Sacrificing Healthcare to Pay for Carbon

[Riverwind]

My concern about AGW policies is the cost of doing anything will be astronomical and will require sacrifices that cannot be justified given the uncertain scientific basis for the AGW claims. Unfortunately, too many people seem to think that reducing emissions will cost them nothing and continue to support politicians who pander to the AGW lobby.

This story is a sign of things to come unless people come to their senses before Canada gets sucked in another international treaty:

http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/sur...s/47823327.html

The Lower Mainland's health authorities will have to dig more than $4 million a year out of their already stretched budgets to pay B.C.'s carbon tax and offset their carbon footprints.

...

Fraser Health officials are grappling with a budget shortfall of more than $100 million and potential cuts to patient services, while low on their list, have not been ruled out.

Now I realize that $4 million out of budget shortfall of $100 million may sound like a small to some but something has to be sacrificed to pay the $4 million and it will have to come from patient services when these services are already stretched to their limit.

This last point is worth highlighting because it illustrates how cutting services is ultimately the only practical option if carbon reductions are mandated:

Dix warned that some of the potential cuts – such as closing the ER at Mission Memorial Hospital – would actually increase carbon emissions by sending patients further afield.

I am curious how many people are willing to sacrifice their access to healthcare, their job or even the life of someone they care about in order to do something that may have no effect on a problem that might not really exists. I suspect the number is very small yet governments seem to be comitted to introducing policies that will have those effects because people have be told that going CO2 free is pain free.

[Bonam]

While I'm of the opinion that global warming due to emissions of greenhouse gases is painfully obvious, I agree that sacrificing the quality of services like health care to pay for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions is definitely not worth it.

We need a happy medium, where reductions in emissions are made where it is economically feasible (in many cases, it actually saves money), but where it has a significant negative impact on important services or on the economy, it should be considered very carefully.

[Riverwind]

We need a happy medium, where reductions in emissions are made where it is economically feasible (in many cases, it actually saves money), but where it has a significant negative impact on important services or on the economy, it should be considered very carefully.

The trouble is the AGW activists are not willing to accept the 'happy medium' and are pressuring governments to adopt aggressive policies that will result in significant cuts to services as the costs become mandatory - especially if Canada gets roped into an international carbon trading agreement.

More importantly, a number of economists have published analyses that show that adapting to whatever climate change comes is more cost effective than trying to limit CO2 emissions today yet no politician is willing to discuss that option today. We really should be having that discussion.

[Bonam]

The trouble is the AGW activists are not willing to accept the 'happy medium' and are pressuring governments to adopt aggressive policies that will result in significant cuts to services as the costs become mandatory - especially if Canada gets roped into an international carbon trading agreement.

Well that's the problem with activists for just about any cause. They see their cause as one of paramount importance, to the exclusion of all else. The overzealousness of activists does not necessarily invalidate something though. Just because the measures we should take should not be anywhere near as extreme as they would suggest, doesn't mean that some measures shouldn't be considered.

More importantly, a number of economists have published analyses that show that adapting to whatever climate change comes is more cost effective than trying to limit CO2 emissions today yet no politician is willing to discuss that option today. We really should be having that discussion.

That's an interesting point, however, I find it difficult to believe, based on the projected effects of climate change. Do you have any links to a detailed analysis? If some of the scenarios that are commonly held to be likely to come to pass within the 21st century do end up that way, such as rise of sea levels by a significant amount, the economic impact of losing substantial areas of coastal land and the relocation of the people and infrastructure in those areas will be immensely expensive.

Of course, I'm sure the economic impacts won't be that severe in most of the Western world, where life will go on as always. We have the capability, technology, and organization to deal with a changing climate. The bigger issue will be the waves after waves of refugees from areas of the world where water sources would dry up or other climate changes would force people to move. Given the political climate, western nations would let in these millions of new refugees, adding to our economic and social woes.

Then of course there are the losses that are not directly measurable in monetary terms. For example, I really like glaciers, sometimes going on expeditions in glaciated areas. I'd hate to have to travel thousands of kilometres to the north to find glaciers, whereas right now they are within a few hours drive of Vancouver. Just one of many examples, but I'd be willing to pay a little bit to see areas like that not end up melting.

And then there is the other issue of the fact that we should reduce pollution for reasons entirely unrelated to global warming, such as health effects, the visual appearance of our cities, and natural beauty. Even if there was no global warming issue at all, researching and implementing cleaner technologies would still be a worthwhile endeavor, as I'd rather breath clean air than air with higher concentrations of particulates, carbon dioxide, and other pollutants.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Bonam

[Topaz]

How about spending 1 Billion dollars to an industry that does cause people their health? That is what Jim Prentice, the Environment Minister gave to the oil sands! Unlike the auto sector, where the govt will get money back for the loan, all we get from the oil sands is pollution!

[Bonam]

Presumably the oil sands industry generated substantially more than 1 billion in revenue, however, thus contributing back to the economy in a large number of jobs and in taxes. A healthier economy is able to support more research into clean technologies. Like I said before, it's all about finding the right balance. Shutting down large industrial projects to reduce pollution, thus hurting the economy, is counterproductive overkill.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The evolutionary rule of thumb is adapt or die. Nowhere have I read that we can control the weather or "fix" the environment. I think we need to rethink the entire concept.

[Bonam]

Nowhere have I read that we can control the weather or "fix" the environment.

Should read more in that case, or maybe just in different genres. Affecting the world climate in a desired way is definitely possible, and will of course become moreso over time, just as all other things, as our technology progresses.

The evolutionary rule of thumb is adapt or die.

That's how humanity adapts. When we developed technology, the natural evolution of our species stopped, and the much faster, more powerful, directed, evolution of technology began. We use technology to affect our surroundings, modifying them so we can survive in them. And by the end of this century, we will have the capability to do so on a global scale.

I think we need to rethink the entire concept.

The rethinking has already been done, it just hasn't yet entered the widespread public debate. The reality is that we need to determine what climactic conditions best optimize the Earth for supporting the largest number of humans in the best manner possible, and then use our technology to bring about those conditions. Whether it means we need to warm the Earth up to turn all that land in the north more productive, or cool it down to lower sea levels thus exposing new land suitable for use, we will soon have the capability to do so.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Bonam

[Riverwind]

Well that's the problem with activists for just about any cause.

The difference in this case is the radical activists are now running the whitehouse.

That's an interesting point, however, I find it difficult to believe, based on the projected effects of climate change. Do you have any links to a detailed analysis?

The analyses like the Stern Report have been thouroughly debunked for over estimating the cost of adaptation and underestimating the cost of mitigation. Try:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/World%2...%20Part%201.pdf

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/pu...543-2007.21.pdf

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv29n4/v29n4-5.pdf

If some of the scenarios that are commonly held to be likely to come to pass within the 21st century do end up that way, such as rise of sea levels by a significant amount, the economic impact of losing substantial areas of coastal land and the relocation of the people and infrastructure in those areas will be immensely expensive.

The IPCC projects a sea level rise of no more than 1m by 2100. A rise that can easily be handled with dike construction. Claims of higher rises have no credible scientific basis.

The bigger issue will be the waves after waves of refugees from areas of the world where water sources would dry up or other climate changes would force people to move. Given the political climate, western nations would let in these millions of new refugees, adding to our economic and social woes.

The fact is the best way to help the developing world is to ensure that they become wealthy enough to look after themselves. What this implies that it would make more sense to emit more CO2 if that creates the wealth that allows them to develop. What this also means is significant reductions in the developed world are pointless because the vast majority of emissions in 2050 will come from what is now the developing world and any sacrifices made by people in developed countries will have no effect on the ultimate outcome.

Bottom line: a warmer richer world is better for humans than a cooler poorer world. There are no economic alternatives to fossil fuels which means mitigation requries that everyone become poorer in order to meet the emission targets.

And then there is the other issue of the fact that we should reduce pollution for reasons entirely unrelated to global warming, such as health effects, the visual appearance of our cities, and natural beauty. Even if there was no global warming issue at all, researching and implementing cleaner technologies would still be a worthwhile endeavor, as I'd rather breath clean air than air with higher concentrations of particulates, carbon dioxide, and other pollutants.

There is a huge difference between real pollution like particulates and CO2. The former is the result of an inefficient process but the latter is the inevitable result of the process. What this means it is realitively cheap to do something about particulates and next to impossible to do anything about CO2. For that reason it is huge mistake to use particulates as justification for CO2 controls. If we want to do something about particulates it is much more economic to do something about particulates and ignore CO2. Edited June 12, 2009 by Riverwind

[Alta4ever]

How about spending 1 Billion dollars to an industry that does cause people their health? That is what Jim Prentice, the Environment Minister gave to the oil sands! Unlike the auto sector, where the govt will get money back for the loan, all we get from the oil sands is pollution!

It causes people thier health? Maybe if you get in an accident driving up to Ft. Mac.

[Alta4ever]

The evolutionary rule of thumb is adapt or die. Nowhere have I read that we can control the weather or "fix" the environment. I think we need to rethink the entire concept.

Ahh now your are talking about human arrogance. For these people, they think they can control everything, and can adapt people, society and even the planet itself to their will, when what they should be doing is adapting themselves to the changes that are always happening around them.