Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)

[Mdot21]

If China and India can't cut CO2 emissions significantly, which is reality, what we do here is irrelevant, rounding error, at best, and at significant expense.

The US could magically go to zero carbon tomorrow and the projected impact on global temperature by 2050 is a few tenths of a degree, maybe.

That’s the $64,000 question.

How do you get them to cut emissions? And is that even realistic or possible for them when they have 37% of the worlds population and most of their citizens are poor as shit. I doubt very many of their people can afford electric cars, solar panel roofs, and Tesla powerwalls.

[betarhoalphadelta]

And how can they prove that?Where are all the plastic containers/bottles/straws going from big events in N.America

I think in the US most of them go into landfills rather than the ocean. Sure, maybe using that much plastic isn't a good thing here, but it doesn't go into our rivers, and then into the ocean.

Maybe that study that Scientific American cites is wrong. But I haven't heard anyone discredit it in the 2 years since it was released.

[MrNubbz]

We certainly could do better,no doubt the world has to do it's part also

[847badgerfan]

We purposely avoid using plastic now, for about the past year. If it's not glass or aluminum, we stay away if at all possible.

[Cincydawg]

The US does a pretty good job with land filling garbage.  In Asia and Africa, garbage is generally dumped in a river.  Duh.

[MrNubbz]

Good post,crappy response - by them

[Cincydawg]

We purposely avoid using plastic now, for about the past year. If it's not glass or aluminum, we stay away if at all possible.

I started thinking about all the plastic we use in one form or another.  There isn't much we can do to avoid it.  The building gets a lot of packages obviously, and many are filled with polystyrene foam packaging, or the envelop is Tyvek, with plastic film inside, etc.  A lot of food items come in plastic, milk, bread, mustard, cheese, sushi, meat, fish, hot dogs, .... a large portion of automobiles are plastic of course.  Computer housings, printer housings, pen outsides, tape, I'm just looking around my desk.

[FearlessF]

That’s the $64,000 question.

How do you get them to cut emissions? And is that even realistic or possible for them when they have 37% of the worlds population and most of their citizens are poor as shit. I doubt very many of their people can afford electric cars, solar panel roofs, and Tesla powerwalls.

well, perhaps not practical, but we could nuke the crap outta China

that might lessen many issues

[FearlessF]

I started thinking about all the plastic we use in one form or another.  There isn't much we can do to avoid it.  The building gets a lot of packages obviously, and many are filled with polystyrene foam packaging, or the envelop is Tyvek, with plastic film inside, etc.  A lot of food items come in plastic, milk, bread, mustard, cheese, sushi, meat, fish, hot dogs, .... a large portion of automobiles are plastic of course.  Computer housings, printer housings, pen outsides, tape, I'm just looking around my desk.

I think there's plenty we could do, but it's not practical.  It would cost a LOT of $$$

[SFBadger96]

One reason--maybe the biggest--it's important for the U.S. to cut its emissions is to give us moral authority in our dealings with other nations. As the world's largest consumer and one of the largest/wealthiest economies, we drive much of the worldwide consumptive behavior. And if we expect other, particularly poorer, nations to help with reducing emissions, we need to show real leadership by doing so ourselves. Do as we say, not as we do is a bad way to lead in negotiations. 

[Cincydawg]

We used to use a lot of glass instead of plastic in food packaging.  That has other ramifications.

And I'm really really not interested in spending a LOT of money in the US to have some kind of moral authority in negotiating with countries that are not going to reduce CO2 emissions no matter what.

"We" are simply going to "run this experiment" on CO2 and climate impact.  I see no way around it, none.  All the Happy Talk makes me sad.

[Big Beef Tacosupreme]

If China and India can't cut CO2 emissions significantly, which is reality, what we do here is irrelevant, rounding error, at best, and at significant expense.

The US could magically go to zero carbon tomorrow and the projected impact on global temperature by 2050 is a few tenths of a degree, maybe.

First, a few tenths of a degree is HUGE.  Absolutely gigantic.  Especially considering we only make up 4% of the landmass of the earth and only 4.5% of the population, but we emit nearly 15% of the world's CO2.

Second, they are cutting CO2 emissions. China met their 2020 CO2 targets in 2018, and are far ahead of schedule on their 2030 targets. India promised a 30-35% reduction of their 2005 CO2 levels by 2030 and are also exceeding their target.

Why India, in particular?  They emit half the CO2 of the USA.  

But here's the thing I really don't understand about this way of thinking.  The USA has always been a world leader, but we are supposed to sit back and wait for China to figure this thing out?  If we actively invested in green technology we'd probably have vehicles that ran on cow farts by now.  Think of how cheap driving would be in Wisconsin if cars ran on cow farts.

[Cincydawg]

As I said, I strongly disagree.  I've looked at this thing over the years and it is evident to me "we" are simply going to find out what is going to happen, and a few tenths is not even measurable.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

One reason--maybe the biggest--it's important for the U.S. to cut its emissions is to give us moral authority in our dealings with other nations. As the world's largest consumer and one of the largest/wealthiest economies, we drive much of the worldwide consumptive behavior. And if we expect other, particularly poorer, nations to help with reducing emissions, we need to show real leadership by doing so ourselves. Do as we say, not as we do is a bad way to lead in negotiations.

But you have to look at the balance. 

What is the impact on GDP growth of mandating severe emission cuts? 

Yeah, the US economy can likely weather it better than any other economy on earth, but what if it results in a, say, 0.5% reduction in CAGR for our GDP. We'd still be growing, but slower...

And what if the rest of the world actually doesn't follow along? What if they're growing at a faster rate than us?

I think the whole world will benefit from so many of these third world countries (and those in between) joining the first world. But if you want to talk about this thread, "government policy and budget discussion", who in the US will voluntarily take a position that will erode they US's preeminent position in the world when we know the rest of the world isn't going to actually follow our lead?

We may not win the race, but if we lose it I would rather it be because other countries run faster, not because we've shackled ourselves and we're running slower than we can.