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of climate destroyers and climate protectors. Sometimes the Truths and the Carsons have won. I believe it is more than possible for Ocasio-Cortez and the Green New Deal to win, for the spirit of generosity and inclusion and the protection of nature to win – but that depends on what we do now. Which is why I’m so grateful that you have arrived to galvanize us with your clarity of vision and passionate commitment.
The old energy system was about centralized control and the malevolent power of Gazprom and BP, Shell and Chevron, and the governments warped into serving them rather than humanity. The new system must not only be about localized energy, but democratized decision-making, about the rights of nature and the rights of the vulnerable and the future, over profit.
Worldwide, we are in the midst of an energy revolution that dwarfs the industrial revolution: human beings will for the first time not use fire, will not release carbon into the sky, to get most of our energy. We will inevitably transition away from fossil fuels as a primary energy source, and the question is only when. If we do it swiftly, we minimize damage to the climate; if we wait, we maximize it. The damage is here, and it’s not only destroying nature, it’s killing us.
To be a climate activist anywhere on Earth now is to stand at a crossroads: heaven on one side and hell on the other. Heaven because the transition we need to make and are making – just not big enough or fast enough – is not only an power-generation revolution, but a decentralization of political power, a shift away from the big energy companies who used governments to make wars and make profits for them, a shift away from the poisonousness of fossil fuel
Amazon fires show world heading for point of no return, says UN
Amazon fires show world heading for point of no return, says UN
This year, the world’s leading scientists warned that human civilisation was in jeopardy because forest clearance, land-use shifts, pollution and climate change had put a million species at risk of extinction.
“The Amazon fires make the point that we face a very serious crisis,” she told the Guardian. “But it is not just the Amazon. We’re also concerned with what’s happening in other forests and ecosystems, and with the broader and rapid degradation of nature. The risk is we are moving towards the tipping points that scientists talk about that could produce cascading collapses of natural systems.”
The UN official said the G7 fund was valuable but money was not enough. “We need to address the root causes,” she said. “Even if the amount involved in extinguishing fires in rainforests was a billion or 500 million dollars, we won’t see an improvement unless more profound structural changes are taking place. We need a transformation in the way we consume and produce.
“This is not just about biodiversity conservation, it’s about finance and trade and changing the model of development. We need to put biodiversity and natural capital at the centre of the economic paradigm.”
Amazon fires show world heading for point of no return, says UN
This year, the world’s leading scientists warned that human civilisation was in jeopardy because forest clearance, land-use shifts, pollution and climate change had put a million species at risk of extinction.
“The Amazon fires make the point that we face a very serious crisis,” she told the Guardian. “But it is not just the Amazon. We’re also concerned with what’s happening in other forests and ecosystems, and with the broader and rapid degradation of nature. The risk is we are moving towards the tipping points that scientists talk about that could produce cascading collapses of natural systems.”
The UN official said the G7 fund was valuable but money was not enough. “We need to address the root causes,” she said. “Even if the amount involved in extinguishing fires in rainforests was a billion or 500 million dollars, we won’t see an improvement unless more profound structural changes are taking place. We need a transformation in the way we consume and produce.
“This is not just about biodiversity conservation, it’s about finance and trade and changing the model of development. We need to put biodiversity and natural capital at the centre of the economic paradigm.”
The neoliberal attack on Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal is a clear and present danger – Alternet.org
While the neoliberals are posing as prudent, the nature of their attacks on the GND shows they are anything but. Exhibit A has to be the Washington Post‘s anti-GND screed/editorial published on Aug. 25. It violates nearly every tenet of good journalism. For starters, it is really more of an ad hominem attack on progressivism in general and Sanders in particular than it is a reasoned challenge to the GND. But then it goes on to make so many false statements it risks becoming a parody.
What’s going on here isn’t about prudence. It’s about the status quo keepers of the corporate flame—and the Democrats and Republicans who have been representing them—trying to hold onto a system that is literally killing us, even as it exploits us.
But why, you might ask, do we have to resort to such radical action? Why not a more measured response—a more “realistic” or “prudent” one?
The reason is because “realists,” “pragmatists,” and the “prudent” have been adding and abetting climate deniers with appeals to slow walk the implementation of solutions for decades now. And with each delay, the cost has gone up… and this is our last chance. Very soon, no amount of money will save us.
Now, even the staid and conservative IPCC says we are on the brink of a global ecological disaster and only radical, immediate action taken at an unprecedented scale can avert it.
While the neoliberals are posing as prudent, the nature of their attacks on the GND shows they are anything but. Exhibit A has to be the Washington Post‘s anti-GND screed/editorial published on Aug. 25. It violates nearly every tenet of good journalism. For starters, it is really more of an ad hominem attack on progressivism in general and Sanders in particular than it is a reasoned challenge to the GND. But then it goes on to make so many false statements it risks becoming a parody.
What’s going on here isn’t about prudence. It’s about the status quo keepers of the corporate flame—and the Democrats and Republicans who have been representing them—trying to hold onto a system that is literally killing us, even as it exploits us.
But why, you might ask, do we have to resort to such radical action? Why not a more measured response—a more “realistic” or “prudent” one?
The reason is because “realists,” “pragmatists,” and the “prudent” have been adding and abetting climate deniers with appeals to slow walk the implementation of solutions for decades now. And with each delay, the cost has gone up… and this is our last chance. Very soon, no amount of money will save us.
Now, even the staid and conservative IPCC says we are on the brink of a global ecological disaster and only radical, immediate action taken at an unprecedented scale can avert it.
Economist debunks all the right-wing talking points about the Green New Deal
Just as the 1930s constituted the New Deal Era, the 2020s may very well end up being the Green New Deal Era. Problem is, many Americans have a lot of trouble believing a large-scale public works project comparable to the original is possible — perhaps due to decades of negative right-wing rhetoric that has painted government public works projects as impossible or “socialism.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), for instance, derided the Green New Deal as “a publicity stunt designed to pander to a progressive base seeking to repackage socialism that will do nothing to address the actual problems Americans face every day.”
Yeah, I would make the argument that thinking about the just transition aspects of the Green New Deal needs to be forefront. We have to center workers in something like this. So coal mining needs to go away, right? But good paying union jobs don’t need to go away. So I think that if you’re displaced as a function of making a rapid transition to a renewable energy economy, part of that package or that Green New Deal needs to provide a jobs guarantee for folks who are displaced against no fault of their own in a sort of organized labor sector with the basic benefits package and have like a sort of retraining program, a pathway to provide those workers high paying jobs in the clean energy–type sector.
So if a Green New Deal isn’t [passed], what would the consequences be both ecologically and economically?
If it is not passed? To put it bluntly, I think that we’re staring down a “Mad Max” situation here.
Just as the 1930s constituted the New Deal Era, the 2020s may very well end up being the Green New Deal Era. Problem is, many Americans have a lot of trouble believing a large-scale public works project comparable to the original is possible — perhaps due to decades of negative right-wing rhetoric that has painted government public works projects as impossible or “socialism.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), for instance, derided the Green New Deal as “a publicity stunt designed to pander to a progressive base seeking to repackage socialism that will do nothing to address the actual problems Americans face every day.”
Yeah, I would make the argument that thinking about the just transition aspects of the Green New Deal needs to be forefront. We have to center workers in something like this. So coal mining needs to go away, right? But good paying union jobs don’t need to go away. So I think that if you’re displaced as a function of making a rapid transition to a renewable energy economy, part of that package or that Green New Deal needs to provide a jobs guarantee for folks who are displaced against no fault of their own in a sort of organized labor sector with the basic benefits package and have like a sort of retraining program, a pathway to provide those workers high paying jobs in the clean energy–type sector.
So if a Green New Deal isn’t [passed], what would the consequences be both ecologically and economically?
If it is not passed? To put it bluntly, I think that we’re staring down a “Mad Max” situation here.
John Kerry says we can't leave climate emergency to 'neanderthals' in power
John Kerry says we can't leave climate emergency to 'neanderthals' in power
The former US secretary of state John Kerry has warned that humanity risks marching off a cliff unless governments take immediate action to fight the climate emergency.
“They are not separate. And anybody who persists in putting forward that notion that you have to make the choice – you can either have jobs plus prosperity or you can protect the environment and the future. That’s a lie.
“We’ve got a whole bunch of people running around trying to save the status quo – when the status quo is actually feeding a lot of jobs that don’t make sense.”
He said the transition to carbon emission-neutral economies would create better jobs and noted that the fastest growing employment opportunities in the US were for solar power and wind power turbine technicians.
John Kerry says we can't leave climate emergency to 'neanderthals' in power
The former US secretary of state John Kerry has warned that humanity risks marching off a cliff unless governments take immediate action to fight the climate emergency.
“They are not separate. And anybody who persists in putting forward that notion that you have to make the choice – you can either have jobs plus prosperity or you can protect the environment and the future. That’s a lie.
“We’ve got a whole bunch of people running around trying to save the status quo – when the status quo is actually feeding a lot of jobs that don’t make sense.”
He said the transition to carbon emission-neutral economies would create better jobs and noted that the fastest growing employment opportunities in the US were for solar power and wind power turbine technicians.
- Status
Similar threads
