What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Eddie Teach]

Canada's fate may not be entirely in its own hands, but it can still draw up targets to say "look, we've done our part."

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah, that.  Someone has to go first.  If you wait until it's your country that tips emissions over to safe, you end up with no one doing anything.

[alfred russel]

Yeah, that.  Someone has to go first.  If you wait until it's your country that tips emissions over to safe, you end up with no one doing anything.

I disagree on a few fronts.

First, most focus is on reduction of use, rather than reduction of production. Part of that is practical--no one is under any illusions that they will convince Saudi Arabia or Russia to stop drilling for oil. But so long as fossil fuels will be produced, they will be used. And they will be produced so long as buyers are present--if the economics make fossil fuels cheaper than cleaner energy, someone will buy them--if no one else the developing world is not in much position to say "no". Canada not buying fossil fuels will have an impact at the margins--less demand will lower price, which will lower production somewhat--but in the long run those massive oil reserves in the middle east and elsewhere still get used up. A handful of countries unilaterally giving up fossil fuels (in whole or part) actually makes it harder for others to do the same in an economic sense, as it makes their fossil fuels cheaper.

Second, there is no consensus of what "safe" emissions are. Canada in particular is in a difficult spot to serve as an example because it is a developed country in a very cold climate with a dispersed population. All of these make its per capita energy consumption very high versus other countries. Wikipedia says on a per capita basis their emissions are worse than every other country in Europe and North America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Their per capita in C02 tons / year is 16.9 versus a global average of 4.9 (the US is at 15.7 for reference). If Canada cuts emissions by 75%, they are still just around the global average, which is unsustainable. They still couldn't credibly tell the globe they "did their part."

In summary, I don't have a solution for the problem, but I see little hope outside of improved environmental technology (where I do have a lot of hope). For example, I think solar is on the brink of a major breakthrough - the economics have actually begun to shift where using solar is actually more economical.

[Admiral Yi]

First, I'm not sure what you mean by focus on use not production.  A carbon tax, which is what I think Canada is going with (hurray) is a wedge between producers and users.  It doesn't fall on just one or the other.

Second, though I don't have it at my fingertips, I'm pretty sure there is a consensus about the level of global emissions needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Your last part is about each country's fair share of the burden.  You seem to assume Canada is only doing its fair share if it achieves per capita emissions of Bangladesh.  Only freaky off grid hippy greens think that way.  Everyone else thinks in terms of reductions from current levels.

And that's why I think a carbon tax is such a beautiful solution.  It avoids all the debate about poor country vs rich, tropical vs temperate, dense vs sparsely populated, etc.  The only thing that matters is the carbon being emitted, and taxing it should, through the substitution effect, decrease emissions.

[alfred russel]

First, I'm not sure what you mean by focus on use not production.  A carbon tax, which is what I think Canada is going with (hurray) is a wedge between producers and users.  It doesn't fall on just one or the other.

Second, though I don't have it at my fingertips, I'm pretty sure there is a consensus about the level of global emissions needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Your last part is about each country's fair share of the burden.  You seem to assume Canada is only doing its fair share if it achieves per capita emissions of Bangladesh.  Only freaky off grid hippy greens think that way.  Everyone else thinks in terms of reductions from current levels.

And that's why I think a carbon tax is such a beautiful solution.  It avoids all the debate about poor country vs rich, tropical vs temperate, dense vs sparsely populated, etc.  The only thing that matters is the carbon being emitted, and taxing it should, through the substitution effect, decrease emissions.

A global carbon tax does that; a local carbon tax does not. There is a global market for fossil fuels, and increasing their cost in Canada - to the extent it has an impact on the global price at all - lowers them elsewhere.

I don't agree on the "reductions from current levels" that everyone is thinking about. For example, 1990 is the base year that was set in the Kyoto Protocols, and some former eastern bloc countries can tell you of the progress they have made against that base year. 

Also, the French, with about a third of the per capita use of Canada, may object to a standard that penalizes them as they move away from nuclear power and normalize with the rest of the developed world.

Finally, while we all hail from developed countries on this forum, there is an obvious link between energy use and economic activity. I don't think that India, with 1/9th of the per capita use of Canada, is going to accept that Canada has done its part while still at a multiple of its own level.

[alfred russel]

For a very apt comparison (in my opinion at least). My girlfriend is very environmentally conscious. She recently started carrying around metal straws so she doesn't use plastic ones, is talking about starting to carry other silverware, and wants us to get worms to compost in our apartment. I'm cool with all of that. I told her that I'll use a metal straw and carry it around if she gets one for me.

I also take out the trash, and today took out two large trash bags. It is great to use one less straw every day or so, but the volume of trash we generate is obscene and I don't see a practical way to make it stop.

[Grey Fox]

What's in your trash? Reducing isn't easy but it's not hard either. You just need to make better choices at the store.

[jimmy olsen]

Do you think the current situation is exactly the same as 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012?

Yes and no.
2000 was pretty bad.  You had 5 Supreme Court justices intervene in a state process for choosing that state's electors, a process that the Constitution confers exclusively on the state governments, to effectively dictate the result of the election and confer the presidency on a candidate of the party of the President that originally appointed them.  They did so in an opinion that took the extraordinary, unprecedented and legally incoherent step of declaring that although it purportedly relied on a general constitutional principle, it should be deemed as non-precedential.

OTOH when it happened, Al Gore complained for a bit, considered some options, then conceded,
If something like that happened to Trump, he would call out the military, National Guard, the bikers, and the "very fine people" and we'd have ourselves something between a Kapp Putsch and a Second American Civil War.

It's mind-blowing to think about just how incredibly unlucky the left (and I would argue the US as a whole) has been ever since the turn of the century.  The right needed a couple of inside straights in a row to hit, and they got them all.  The 2000 and 2016 were both extremely consequential and hinged on a fluke set of events that were not free of controversy.  The course of history would've probably gone in a very different direction had GOP not gotten either of those gifts.

A lot of things in politics have come down to luck, good or bad.  What if the burglers breaking into the Democratic National Headquarters in 1972 hadn't bee caught?  If was just back luck form their POV that it happened.  Without that, there's no Watergate Scandal, and Nixon serves out his 2nd term.  The 1976 election would have been completely different.  Even if the Democrats had won the Presidency, someone other than Jimmy Carter might well have been their nominee.

Nixon might have gotten his health care bill passed which would have totally changed the social and political course of this country's history.

[Berkut]

You need the occasional smaller war to demonstrate the effectiveness of the new models and the obsolescence of the old.

The USN has gone from diesel powered subs at the end of WW2 to nuclear SSBNs and attack subs of breathtaking complexity, cost, and capability without, so far as I am aware, ever firing one single shot in anger.

Hmm . . . the Virginia class was notable for being far cheaper than its predecessor and is planned to be a 40 year program.  I think the sub builders might view the matter differently.

....and there was no need for a war, small or otherwise, to prove that we needed it. Which was my point - not that the sub program is bad.

[Admiral Yi]

A global carbon tax does that; a local carbon tax does not. There is a global market for fossil fuels, and increasing their cost in Canada - to the extent it has an impact on the global price at all - lowers them elsewhere.

I don't agree on the "reductions from current levels" that everyone is thinking about. For example, 1990 is the base year that was set in the Kyoto Protocols, and some former eastern bloc countries can tell you of the progress they have made against that base year. 

Also, the French, with about a third of the per capita use of Canada, may object to a standard that penalizes them as they move away from nuclear power and normalize with the rest of the developed world.

Finally, while we all hail from developed countries on this forum, there is an obvious link between energy use and economic activity. I don't think that India, with 1/9th of the per capita use of Canada, is going to accept that Canada has done its part while still at a multiple of its own level.

Free riders will benefit in monetary terms.  That's already baked into the discussion.

[Admiral Yi]

For a very apt comparison (in my opinion at least). My girlfriend is very environmentally conscious. She recently started carrying around metal straws so she doesn't use plastic ones, is talking about starting to carry other silverware, and wants us to get worms to compost in our apartment. I'm cool with all of that. I told her that I'll use a metal straw and carry it around if she gets one for me.

I also take out the trash, and today took out two large trash bags. It is great to use one less straw every day or so, but the volume of trash we generate is obscene and I don't see a practical way to make it stop.

That's an awful comparison.  The straw is not Canada.  You are Canada.

I'll bet if you imposed a $50/pound garbage fee on yourself you'd find a way to cut down in a jiffy.

[viper37]

and we'd have ourselves something between a Kapp Putsch and a Second American Civil War.

War is good for business
Rule of acquisition #34

But I share your assessment.  He wins and things will be bad.  He loses and things will be bad.

That might be one of the stupidest sayings that is commonly repeated as if it was really wise and knowing.

War is terrible for business. It is stupidly risky most of the time, and I would be willing to bet that throughout history, war has been consistently bad for businesses overall.

Businesses like stability and predictability while being able to manage risk. War mostly involves a shitload of risk, from being bombed or your parent country being destroyed, to your workers being sent off, to public backlash against spending.

Making and selling munitions is often good business, but actually USING them mostly sucks in the overall scheme of things.

The military industrial complex is great business. Actually going to war? Not so much.

we've had an article about it, "In the long run, wars makes us safer and stronger", or something like that.

There are usually losers, it's undeniable.  That silly "rule" is not meant as an universal truism, simply that businesses can thrive during war, for some people.  If we remain in the realm of Ferengi rules, #35 states "Peace is good for business".

See, a recession has a lot of negatives.  But there are some people who will profit immensely from a recession.

Business likes stability and predictability, but that has never prevented anyone from clamouring for war in the past, in the hope of profiteering from the venture.  New lands, slaves, resources, riches, etc.  They are always great motivations to be found for a war.  Certainly a lot of people thought the Iraq war of 2003 would land them very profitable business ventures.  And I'm betting some of these business made a lot more money than they lost over there.

[viper37]

"War is good for business" is often used as an illustration of the broken window fallacy in action.

that.  at least someone understood.

[Admiral Yi]

Japan did very well out of the Korean War, to give just one example.  I believe a number of Asian countries profited from Vietnam.

[grumbler]

I was under the impression that a lot of the propulsion, hull and sensor development done for Seawolf could be re-used in Virginia. Can you say anything about that grumbler? Am I only imagining things?

Propulsion was very much influenced by Seawolf developments.  Hull used material development for Seawolf but not structural improvements.  The sensors were not nearly so cutting-edge, because cutting-edge sensors were a big driver in cost, and a more modest sensor suite was nearly as good for a lot less money.