Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumHow "It's TOOOO EXPENSIVE!!!" Remains The Political Default Even As Climate Breakdown Accelerates
EDIT
It was a pivotal moment: Seven months before, during an unusually hot summer, James Hansen, then director of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies, had warned Congress that the signs of global warming were already upon us, making the issue front-page news across the country. By the end of the year, politicians had introduced 32 climate bills in Congress, and the United Nations had established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists and policymakers intended to put global climate policy in motion. In light of these developments, LeVine advised Exxon to temper the publics growing concern for the planet with rational responses not only arguing that the science wasnt settled, but also emphasizing the costs and political realities of addressing rising emissions. In other words, the main problem wasnt fossil fuel emissions, but that doing anything about them would cost too much.
This sentiment was echoed by John Sununu, then-President George H. W. Bushs chief of staff, who worked to stop the creation of a global treaty to reduce carbon emissions soon after Hansens testimony. Sununu started a feud with the EPA administrator at the time, William K. Reilly, because he thought legislation to take on global warming would hinder economic growth. When Hansen was preparing to give Congress an update on the greenhouse effect in 1989, he was surprised by some strange edits on his draft testimony from the White Houses Office of Management and Budget, run by an ally of Sununu. They wanted Hansen to say his own science was unreliable and to encourage Congress to pass legislation only if it would immediately help the economy, independent of concerns about an increasing greenhouse effect.
EDIT
The costs [of climate policy] would be high, Montgomery told USA Today in 1992. Economic benefits are uncertain, distant, and potentially small. The 30-year-old strategy is still going strong. When former President Donald Trump announced that he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement in 2017, he repeatedly cited industry-funded estimates of its cost, dropping peculiarly specific numbers: 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, $3 trillion in lost GDP, households would have $7,000 less income. These statistics, Stanfords Franta said, were from some of the same industry-funded economists that had been quoted in newspapers in the 1990s.
In February, the leaders of several organizations working to undermine climate action the Heartland Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and JunkScience.com held a press conference to discuss Bidens harmful climate agenda ahead of his State of the Union address. Overwhelmingly, Americans do not want to pay for the cost of climate action, especially when such actions will hold negative consequences for the economy and America as a whole, a media advisory describing the event said. (Grists requests to attend the event nver received a response.) We see a rinse-and-repeat pattern with climate legislation, Franta said. Its often the same players, its often the same talking points. You know, This is too expensive. Its not going to work. Whenever the federal government was considering taking action from when the Clinton administration proposed a carbon price in 1993 to when Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman introduced a bipartisan national cap-and-trade program in Congress in 2003 the industry trotted out economists models that conveniently ignored the economic upsides of the policy.
EDIT
https://grist.org/economics/climate-legislation-costs-economics-oil-industry/
Magoo48
(4,720 posts)But, the great majority of us will tuck in under the Too Expensive excuse so we dont have to face the inconvenience and sacrifice required to meaningfully address Climate Catastrophe.
Why are trillions and trillions for the war department over the last two decades not too expensive?
Too Expensiveone of the great copouts of our time which may very well lead to the extinction of our kind as well as most other life.
2naSalit
(86,769 posts)And who gets to have them.
Not much else matters to those who already have them.
multigraincracker
(32,714 posts)Got to keep that CEO compensation up and up and up.
NNadir
(33,541 posts)..."too expensive," despite the fact that the planet spent over 3.2 trillion dollars on solar and wind energy between 2004 and 2019 for no result.
We're above 420 ppm concentrations of CO2 in the planetary atmosphere this week, less than 10 years after we first hit 400 ppm in 2013.
Solar and wind are "too expensive" because they don't work, are not sustainable, and depend on massive mining. Although they are called "renewable energy" they're not even renewable.
Around here, nuclear energy is "too expensive," because our bourgeois colleagues are completely uninterested in investing in anything that will be of use to future generations. It's fine for us if we dig coal and iron ore to build wind turbines that will be trash in 20 years, because most of the people cheering for this stuff will also be dead in 20 years. Fuck our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren, right?
In general, Grist is pretty clueless on environmental issues. Anyone serious about these issues might begin by looking in the mirror.