Yglesias is distressed over the fact that Very Serious People are focused on the long run budget but not long run climate problems
No matter how hard I try, I can’t quite get my head around the combination of Washington’s obsession with decades-away projected fiscal shortfalls and it’s total lack of interest in decades-away projected climate disaster. If you asked me why the political prospects for addressing the climate crisis are so bleak, I’d say it’s easy to understand.
The worst effects of it are in the fairly distant future, the rich old people who run the country will be dead by then, etc. But at the same time, everyone’s obsessed with the idea that Medicare will be too costly in 2070. It’s considered both brave and serious to focus like a laser on the problem even while simultaneously insisting that it’s politically unrealistic to propose any changes that take effect sooner than 2022. It’s absolutely insane
I agree that its insane but of course in the other way around. 2070 is a long way away and being overly committed to highly sensitive projections is silly. Still my baseline guesses are that
- The US is broke is a theme that resonates with people
- Being “responsible” with money is a sign of high status
- People are more familiar with budget disasters
- Money spent by Washington has the feel of money spent on Washington. That is people act as if the politicians get a particular joy out of spending other people’s money though the politicians have no equity position on that money.
In both cases I think people are overly concerned about both of these issues. I am not sure which one represents the most overconcern. With climate disasters the possibility for complete mitigation is probably higher than the budget. That is, there is the possibility of technology that could render this problem about as bad Y2K. Not saying that we should count on this, but we shouldn’t ignore it either.
With the budget deficit the path is a bit clearer though, it is possible that either the economy generally or health care will radically change rendering this problem moot. Yet, more importantly with the budget there is no credible current mitigation strategy. Any plan put in place today depends on people in the future deciding to go along with it and so its not immediately clear why forming a plan today is way better than just letting the people in the future deal with it.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ April 6th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Jayt
Karl, regarding point 4 – are you claiming that politicians don’t get a particular sense of joy from spending other people’s money? If so, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Wednesday ~ April 6th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Zenobia
In the long run we are all dead.
Wednesday ~ April 6th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
RickRussellTX
>the politicians have no equity position on that money
You’ve obviously never been to McMurtha airport.
Wednesday ~ April 6th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Barry
I’d point out that one side – the GOP – is clearly using this as an opportunity to make things *worse*.
Wednesday ~ April 6th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Barry
I went and actually read Matthew’s post. He points out that the same Very Serious People who are upset over possible fiscal things happening 20-50 years down the road are not worried about climate change then.
The answer is simple – the VSP’s are worried about possible fiscal problems, except as they can use them to cut their own taxes and everybody else’s benefits.
It is 100% fraud.
Thursday ~ April 7th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Eric Morey
Karl,
You might be interested in a Physicist’s perspective on climate change.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/12/say_a_little_pr.html
Particularly:
“What if you don’t have the physics background to evaluate such a model for yourself? Then, you’re more or less forced to choose who you care to believe: deniers, skeptics, “experts,” journalists, bloggers, friends…
In a comment on Andrew’s entry about forming attitudes on scientific issues I said this:
When it comes to anthropogenic climate change, if someone wants to allocate some probability to the chance that the skeptics have it right, I think that’s a very reasonable thing to do. …
If you’re just some schmoe who only knows what he reads in the papers, and you choose to assign a 90% or 95% probability to the conclusions of the small band of skeptics…where does that come from? Do you really think the experts in a field get it wrong 90% or 95% of the time?”
Friday ~ April 8th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
James Wynn
“Do you really think the experts in a field get it wrong 90% or 95% of the time?”
Let’s stop giving taxed funding to their research and see if they still see an interest in predicting catastrophe. The idea that Climate researchers have no personal stake in an imminent climate catastrophe is absurd.
Friday ~ April 8th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
James Wynn
“That is people act as if the politicians get a particular joy out of spending other people’s money though the politicians have no equity position on that money.”
???
When you have the power to confiscate and spend other people’s money, people must come to you to get the money you hand out and to beg/bribe you to take someone else’s money. Do you really think there’s no equity position on that power?