Some readers may recall a sophomoric comment from an “Ethan” at this post. He persists, but I doubt if anyone is following it any more other than him. So I thought I’d start a newer thread to continue the discussion, and hopefully educate him. He last wrote:
“Mass economic dislocation, poverty, disease and death,” though, are all consequences of climate change. Sea level rise will send billions of people scrambling for higher ground, competing with the existing population for dwindling resources. The deserts will spread, and indeed are already spreading, destroying millions of acres of arable land in the southwestern United States and northern Africa.
Now, I am not suggesting solutions to this problem. Massive government intervention leaves a bad taste in my mouth, too. But it makes me sick to think that there is still so much doubt about climate change and its consequences among the general population, when the science is solid. My statement that 1 percent of scientists think climate change might not be human caused may be “argumentum ad verecundiam,” but it is nearly accurate…the number varies slightly from survey to survey, but in all the reports I could find it has never been above 4%. So we’re looking at, at worst, 97% consensus that climate change is a reality, and that human activity is the driving force behind it.
I have read the “climategate” emails, and frankly, there is nothing in them that suggests a vast conspiracy of scientists. They contained unprofessional language concerning doubters of climate change, but all of the quotes which seem to point to such a conspiracy were obviously removed from their proper context when reprinted by the media. In fact, I blame the media for the fact that so many people in the United States are not sure if climate change is a reality. That 1 – 4% of scientists is given equal time with the 97 – 99% who are positive climate change is happening, which creates widespread doubt when it should be minimal.
Now, again, I don’t know exactly what should be done about climate change. Action on a large scale is needed, and frankly I don’t know if people are ready for that. But the consequences of inaction will be very high, and will be seen in my lifetime. The consensus is that our emissions of greenhouse gases (e.g., our consumption of fossil fuels) must peak by 2015 for the temperature to stabilize at no more than 2 degrees Celsius above temperatures at the end of the last century. So I don’t know about you, but I’m probably going to buy an electric car when they hit the streets, and I think I’ll be doing my shopping at local farmers’ markets whenever possible. Even those little things (buying potatoes grown in your state instead of ones that were flown or trucked across country) make a difference. I just hope those little things are enough.
I’m kind of swamped today, but I trust other readers will set him on the road to wisdom. I would suggest though (because it’s not obvious that he did) that he start (as I suggested at the time) by reading the piece I wrote at PJM that the post was partially about.
A military service member can retire at 50% of base pay after 20 years of service. If they enlisted at 18, they can retire at age 38. They may be drawing their retirement pay for another 50 years. The government doesn’t pay for the retirement plans of contractors. That alone represents a significant life cycle savings.
There are a lot of skills that the military needs but they don’t need all of them all of the time. It doesn’t make sense to have personnel with all of those skills on active duty all of the time. You have to consider the entire cost of maintaining those skills. First, you have to have a trainng program for the new enlistees so they can acquire the skills. You have to have a career long promotion program for that skill set. You have to pay not only their base pay but also the allowances. You have to provide for facilities, equipment, all logistics support. And you have to pay for their retirement benefits. If their skills aren’t needed during peacetime, what will they be doing to maintain those skills?
The military has been trying to reduce the “tooth to tail” (shooter to support personnel) ratio for decades. The Marines do this by turning over most of their support positions to the Navy, such as using Navy Corpsmen for their medics. The move to using contractors is just another step in reducing the number of military personnel we need on a year in, year out basis.
The military has been trying to reduce the “tooth to tail” (shooter to support personnel) ratio for decades.
Yes, I’m aware of that. But my view is that it also increases the overall cost of running the US military. Remember retirement pay is way down the road (and only matters when the soldier stays in for 20 years, most do not) while contractor pay is upfront. I find it hard to believe that paying civilian contractors to perform a risky job is somehow cheaper than paying military personnel to do the same thing. Further there is considerable room for political graft with this scheme of contracting services to outsiders.
The irony here is that the military isn’t really reducing “tooth to tail” either. The “tail” positions become expensive contractor positions, but they don’t go away. It’s not clear to me whether the military is actually more effective or agile as a result. And as you already know, I believe it is not cheaper.
Also, while I claim contractors are more expensive, I mean by this the cost per contractor employee paid by the US in the contract, not necessarily the take home pay that a particular employee receives. I believe there’s a number of cases where employees are paid relatively little, but the contract is considerably more per employee (things like housekeeping, cooks, etc that can be filled with temp workers from overseas locations like the Philippines).
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf
Look at all those left-wing, uneducated, anti-science, snake oil salesman.
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change
is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
I’m sure glad we have you folks at Transterrestrial Musings on the case! Otherwise, I’d be compelled to believe these people!
Evidently the governments of China and India are not convinced.
The only thing holding back the USA is that the Chinese and Indians won’t join in. You need to stop wasting your time here and work on India. Evidently one railroad engineer and a boat load of science is not enough to convince them.
Ethan and folks like him have caused an immense amount of environmental destruction.
They focus on climate science and completely ignore the technical feasibility of reducing carbon emissions.
They are gullible, technically illiterate and are therefore reduced to mouthing platitudes.
They mouth these platitudes with not one single clue as to whether following their platitudes will make things better or worse.
Which leads to environmental disasters like the one below. Environmental disasters that are aided, abetted and cheered on by folks like Ethan
Palm oil: the biofuel of the future driving an ecological disaster now
Much of this destruction was a direct result of environmental policies enacted to reduce carbon emissions.
Since we veered into the subject of counterproductive environmentalism, let us not forget that poor people don’t give a hoot about environmental issues. So any policy, such as CO2 emission reduction that creates lots of poor people and has little if any positive environmental impact, is going to damage the environment.