« Meanwhile in the Wider World -- Open Thread | Main | Whither the Economy -- a long overdue Open Thread »

August 25, 2019

Comments

Ok, maybe I'm missing something: we are all going to agree to this, voluntarily? And, if we *are* going to agree, what, specifically are we agreeing to? I'd like some specifics.

my own position is that we need something to replace fossil fuels, ASAP. and by replace i mean replace. as in, does everything we need, energy-wise, but without the greenhouse gasses.
it has to be something that eliminates the need to use fossil fuels. and the govt should put everything it has into finding that something, starting now.

it can't be fixed by law, in the US or anywhere. people will just break the law, without an alternative energy source. so, "authoritarian" isn't even a consideration.

McTX: What if the "deciders" screw it up and we find ourselves inextricably committed to a path that can't be reversed ...

In theory, that's why we have an elected government. Not work out how to act without screwing it up for everyone. Unfortunately the model doesn't work when a substantial portion of the Congress (not to mention the electorate) has been convinced that reality isn't real. And therefore opted out of contributing to a solution. It leaves the design of a solution in fewer hands, with less diverse views.

The White House is considering a controversial proposal to study whether mass shootings could be prevented by monitoring mentally ill people for small changes that might foretell violence.

Maybe think about not letting them buy firearms. Then nobody has to follow them around.

Also, I'm not sure what the Obamas buying a house has to do with anything. Maybe Obama thinks GCC is a total pile of bull. Maybe he's a big social justice hypocrite. Maybe he's an idiot. Maybe he just likes Martha's Vineyard.

People buy houses in places they want to live. If people have a lot of money, they often will buy expensive houses, and spend lots of money on them. They quite often don't make their decisions based on future value or living conditions 100 years hence.

None of that has any bearing whatsoever on the issue of climate change.

FWIW cleek's numbers are consistent with this.

Also FWIW, I can walk to water in any of three directions from where I live. It's not "waterfront", it's just near the water. I'm a coastal elitist, we cluster near coasts. I live about 30' above mean high tide, it'll be centuries before where I live is underwater. Nonetheless, a couple of feet of sea level rise would FUBAR my daily life considerably.

Nobody actually knows exactly what is going to happen 50 or 100 years from now. We make best guesses, based on best available information. What sensible people do when faced with uncertainty is to make a realistic assessment of risk, a realistic assessment of possible danger, and then act accordingly.

Ever see one of these? You can whip one up on the back of an envelope. They make Excel templates for them.

Basically, when the potential damage for a scenario is catastrophic, even low percentage likelihoods deserve attention and action. We're well into catastrophic potential damage, and well beyond low percentage likelihoods.

This is all very obvious stuff.

it's going to take a truly, fundamentally, all-encompassing, systemic change in order to save us.

I'm picking back up with Cleek's statement upthread, which is a fair representation of the level of required change which I see discussed from time-to-time. The specifics, however, are pretty scant. Occassionally, you'll see a reference to eliminating single family homes. Or limiting the size of cars.

Does anyone have a reasonably clear picture of what the post-GCC life style will be? What sacrifices are we expected to make in exchange for what benefits?

If you plan to sell this democratically, you'll need to be upfront with people and be clear as to why the sacrifice is needed.

So far, I hear the sound and fury, but when I look at what the greenest of the Elites are up to, I see 'for thee but not for me', and that's going to be a tough sell.

Ok, maybe I'm missing something: we are all going to agree to this, voluntarily?

If, like taxes, we all agree to "it" "voluntarily", why would you ask?

Did we all stop on Dec. 8, 1941, and say, "Hold on just a minute here, pard. I WANT SPECIFICS!"

Didn't think so.

Did we all stop on Dec. 8, 1941, and say, "Hold on just a minute here, pard. I WANT SPECIFICS!"

Didn't think so.

Possibly not the best example, given the objectivity of sunken ships and nearly 3K dead. Moreover, with WWII, there was an end in sight.

We are told over and over again that GCC is real, it's imminent and it could be really awful and if we don't act now, it will be too late. Ok, I'm open to that, but I'm not buying a pig in a poke:
Tell me, with reasonable specificity, how my life and my family's life is going to change? What real life accommodations are we going to have to make?

If the proponents of radical change aren't going to tell me what that radical change means, they have no business complaining because people won't vote to give them the authority they will need to effect that radical change.

If the proponents of radical change aren't going to tell me what that radical change means, they have no business complaining because people won't vote to give them the authority they will need to effect that radical change.

I’m not sure who this means, but people running for office have proposals with varying degrees of detail. You probably wouldn’t vote for any of them because they’re part of “the Left.” Or maybe you’re talking about legislation that would authorize the current resident of the White House to do something. That would be weird.

Addressing Globel Climate Change
Step 1: Build wall on border with Mexico. Because you just know it's all those illegal immigrants that are causing it.

Then
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/09/trump-contradicts-cbp-head-bahamian-refugees-argues-they-might-have-been-infiltrated-by-very-bad-people/

Riiiight. You're a "very bad person", maybe even a terrorist. And you want to get into the United States. So your clever plan is to go to the Bahamas, try to survive a hurricane, and then get in as a refugee. Of course.

Because that's ever so much easier than just flying into Canada and hiking across the border. Or, better yet, just buying some fake papers which will get you in as just another tourist.

Or maybe you just love hurricanes...

I’m not sure who this means, but people running for office have proposals with varying degrees of detail. You probably wouldn’t vote for any of them because they’re part of “the Left.” Or maybe you’re talking about legislation that would authorize the current resident of the White House to do something. That would be weird.

I think it's pretty clear. Most of the commentariat here is adamant that GCC is the penultimate issue we face and that the threat is existential. It is further the case, as Cleek says, that adherents of this view believe "it's going to take a truly, fundamentally, all-encompassing, systemic change in order to save us."

These are lifestyle changes--size of home, location of home, possibly family size, food that we eat, whatever.

I'm asking what specific sacrifices those of us who are not GCC cognoscenti are agreeing to make before we go all-in on whatever it is we are told we must do to prevent world wide disaster.

I've asked this now a couple of times. I'm sensing resistance/evasion, which is troubling. Sounds like we are being stampeded into something we'd never knowingly agree to. Which is not persuasive and, if the threat really is what everyone here says it is, then we all need to know.

It's almost as if the GCC proponents won't tell everyone what is coming because, if we knew, we'd take our chances on doing relatively nothing.

In a democracy, before we agree to something, we need to know what it is. If policy proponents won't say, then they are the ones at fault that their policy preferences failed. Either you can be open and honest, or you can expect rejection for the very reason that, when asked, you declined to answer.

Most of the commentariat here is adamant that GCC is the penultimate issue we face and that the threat is existential.

If we believe that GCC is the penultimate issue we face, which issue do we believe is the ultimate one?

If we believe that GCC is the penultimate issue we face, which issue do we believe is the ultimate one?

Some combination of Trump is the worst ever in the history of the world, abortion a/k/a reproductive freedom a/k/a women's health and income/wealth inequality. And common sense gun control.

But I'd really like to hear from the regulars here in response to what seems like a pretty fair question: what are we giving up to save ourselves?

I've asked this now a couple of times. I'm sensing resistance/evasion, which is troubling. Sounds like we are being stampeded into something we'd never knowingly agree to.

Not at all.
It means completely replacing fossil fuels within three decades. For all energy usage.

Something along these lines, which I’ve posted before:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148119302319

As far as the US is concerned, most of the Democratic candidates for President are publishing plans, and saying what they are likely to cost, so you are either uninformed or disingenuous in claiming evasion.

It means completely replacing fossil fuels within three decades. For all energy usage.

That means a lot of nuclear plants as wind and solar just won't scale to 100% without severe reductions in quality of life.


As far as the US is concerned, most of the Democratic candidates for President are publishing plans, and saying what they are likely to cost, ...

"The Democratic contenders have laid out plans costing anywhere from about $1 trillion (Pete Buttigieg) to $16 trillion (Bernie Sanders) in direct federal spending on climate change over the next decade. About half of the candidates have endorsed the Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.), which could cost as much as $90 trillion to implement. As important as any specific policy or position outlined last night were the general attitudes that were widely shared by the participants.

A number likened fighting climate change to the effort to win World War II, a metaphor that perhaps says more about their comfort with regimenting society than the speakers intended. During World War II, all industrial production was overseen by the federal government, food and fuel were rationed, and civil liberties were sharply curtailed in the interest of defeating the Axis powers."
4 Memorable Moments From CNN's Climate Town Hall: From Joe Biden's call for high-speed rail to Kamala Harris' call for banning plastic straws, the Democratic presidential candidates pushed a hard-green agenda.

what are we giving up to save ourselves?

I'm shopping for a new car. (The old one being a 2001, and pretty much at the end of its design life.) So I'm looking at an electric, even though they are more expensive. Mostly, it will get recharged at home -- using power from the solar panels I put up 15 odd years ago. The rest of the time, it will get charged from the grid . . . which in this part of the country is mostly hydro power.

Just for one small example.

I was just playing with the actual, literal meanings of penultimate and ultimate.

As I understand it (but others here will give better, more informed and substantive answers regarding actual public policies etc if they can be bothered), we would be giving up: most of the meat we eat and replacing it with grains, legumes and vegetables which will be used to feed us more efficiently than they feed animals (and with a cocommitant reduction in methane emissions by no longer raising ruminant animals in such quantity); fossil-fuel guzzling technology like air conditioning except in life-threateningly hot environments (from which we will probably have to move) and cars, unless a way can be found to run them non pollutingly; much of the air travel we currently take for granted; uninsulated home environments; our current acceptance of completely unnecessary packaging and general wastage of resources. To name but a few. But your point, presumably, is how is this to be effected, and if forced on us by a (tyrannical) government, are we pinkoes prepared to put up with it? Because various respectably sourced plans for what we have to give up are pretty easily available (see Nigel's 06.29 above for just one example), so you must have some other motive for asking this question.....

McTX: ... what are we giving up to save ourselves?

Shades of Jack Benny, ovah hea, is what JDT would say.

For the uneducated: Jack Benny played a skinflint on radio and early TV. In one of his famous radio skits, a mugger confronts him:
"Your money or your life," says the crook.
Five seconds of silence.
"Well??" the crook demands.
Benny, annoyed: "I'm thinking, I'm thinking."

If you believe your house is on fire, you don't worry about the inconvenience of getting your furniture wet. If you don't believe it, you will very naturally resent even so slight an inconvenience as having to answer the door when the firemen knock.

Not knowing McKinney's personal or family "specifics", it's hard to know how to answer his demand for detailed answers as to how his particular life(style) may change either with or without real action on greenhouse gasses. As others have said, there are published plans for action out there, which McKinney is free to evaluate for their impact on his own preferences.

What I can't really picture McKinney doing is telling his grandkids: "Hey, its your end of the lifeboat that's sinking. Why should I start bailing?"

--TP

I'm still working on my legislation. My damned staff is so slow!

CharlesWT's scary fiscal prediction: About half of the candidates have endorsed the Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.), which could cost as much as $90 trillion to implement.

Cost who? Paid to whom? That's an important component, since the "price" isn't going to be paid solely by me (for example), maybe partially. But I might get a job out of it.

fossil-fuel guzzling technology like air conditioning except in life-threateningly hot environments (from which we will probably have to move)

This is on my list of pain, because I live in the American south, and it's hard to live here without air conditioning. But what are the chances that if research and development incentivizes designing more efficient air conditioners, we can do it? This is where the myth of American exceptionalism could come in handy - we can do this if we make a concerted effort. Same with a lot of technology - there are a lot of plastic alternatives out there, but they're not as cheap, so the "market" isn't going to make it happen by itself.

Many people are creating very impact-light lifestyles, hoping that it will make a difference. It's hard to have the willpower to do it when for every plastic utensil you avoid, you know that someone is using ten and throwing away 50. That's why it has to be regulated. We could actually be in this together.

McKinney seems to be conflating 10-11 years to avoid going over the +2C mark with 10-11 years until the high water mark. They are not the same things and would not necessarily prompt the same sort of purchasing decisions.

Broadly speaking, there are two approaches to reducing CO2 emissions in a country.

1) Regulatory. Use regulatory powers to change energy usage. This is the European (and perhaps the Californian) way. For example, the UK plans to ban fossil-fuel burning cars by 2040. Other countries have more ambitious timetables.

2) Economic. There's cap and trade, which I suppose might work if we took it seriously. Or tax on fossil fuels, which could work if applied widely and in sufficient size.

To address McKT's question: in the regulatory approach, it will affect whatever the regulations target. In the economic approach, it will restrict fossil fuel consumption to the areas where it has the most economic value.

Either way, he'll be using an electric car rather than a petrol car, which means no more quick fill-ups. But also cleaner air and less traffic noise. And he'll be paying more for electricity and transport.

But things are not all that bleak. LED light bulbs are now better in almost every way than filament light bulbs. When regulatory or price pressures encourage it, technology will often be there for us.

When regulatory or price pressures encourage it, technology will often be there for us.

Yep. What's holding us back (largely) is the fossil fuel industry that has always (for a century and a half, anyway) held enormous political power. We may have to make some sacrifices, but if we support clean technology and lose fossil fuels, we won't have to become ascetics.

$90 trillion spread over 30 years is $3 trillion a year. We spend nearly half that amount each year on the military. Our economy is a $21 trillion/year machine.

The proposed costs are not insurmountable.

But McKinney wants some kind of detail, and I shall throw out something for him to consider. But in return, I expect the next time he trots his ass in here to promote tax cuts for the wealthy that he bring CONCRETE AND SPECIFIC DETAILS.

So, here goes:

McKinney and his wealth cohort-drop in standard of living by 20%
The Waltons, Gates, and their cohort - drop in their standard of living by 85% They can afford it.
Sliding scale for us lower orders.

What GFNC said.

Is this politically possible? Not likely. But to my way of thinking, it is simply imperative that we do so. Remember that "voice in the wilderness" that conservatives are so fond of reminding us of? Well?

As for the fears of a command economy....well, it worked. We won.

But you want to surrender before the fight even begins.

It is frankly incredible to me that the climate change scoffers continue in their blissful ignorance of the seriousness of this issue.

What is holding us back?
1. The diffuse nature of a relatively long roll out of this disaster.
2. The collective action problem-this is a world wide issue.
3. Vested interests resisting the inevitable haircut.
4. Political will.

We have choices, but the options will continue to narrow as time passes.

Maybe we should be pressing for specifics on what lifestyle change will be forced on us by AGW if we do nothing about it (or worse yet, take the Trumpian approach and actively make it more severe).

I would say most of the liberal-atti here are enamoured with technological changes, the promise of electric cars (but how will they be manufactured?), nuclear power, a bit of a nip and a tuck there....but no REAL PAIN.

This is entirely understandable.

But it is a recipe for disaster. The prime directive in the 3rd world is to attain a 1st world standard of living. They will burn the carbon it takes until they get there.

We have to pay to get them there faster and more efficiently. And pay them a lot.

(Either that, or we just stand by and let them bake or drown. "Exterminate the brutes". Well, there ya' go.)

Then, maybe, we find a collective world wide solution.

I'm still working on my legislation. My damned staff is so slow!

First you work out all the nitty gritty details to make McKinney less sads.

The grand policies flowing from these details will inevitably follow.

Then the final penultimate holistic vision where all is revealed.

But only if you are good.

Isn't that how they rolled out supply side economics?

Drive less. Fly less. Take public transportation. Drive a car that gets better mileage. Eat less beef. Don't turn the AC on until it gets really hot. When you do turn it on, cool the house to 75, not 68. Plant a shitload of trees and/or sponsor people who do.

Those are the things you can do, personally. If you are a farmer, or are in a position to make decisions about public transportation modalities or land use or power generation, there are other things you could also do. But I don't think you are, so I'll skip them.

Those things won't get the whole thing done, so in addition to the above, significant public effort is needed. Those may have some impact on you, personally, or they may not.

It's not actually that mysterious, we just keep finding reasons not to do it.

From CharlesWT's quote: ... Kamala Harris' call for banning plastic straws ...

While recognizing that Libertarians would shout "Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!!" at almost anything, I suppose we might ask whether banning plastic straws would accomplish something.

But we can also reasonably wonder: if giving up so tiny a convenience as plastic straws is too high a price to pay, what meaningful changes could the your-end-of-the-lifeboat-is-sinking crowd ever acquiesce to?

--TP

Sounds like we are being stampeded into something

The basic physics of greenhouse gases were figured out in the 19th C. The fact that industrial economies were increasing those gases in the atmosphere was figured out in the early 20th. Hansen went in front of Congress and waved the big red flag about this stuff in '88. 30+ years ago.

A very slow stampede.

In my lifetime, this country has mobilized to build the interstate highway, put a man on the moon, get people to quit smoking and throwing their trash out the window of their cars, wear seat belts, make drunk driving beating your wife and calling black people "boy" or "girl" socially anathema, and let gay people participate in public life without fear of a beating or losing their jobs.

That is a hell of a lot to get done in 63 years.

It is in our power to drive smaller cars, eat less meat in general and beef specifically, and dial in the AC to a temperature that doesn't raise goose flesh.

Plus change how we generate electricity, expand public transportation, build out intercity rail so people don't fly distances less than 500 or 1000 miles, etc etc etc.

We used to be can-do people. Or at least we could do a pretty good imitation if we needed to.

Will some folks have to swap their Chevy Suburbans and Range Rovers for a mere small SUV or, god forbid, a hatchback? Yeah, maybe. It might even be a hybrid. Or - brace yourself - electric.

If that is a deal breaker, then we are fncked, and our grandkids will spit on our graves. And they should.

Trump is the worst ever in the history of the world

Not even close.

Caligula, Vlad the Impaler, King Leopold. All much, much worse.

In more modern times old favorites like Hitler and Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, Pinochet and Franco.

A long, sad list.

He's not the worst ever, he's just *our* worst.

if giving up so tiny a convenience as plastic straws is too high a price to pay, what meaningful changes could the your-end-of-the-lifeboat-is-sinking crowd ever acquiesce to?

This, a thousand times.

someone let me know when a "conservative" has a plan other than "unh uh. nope. you're so wrong. better not do anything" - for any problem that doesn't involve dropping bombs.

--

i looked my own county's GIS website today, too.

if all of the world's ice melts, my house will sit on a nice little peninsula, and we'll be 150' above sea level, directly overlooking a wee fjord. it'll be the new equivalent of Martha's Vineyard. we'll be no farther than .5 miles in three directions from salt water.

we're 150 miles inland right now.

that's what 270' sea level rise gets ya.

that's probably a worst case scenario.

Umpteen million residential and commercial buildings will have to replace their natural gas (or oil) air and water heating systems. Tens/hundreds of billions of dollars of existing natural gas distribution systems will be abandoned.

Per the EPA, the top 3 sources of greenhouse gases are transportation, power generation, and industry.

Residential and commercial are 4th at 12%, and residential is just a part of that. Agriculture us 5th, at 9 percent.

Go for the big producers and let residentual heating systems age out. Offer incentives for people to replace them voluntarily before them, if they wish. Require new construction to minimize or eliminate fossil heating over some reasonable timespan.

Where alternatives don't exist, fall back to fossil if you have to. But even that can be part of a multi-leg household system.

Do what you can. Right? Rather than complain about "deciders" and do nothing.

If we had started this 40 years ago, oil and gas residential heating would an anomaly now. So, start now.

Regarding the cost of the climate plans (as opposed to the ‘green new deal’, which incorporates a whole load of other stuff), it’s around a trillion a year for the US, of 5% of GDP.
If you want specific detail, have a look at Inslee’s 200 page report, which is available online. Similar to the various European studies, it’s a properly worked out and costed exercise.

As far as cars are concerned, the rich folks will switch to electric first, and likely without much complaint. More difficult is rapidly getting rid of all the existing gas burners on the road quickly.
More difficult again is transition to zero carbon housing.

Stuff like replacing the electric grid is comparatively easy - although it will cost a great deal we pretty well know how to get there. In comparison, changing every home in the US is a gnarly problem.

With a mix of tax, regulation and government funding, it can and will happen, but it has to start with the next administration.

If the US does it, I think the world’s major economies will rapidly follow, if only for reasons of economics (though the will might be there already in China and Europe).
Without the US, it almost certainly won’t happen quickly enough.

We may have to make some sacrifices, but if we support clean technology and lose fossil fuels, we won't have to become ascetics.

But the argument (or at least the implication) that we would is a great help to those who object to doing anything. Sometimes for personal economic/financial reasons; sometimes for culture war reasons.

If I was building a house today, I'd probably start with residential geothermal heat / cooling pump and have gas for extra heating in the winter and for cooking.

Maybe solar to cut down what we buy from the power company.

These are all mature technologies. Just freaking do it.

People will need a nudge. The carrot is tax incentives and rebates. The stick is legislated end of life for fossil in new construction, probably with exceptions for areas with particular needs or issues.

If we can get 75-80% of homes and businesses to cut fossil use by 75-80% in 20 years, the 12% cited by the EPA is cut by a little more than half.

Not perfect, just much much better. And nobody freezes.

Just freaking do it.

someone let me know when a "conservative" has a plan other than "unh uh. nope. you're so wrong. better not do anything" - for any problem that doesn't involve dropping bombs.

See my above at 9:47 PM yesterday. It's really not unique, for all that the reactionaries and libertarians masquerading as "conservatives" do drown us out.

In my lifetime, this country has mobilized to build the interstate highway, put a man on the moon, get people to quit smoking and throwing their trash out the window of their cars, wear seat belts, make drunk driving beating your wife and calling black people "boy" or "girl" socially anathema, and let gay people participate in public life without fear of a beating or losing their jobs.

That is a hell of a lot to get done in 63 years.
...
We used to be can-do people. Or at least we could do a pretty good imitation if we needed to.

No real question but what we could deal with the problem. The technological, and economic, problems are definitely solvable. The real challenge is political. When (if) we find the will, the way will happen.

For new housing you don’t need gas heating - just much, much better insulation.

Of course for now, we don’t even have a government, so even organising a large scale piss up in a brewery is beyond our means, so I ought not to be lecturing anyone on anything...

You have our sympathies, Nigel.

NOW THESE F*CKING ASSHOLES ARE DENYING ENTRY TO OUR COUNTRY OF THOSE DESPERATE TO ESCAPE THE BAHAMAS AFTER THE UTTER HURRICANE DEVASTATION.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ALL IN ON RACISM AND HATE.

THEY MUST BE UTTERLY DESTROYED.

NO MERCY. NO FORGIVENESS.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ALL IN ON RACISM AND HATE

Technically, it's Trump (and Miller, of course) who's all in on racism and hate. But others, e.g. Senator Rubio and Senator Scott, are calling for letting Bahamian refugees in, papers or no papers. On this, at least, the GOP as a whole falls short of "all in"

I look for Trump tweets denouncing both senators in the near future, of course.

echnically, it's Trump (and Miller, of course) who's all in on racism and hate

FWIW, Trump's approval rating among self-identified Republicans is still ~90%.

by now, it's hard to believe anybody is unaware of Trump's racial attitudes.

ergo... the Republican party is statistically all-in on racism and hate.

Trump's approval rating among self-identified Republicans is still ~90%.

Yup.

THEY MUST BE UTTERLY DESTROYED.

NO MERCY. NO FORGIVENESS.

So glad JDT arranged for service as usual in his absence!

It will be interesting to see if McKinney ever comes back to us on "what we have to give up". His drive by shootings - you should (as the old yiddish comics say) forgive the expression - can be frustrating; I'd still like to have a rational answer to the question of why he wouldn't vote for Warren in a straight Warren v Trump election, given what he has said about both in the past.

Perhaps he just looks better under incandescent light ?
https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/environmental-regulation-trump-administration-rollbacks-lightbulbs-cars-tongass.html

i believe the answer is : Warren is definitely a socialist, maybe a communist, definitely a hard-left monster who hates Freedom™.

and in case there's any doubt about why the GOP has made a "mainstream media"-shaped target dummy and why Trump was so nervous that Fox was flirting with Democrats ...

Yes, scandal coverage did affect our respondents — but only Republicans

We found that only Republicans were significantly influenced by the scandal coverage or lack thereof. Those who saw comparatively more Trump-Russia stories rated his job performance 7.6 percent lower than Republicans who did not read those stories, and rated their positive emotions toward him (such as pride, enthusiasm, and hope) 10.9 percent lower than those kept in the dark. Democrats had non-statistically significant reactions. Republicans did not change their attitudes toward the media, and our results did not change based on whether they clicked on the stories.

In other words, simply changing the balance of scandal headlines that they saw was enough to change Republicans’ attitudes toward Trump. Exposure to sustained coverage of a Trump scandal had detectable, negative effects strong enough to overcome Republicans’ partisanship.

never fear, these study subject will be released back into the comforting embrace of Fox News, where they'll never have to hear the truth about Trump ever again.

You may be right, cleek, but I'd like to hear it from McKinney. After all, we courteously answer his questions, despite our intuition about his motivations for asking them. Also, I'd love to know what Trump would have to do that he hasn't already done to have a McKinney or a Marty vote for his opponent (any one of the Dem candidates actually, but let's say Warren).

You may be right, cleek, but I'd like to hear it from McKinney. After all, we courteously answer his questions, despite our intuition about his motivations for asking them. Also, I'd love to know what Trump would have to do that he hasn't already done to have a McKinney or a Marty vote for his opponent (any one of the Dem candidates actually, but let's say Warren).

I do intend to answer your question in detail about Elizabeth Warren (but not today) and I do intend (hopefully today) to pick up on the GCC discussion, and thanks to those who have tried to answer my question.

GFTNC--you have, several times, intimated that my motives may have some element of something, but I can't say what, and that something is less than nice or whatever. Feel free to put it out there. I'm pretty thick-skinned. Thanks.

(i may be misremembering, but i do think McTx has already told us what he thinks about Warren - and i just paraphrased. i could be wrong.)

You don't need a thick skin where I am concerned, McKinney, I don't suspect you of anything nefarious or reprehensible.

The motivations I suspect you of having are these. I think you are a man marooned with a certain set of beliefs and attitudes, who has seen others who he believed to have them too behaving in a morally bankrupt manner. Your comment in July "these days I don't have any political allies", taken together with your criticisms of Trump and his enablers encourages me in this belief. So when you prompt us for our prescriptions or beliefs, I think you are (perhaps subconsciously) hoping we come up with things that are so out in left field (sic) that you can reject them out of hand, reassured that although conservatives have lost their way, the prescriptions of lefties and liberals are still unworthy of consideration, or perhaps (very unlikely, I know, but just as subconsciously) you are hoping for a justification or rationalisation to vote for the kind of people you would never in the (golden) past have considered.

I will very much look forward to your answer about Warren, when you have time to make it. I'm pretty sure you think her much too "progressive", but I hope that her ideological (or pragmatic) intellectual journey, combined with what I think was recently a reasonably positive assessment of your experience of her character, will mean you have an interesting opinion.

It's nice that so many people did give so many specifics on how to mitigate AGW. (Not that someone interested in such things couldn't easily find the same information with a few Google searches.)

The bottom line for me is that I can't support someone who thinks it's a hoax/doesn't give a crap either way/is willing to ignore it to make as much money as possible over then next N years because they'll be dead or so rich they can insulate themselves from it when it starts getting bad.

At the very least, I know that won't work - at least not for my kids.

(i may be misremembering, but i do think McTx has already told us what he thinks about Warren - and i just paraphrased. i could be wrong.)

I did, in a pretty general way. That's true. GFTNC has asked for specifics, which is fair and I plan to give them. I can give a conclusion: she has a pronounced authoritarian bent (as does Trump), but in her case she's more likely to get away with it, and I'm not down with government by executive fiat, regardless who's fiating.

I think you are (perhaps subconsciously) hoping we come up with things that are so out in left field (sic) that you can reject them out of hand, reassured that although conservatives have lost their way, the prescriptions of lefties and liberals are still unworthy of consideration, or perhaps (very unlikely, I know, but just as subconsciously) you are hoping for a justification or rationalisation to vote for the kind of people you would never in the (golden) past have considered.

Fair enough and thanks for this. I think I've been fairly consistent over the 10 years or so I've been hanging out here. What I like is a substantive give and take. I poke my Trump friends with his lunacies, I poke my lefty friends with what I think are inconsistencies and occasional double standards or, in many cases, just a difference in policy perspective. There is nothing wrong with speaking up when something doesn't seem to fit. We're all grown ups here. Even Thullen.

It's nice that so many people did give so many specifics on how to mitigate AGW. (Not that someone interested in such things couldn't easily find the same information with a few Google searches.)

I thought the point of the question was not what could be done. As you say, that information is readily available. Instead I took the question to be "What would you personally be willing to do? What are you doing now?" At least, that ws the question I was addressing.

And now:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-fires-bolton-as-national-security-adviser-saying-he-disagreed-strongly-with-many-of-his-suggestions/2019/09/10/13409e2c-d3b9-11e9-9610-fb56c5522e1c_story.html

With Trump, heaven know what kind of incompetent/nut case he will pick next. (Maybe another college buddy of one of his kids?) But still, getting rid of Bolton has to be a plus. For the nation and for the world.

it pains me to say it, but Trump does have one non-negative trait: he's somehow not as hawkish as his otherwise belligerent and petty personality would suggest he should be.

Instead I took the question to be "What would you personally be willing to do? What are you doing now?"

Here it is:

If the proponents of radical change aren't going to tell me what that radical change means, they have no business complaining because people won't vote to give them the authority they will need to effect that radical change.

I'm not sure what authority anyone here is expecting people to vote to confer upon them.

And what does it matter what I'm personally willing to do? I'll probably have some things that cramp my style "forced" on me regardless. I'm willing to give someone who knows more than I do the authority to force those things on me because I fear that less than what a warmer and less-stable planet with rising sea levels will force on me (or, more likely, my children).

he's somehow not as hawkish as his otherwise belligerent and petty personality would suggest he should be.

As a Putin stooge, he's not going to push that button in the Ukraine or anywhere else.
Nobody is going to bomb Venezuela in the near future. What for?
China will get its way in the far east because just who is going to stop them? This is bi-partisan.
Nobody wants to get involved with India vs. Pakistan. The definition of a hornet's nest.
Nobody cares about (black) Africa.

That leaves the Middle East, but Turnip has yet to find the war like policy that meets his narcissistic urges, and even Trump might have figured out that a land war in Iran is a fool's errand.

So, bottom line....I'd say what we have here is a dearth of easy opportunities. I stress the "easy" part.


But nice to see Bolton go. Good riddance.

it pains me to say it, but Trump does have one non-negative trait: he's somehow not as hawkish as his otherwise belligerent and petty personality would suggest he should be.

He's okay with it as long as someone else (Assad, MBS, Putin) does the killing.

He's okay with it as long as someone else (Assad, MBS, Putin) does the killing.

I urge MBS to show Trump his bone-saw collection. The world would be better for it.

there was certainly a chance he could've tried bombing Iran or NK, as Bolton wanted. thankfully, for whatever reason (and i'm sure it's ridiculous), neither appealed to him.

i'll take it.

He's a blind, stopped squirrel-clock.

it pains me to say it...

For that pain, I prescribe two of these and call me in the morning.

I like the repeated "Did he just say ...?" followed every time by "That was sarcasm" in the comments. It seems I should be glad that I don't have a history of reading GG now causing me such unnecessary confusion.

i'll take it.

Assuming that's the way it actually is, I'll take it too.

We should be somewhat careful about how we frame Trump's reluctance to kill though:

Trump revokes Obama rule on reporting drone strike deaths

Under Donald Trump, drone strikes far exceed Obama’s numbers

I agree with the folks who think that Bolton's departure has more to do with losing the Camp David Taliban Peace Talk photo op than any inclination towards pacifism by Trump. So I'll take a wait and see approach (not that I have a choice).

heh.

for the record, i'm not saying i think Trump's a dove. i'm just saying the rest of his personality makes me think he'd be an aggressive, reckless, bomb-first-lie-about-it-later kind of high-explosive negotiations lunatic. the fact that he isn't just seems a bit strange.

the fact that he isn't just seems a bit strange.

Agree.

I'm thinking that Putin probably isn't a Bolton fan. A good thing!

I'm thinking that Putin probably isn't a Bolton fan.

Probably because Putin is among the many that Bolton would like to bomb. Admittedly a group that's about as exclusive as getting wet in a rainstorm.

...the fact that he isn't just seems a bit strange.

Yup.

Inteventionist types, be they liberal or otherwise, are on an ideological mission. Trump's ideology appears to revolve solely about what makes him look good.

A quick strike with lots of flash and noise is him. A long grind that makes him look bad is not.

That, and an inordinate amount of indecision. Don't know about that.

To reach way back to the OP - if anyone is curious, the documents you can use in applying for a Real ID in Massachusetts are listed here.

My apologies for not replying as I said I would. The day got away from me. Tomorrow hopefully.

McK, no worries. At your convenience.

she has a pronounced authoritarian bent (as does Trump), but in her case she's more likely to get away with it

FWIW, I think I actually get McK's concern here. Warren most definitely is an advocate of a strong central government regulatory hand. I recognize that, and recognize why some people would be uncomfortable with it.

In Warren's case, it doesn't make me as uneasy as it appears to make McK - assuming I read his concern correctly, which may or may not be so. And that is mostly because (a) I generally find Warren's analysis and goals in line with what my own would be, and (b) I think she actually knows what she's talking about. I find her to be data driven to an unusual degree in a candidate for POTUS.

The area where Warren concerns me is foreign policy. She doesn't have hands-on experience there, and it's an important part of the POTUS' brief.

But, as I've said before, a ham sandwich with a (D) after it's name will get my vote, and Warren is miles beyond ham sandwich.

I think we should talk about what a strong central government, in a democratic (and I meant that small d) society means. It means checks and balances (including oversight) by an active legislative branch. It means regulations (by officials appointed by democratically elected representatives), with a meaningful notice and comment period, and adjudicatory authority for overreaching, etc. It means cabinet officials who can hire and manage experts in the fields that are being regulated (people who have spent a long time studying things - like meteorology, for example).

Authoritarianism is a different kind of central government. It means that a sociopath can lie and pilfer money from the treasury, while making random executive decisions to punish disaster victims for being black. It's quite different.

Not same same.

russell: Warren most definitely is an advocate of a strong central government regulatory hand.

When it comes to massive banks, huge insurance companies, monopolists, polluters, and dark money, "a strong central government regulatory hand" might appeal even to McKinney. When President Professor Warren takes away McKinney's plastic straws we can link arms in solidarity and impeach her.

On foreign policy, Warren has two things going for her: 1)she has never, to my knowledge, claimed she knows more than the generals, or diplomats, or career desk officers at State; and 2)she would never hire a John Bolton, because she may be inexperienced but she is not stooopid.

My only worry about a President Warren is that she might repeat Obama's mistake and "look forward, not back". I don't know whether McKinney shares that worry.

--TP

The area where Warren concerns me is foreign policy. She doesn't have hands-on experience there, and it's an important part of the POTUS' brief.

If memory serves, the last time we had a President with "hands-on foreign policy experience" was Bush I. Of the Presidents in my lifetime (14, I think), perhaps 3 had that kind of experience before taking office (Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush I). What matters is a willingness, and an ability, to learn fast. Some did; some do not.

I'm not a big Warren fan, I admit. But I'd say she meets that test.

I'm not a big Warren fan, I admit.

Why? I understand that you're a Republican, wj. But it would be nice to let us know specifically what you dislike about Warren's "plans".

Thanks.

sapient, I think my biggest reservation is the sense that she's looking to solve all the world's, or at least all of America's, problems. I'd like to see more focus and prioritization. Something like recognition that it isn't possible to do everything at once.

Pick, say, the top half dozen problems (or even the top dozen -- a bunch of Trump-based problems evaporate with the departure of Trump) and concentrate on those. Because if you try to do too many things all at once, you are liable to end up not getting any of them accomplished.

Nothing wrong with having ideas about how to address a lot more. (Whether I agree with the solution, or even think it is a problem best solved at the Federal level, is a seperate question.) But pick the most time-critical and move on those first.

Nothing wrong with having ideas about how to address a lot more.

Thanks for answering me!

I think that she can't really run in an election if she doesn't have a plan to address the very many issues that confront us, and that she'll be asked about on the debate stage. Obviously, it's great to prioritize (and she has a reputation for caring about consumer financial issues, and income inequality) but communicating that she's for one thing over another will alienate those people with different priorities.

So, generally, I think it's unrealistic to make that demand of her, especially since some of what she's offering is dependent on Congress.

So, generally, I think it's unrealistic to make that demand of her, especially since some of what she's offering is dependent on Congress.

Actually, I think prioritizing is most critical with the things that require Congressional action. The stuff that can be done by executive action just takes putting competent people in charge to get it done. Or, more often, putting in charge people who will quit sabotaging the quite competent technical people that are already there -- just tell 'em what to get done, then get out of the way and let them do it.

But getting Congress to act, even assuming control of both houses**, is going to require massaging egos for each bill you want passed. Too many Congressional egos, and not enough hours in the President's day, to get too many done in parallel.

** Although even a narrow Republican majority might be worked with, if Moscow Mitch can be removed. One way or another. On balance, I think the GOP Congressmen see fewer misogynists than racists in their base. But I could be wrong on that.

Actually, I think prioritizing is most critical with the things that require Congressional action.

Fair (although probably not for a campaign).

So, what are your priorities?

P.S. Thanks for the Moscow Mitch reference!

But pick the most time-critical and move on those first.

This is a critique of her campaign strategy, not her politics. All those plans may well carry the day with Dem primary voters, of which you are, alas, not one.

There will be a lot of arguing about the specifics of candidate's "plans" as we enter the primaries, and the focus on "prioritizing" will reveal itself.

I'd say the environment, the onset of a new Gilded Age, and health care are the three big shining objects out there right now. A lot of her (and other's) plans are related to those larger issues.

And, sorry [looking at you, McKinney], if you're not actively trying to remove this person, I don't know what to say:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1171631144414208000/photo/1

Priorities? Well here's a first cut. (With the caveat that, at this hour, I, may well miss something that I'd remember if awake.)

-- We need a program, on the order of the Apollo Program, to create the technologies to deal with climate change and roll them out. And that absolutely includes technologies which will let economies outside the G-7 develop without going thru the fossil fuel technology stage. Note that this is seperate from whatever gets done to reverse the rollback of environmental regulations generally.

-- Our tax system need a major overhaul -- both to provide adequate revenue and to better balance the rewards. Reversing the latest tax bill would be a start, but there needs to be a lot more done. Much higher top marginal rates. Tax all income (e.g. capital gains) the same. And I'd really, really like to see a serious estate tax. Nobody needs a $10 million plus reward for picking the right parents.

-- Our alliances need to be rebuilt. Unfortunately, that will take years, probably decades, after the damage that has been done to our reputation. But a start needs to be made immediately. Starting with getting agreements like the TPP, JCPA, etc. ratified as treaties, so they won't be subject to the whims and caprices of a passing administration.

-- A couple of agencies are clear exceptions to my generalization of "mostly competent staff". They may even need a wholesale purge and restaff -- which may require a (limited, one time) Congressional waiver of the civil service laws. ICE for sure, and also possibly the VA, leap to mind.

-- The Federal gun control laws need to be massively beefed up. Nobody needs military assault weapons for "self defense." And requiring some basic safety training doesn't infringe on anybody's rights. (Probably need to include parts on the list of things requiring background check checks.)

I may wake up tomorrow going "Aaaagh! How could l have forgotten xxxx?" But those are a few biggies. I understand that those to my left may have other priorities....

Just to be explicit about it, I don't think health care makes the top of my list. Yes, stop trying to repeal Obamacare, of course. And it could use some tweaks, to fix problems that got missed initially -- which happens with any new program. Mostly stuff that, with a sensible Congress, would have gotten done a couple years after it rolled out.

But beyond that? Maybe top of the second tier. But not top tier, at least in my view. (Just as a point of information, I spent most of a decade, in my late 50s and early 60s, without health insurance. So I'm not totally ignorant of how scary that is.)

I come at it from a very different political perspective, but I tend to agree with wj about Warren.
I take sapient’s point about campaigning, and Warren has found a theme - the ‘plan’ for everything - which she’ll have to stick with now if she’s to edge out Saunders as the not-Biden option.

Campaigning, though, has consequences for how you govern, and his your supporters allow you to govern. And if the Democrats don’t take the Senate, the need to make choices will be pressing indeed.

Which candidate will be able to personally strangle Mitch barehandedly at his/her first State of the Union speech?
That should be a criterion in selection.

I understand that those to my left may have other priorities

the only thing i'd change in that list is to swap the agency restructuring one for one about putting hard limits on plastic pollution.

Not same same.

Completely and thoroughly agree. Thank you for making the point.

Also, I generally agree with wj's list. And also agree that Warren's lack of foreign policy experience is not a show-stopper.

I like wj's priority list as well. I also approve of cleek's amendment.

I would also like to see immigration reform, to allow more room for new immigrants, paths to citizenship, and elimination of the executive fiat system that has allowed the "national emergency" human rights abuses that we're witnessing.

sapient, I agree that all of those ought to be done. Even done soon. Just not sure they should elbow out the ones I listed in priority.

To unpack slightly (multitasking here),
I think the three on immigrants are lower priority than purging the ICE staff who have demonstrated their hostility, physical hostility even, to immigrants. If Congress wants to push them thru on their own, the President can and should indicate agreement. But not spend time and political capital pushing for them in the first months.

Makes you think about the need for a Federal gun control law, doesn't it?
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/09/11/60-firearms-seized-from-red-bluff-man-under-a-restraining-order/
If things like this can happen, even under California relatively strict laws, the holes due to interstate commerce are clearly too big.

cleek, as I think about it, I think I'll accept your friendly amendment. In the sense of adding, not replacing. (That still leaves be below by, admittedly somewhat arbitrary, half dozen threshold.)

FYI, Lurker had a couple of posts on this thread back on Aug 29 which for no obvious reason ended up in the Spam folder. I have published them. Go back and read if you are interested.

Another country heard from! I went back and read them. Nothing to add, but they were worth the effort.

Going back got me to notice russell's mention of WRTI as concerns classical music programming. Out of curiosity, were you in Philly when WFLN was still on the air, russell?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad