Socialized Health Care in the USA

[kandrathe]

2.5% of 2050 GDP is not a lot of money, considering. For the cost of stabilizing carbon emissions, that seems perfectly fine. Frankly, I'd still be in favour of it if it cost 25% of 2050 GDP; at 1/10th of that, it seems kind of like a bargain. Compared with the damage that even a 2.5 Celsius rise in global temperatures would cause, it's peanuts. Even that would be nothing compared with an apocalyptic 6% temperature rise. There is simply no GDP percentage to describe the impact, which would be nothing less than the total collapse of the global economy as we know it. But that's what we might be looking at, worst case scenario, if we just keep tossing greenhouse gases up indiscriminately, whining all the while about energy costs and economic damage.

I guess the big difference that I see is that the Obama camp, to which you belong, is engaging in self sabotage on the present GDP and employment in the hopes that the changes will avert the ecological apocalypse forecast by only a radical fringe of climatologists. Now, that the average climate is changing is a no brainer. I've seen no consensus that indicates that curbing the human contribution of world CO2 emissions (a few percentage points) will do anything significant. Everything I've read indicates that sequestering carbon would best be done by working to reverse desertification, and return more of the environment to grasslands and forests. But even then, it would be hundreds of years before we would reverse the damage done by 200 or 300 years of intensive agriculture and industrialization. Should we do nothing? Of course not, but should we drive ourselves into a current crisis in a Pyhrric attempt to avert the possibility of a future climate crisis? The sky is falling, and a piece of it landed on my head. Meanwhile, Foxy Loxy, who happens to own the carbon offset business is getting fat and rich at our expense. So, paint me skeptical of buying into the whole eco-indulgence business.

That said, the ecologist in me is dead set against burning coal, and excessive pollution from internal combustion engines. I'm willing to change my vehicle for one that does not pollute, and I'm willing to help my energy grid transform to clean sources, but why do we need to do this in a way that is so very punitive? Surely there is a way to do this that is not so authoritarian.

You don't understand my pessimism, but you have also not responded to my concerns about a supply chain that is designed and predicated on cheap energy. The perturbations of energy costs will have dramatic effects (meaning shortages and high prices) for staples and commodities. For example, New Yorkers are used to eating fresh vegetables, and yet no vegetables are grown very near to the consumers. I just don't think this has been very well though through, as is typical of the idiots in DC. Couple that with the one size fits all approach to federal policy and you are futzing around with peoples lives and livelihoods. Maybe you think it is OK for the government to do that to its people, but I do not.

This reeks of totalitarianism to me.

<blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>Cult of personality is “…when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships. A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders.”</blockquote>