{"id":5093,"date":"2018-02-05T17:41:48","date_gmt":"2018-02-05T22:41:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ecooptimism.com\/?p=5093"},"modified":"2018-02-10T18:37:16","modified_gmt":"2018-02-10T23:37:16","slug":"the-distillery-november-17-2017-2-2-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ecooptimism.com\/?p=5093","title":{"rendered":"The Distillery: February 2, 2018"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

We can all use some positive news these days, especially on the environmental front in which science is considered evil, denial is an alternative fact and the EPA is now what I\u2019m calling the Environmental Destruction Agency. And while I don\u2019t want to gloss over the issues \u2013 there isn\u2019t enough paint in the world to do that \u2013 I offer here The Distillery, a weekly (or thereabouts) selection of posts to help offset the PTSD of our current nightmare.<\/span><\/p>\n

The posts I pick will be \u201creal\u201d in the sense that they aren\u2019t pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, as fun as those can be, but are evidence of EcoOptimism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

The theme here: good news disguised as bad news<\/h2>\n

From ThinkProgress:<\/span><\/strong>
\nJanuary 4, 2018<\/p>\n

2017\u2019s costly climate change-fueled disasters are the \u2018new normal,\u2019 warns major reinsurer<\/a><\/p>\n

and from The New York Times:<\/span><\/strong>
\nJanuary 4, 2018<\/p>\n

2017 Set a Record for Losses from Natural Disasters. It Could Get Worse<\/a><\/p>\n

And the \u201cBomb Cyclone\u201d wasn\u2019t even in 2017, so we\u2019re off to an inauspicious start. But there\u2019s optimism here \u2026.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Photo: U.S. Air Force photo\/Tech. Sgt. Ben Bloker<\/p><\/div>\n

EcoOptimism’s take: <\/span>On the face of it, this doesn\u2019t sound like an EcoOptimistic post, but it in fact emphasizes the economic incentive to mitigating and adapting to climate change. Insurance companies – especially reinsurers, the ones who insure the insurance companies – have been concerned with this for a while. The Times article references Munich Re, but Swiss Re has also studied the potential costs of covering insurance losses due to climate change and has been ringing alarm bells. <\/span><\/p>\n

Arguably, since politicians (American, that is) aren\u2019t onboard, it may be the business world that spurs, finally, US action. Ironically, politicians cling to the belief that environmental action is bad for business.<\/span><\/p>\n

And if the business case for climate action doesn’t work, maybe the military case can…<\/h2>\n

From Ecowatch:<\/span><\/strong>
\nFebruary 2, 2018<\/p>\n

Climate Impacts Nearly Half of U.S. Military Bases<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Photo: Michael Lavender \/ U.S. Navy \/ Flickr<\/p><\/div>\n

EcoOptimism’s take: <\/span>The US military is a surprisingly staunch advocate for adaptation to climate change. Though Trump ridiculed Obama for saying so, climate change is a national security threat that could both create or exacerbate geopolitical and affect military readiness. This post, though, emphasizes the potential direct cost of climate change. As a military policy, it might even have Trump’s ear and bring him to his senses. But maybe that’s my EcoOptimism speaking.<\/span><\/p>\n

China is going to stop accepting plastic for recycling, so…<\/h2>\n

From Ecowatch:<\/span><\/strong>
\nJanuary 15, 2018<\/p>\n

America Needs a Plastics Intervention. Now\u2019s the Time.<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

photo source: Scrap Monster<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n

EcoOptimism’s take: <\/span>So China\u2019s going to stop taking the world’s plastic waste for recycling. That problem, though, creates the impetus for better recycling, plastics that are more recyclable, and\/or plastics bans here and elsewhere. And, of course, to stop shipping our problems elsewhere.<\/span><\/p>\n

A new twist to “Read My Lips” and taxes…<\/span><\/h2>\n

From Evolution News:<\/span><\/strong>
\nJanuary 27, 2018<\/p>\n

Would a Beef Tax Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Photo source: Evolution News<\/p><\/div>\n

EcoOptimism’s take: <\/span>: Taxes are bad, right? Not if they discourage consumption of things that aren\u2019t good for us or the environment – and meat is both. Think about, for instance, taxes on cigarettes or alcohol. Or sugary drinks, as is catching on in some places. (Though NYC\u2019s proposed tax didn\u2019t survive a lawsuit. On the other hand, the city\u2019s proposal for congestion pricing which, arguably, is a tax, is getting some traction<\/a> after a false start.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Now if we can only institute carbon taxes. Or if not that, maybe at least an increase in the decades old gasoline tax, which has been 18.4 cents since 1993. That means it\u2019s actually decreased<\/em> significantly due to inflation.<\/span><\/p>\n

But taxes are bad, right?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>