Replies are closed for this discussion.
Thanks Unseen. That's probably a better expression of my sentiment than I wrote.
If those who feel they know the cause of climate change really want to implement some change, perhaps we should raise the overall educational level or Americans and other peoples.
AGW isn't the only reason to act on a number of the issues at play here, and sooner or later a number of these issues will have to be addressed. These 'let the next guy deal with it' sort of stall tactics have been in play for decades. If it was just about diverting funds, there are other places from which to divert, but that's not the core issue: the core issue is prioritization.
If it was just about diverting funds, there are other places from which to divert, but that's not the core issue: the core issue is prioritization.
Where are those funds likely to come from then? (And note I said "likely.") Military spending? Like that's going to happen. It WOULD inevitably impact areas related to relieving poverty, funding education, and improving health. And it will at first affect the money the US spends abroad to improve the lot of the Third World.
The money has to come from somewhere. You've been very unspecific.
It's not about where the money comes from: I'm saying you're making a point of false pragmatism.
Look, say there's four men at the table for dinner, Abe, Bill, Carl, and Dennis. There's a pot with four portions in it, and because Abe is closest, he dishes it out. He gives one bowl Bill, one to Carl, and two to himself.
Carl looks at the situation and says, "Whoa Abe, why didn't Dennis get any soup?"
To this Abe replies, "There's no more soup left. If I have to give some to Dennis, it has to come from somewhere. You want me to take it from Bill? That's kind of a dick move, don't you think?"
Maybe in this scenario, There's no changing Abe. Perhaps there really is no way to get him to see that his distribution is flawed, but there is no pragmatism in leaving the status quo. Furthermore, it would be counterproductive to fault anyone other than Abe for the inappropriate distribution.
So when you rule out something like diverting from military funding with its over bloated spending in America because it's just not going to happen, that is merely acceptance of a flawed system, not pragmatic consideration.
The reason this is problematic is that you've framed the issue as environmental cause subtracting from social or social from environmental, but this is an incorrect assessment.
Money can come from efficiencies in health care in the United States, but that meets political resistance, and so Americans continue to overspend.
Money can come from military funding, but political agendas prevent that from happening.
Money could come from reducing subsidization in polluting industries, but industries threaten to move operations overseas, or to withhold projects which will generate jobs and tax revenue, even when those companies are lucrative and financially stable enough to do without. Also, that subsidization could have gone toward greener operations which, incidentally, may reduces some pollution-related health issues.
Doesn't matter. the issue isn't where the money comes from. It's in not pinning the problem on the wrong parties. That is to say, not subtracting from anti-AGW efforts by characterizing social funding as the victim of its success, just as we wouldn't subtract from Carl's advocacy if Dennis getting soup by framing Bill as the victim of his advocacy's success.
Just to be clear, despite the analogy above, I do not believe we're talking about a zero-sum game in reality.
No? Less money for military spending = higher unemployment. Efficiencies in health care means the work can be done by fewer employees.
I'll give you a hypothetical if-you-say-so then.
There's a point of diminishing returns where throwing more money at a problem doesn't fix it any faster or better. The US Budget has a lot of that in it. If we could fix some of the systemic problems in the bureaucracy side and pressure our Congress into changing their stance, then we would have enough to go around.Of course, if I had a Golden Ticket, then I'd also be the proud inheritor of Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.
There are always options, like reducing subsidies for oil, natural gas, and coal for instance which takes a huge chunk of change from the taxpayers every year even though they are the most profitable companies in the world. Besides, like Kris said, government budgets aren't a zero sum game. At some point priorities shift and spending more money on military equipment that the Brass doesn't want or attempting to improve the lot of Third World countries that aren't improving no matter how much we have spent will shift to a lower priority.