Global Climate Change ---- Will Anything Be Done?
Good topic for discussion, especially the "put your money where your mouth is" questions about individual lifestyle changes we'd consider -- promoted by Brendan
Scientists from around the world have re-affirmed previous reports that the planet’s average temperatures are increasing rapidly and will continue to do so for centuries. The results of this temperature change include rising sea levels, changes in seasonality, movement and extinction of species, and other similar effects.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm
Although some Americans scoff at these reports, they are wrong to do so. They remind me very much of the doctors and scientists that testified before Congress that smoking was not demonstrably harmful or addictive and that there was no absolute proof that smoking caused cancer.
But like smoking and cancer, time itself provides the proof. Looking back at previous report on climate change (2001) and its possible impacts, they report that
. . . the international body's previous reports may have actually been too conservative.
Writing in the journal Science, an international group of scientists concluded that temperatures and sea levels had been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed in the last report, which was published in 2001.
The paper compared the 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change report with what has actually happened.
The models had forecasted a temperature rise between about 0.15C-0.35C (0.27-0.63F) over this period. The actual rise of 0.33C (0.59F) was very close to the top of the IPCC's range.
A more dramatic picture emerged from the sea level comparison. The actual average level, measured by tide gauges and satellites, had risen faster than the intergovernmental panel of scientists predicted it would.
Personally, I do not think it is fruitful to waste time or energy trying to convince those who refuse to see what is happening. While there is no argument that mankind has reshaped the surface of this planet, otherwise-reasonable people seem to find it hard to believe that our reshaping extends to the very thin layer of air that surrounds the planet. Like those who vehemently doubted smoking’s affect, time will shortly prove them wrong on this too.
The real issues are can we do anything to stop it and, if we determine that we can, will we?
If we assume we can do something ---- stopping the extreme level of emissions the US generates, for instance ---- will we do it? Before you say “of course!” think about it a bit. Science says that action is needed today, not tomorrow. So beginning today:
Will you give up air travel? No more visits to distant relatives or vacation spots, ever.
Will you give up air conditioning or heating?
Will you move into a smaller home?
Will you give up your commute and move closer to your job?
Will you give up the goods that arrive on these shores by the shipload? (Electronics, fresh fruits and vegetables, clothing, metallic goods, paper and wood, etc.)
Will you be willing to force others to do so?
My pragmatic side says that despite all the rhetoric and the risks, you will not do so.
- Purpleface's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
the real question
is not whether the warming is happening - it definitely seem to be. The question is who or what is responsible for it - for example it certainly can be a natural cycle that's been happening from the beginning of time.
I am not sold on the human responsibility for this and that anything we can do might affect or change the natural warming cycle.
I am much more inclined to agree with the Canadian Prime Minister who in 2002 said
:
The scheme that is born out of the scam of convincing humanity that we are solely responsible for this global warming farce.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Move on to the next step
Let's just skip over your personal disbelief as to whether this is man made or not. Just assume it's entirely natural and that, as you say, it does indeed appear to be happening.
Even entirely natural climate change will have the same results. Sea levels rise, climate patterns change which change the distribution of productive farm land, animals, insects, and the diseases borne by those insects. Historical----natural----climate change has not always been slow; we can expect some portion of the changes ahead to happen quickly. When the Antarctic sea ice goes, the lack of its cooling effect means the entire cap may melt within years, raising sea levels very quickly indeed. Or if the north polar icepack goes first, the affect on the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic may be essentially immediate, putting all European agriculture at risk due to decreased temperature and rainfall. Whether natural or manmade, the effect of the change in global temperature will be the same. Science can accuractly predict the macro results of an increase in temperature, regardless of the cause of the increase.
The question then becomes: Should we make any attempt to "pre-adapt" by changing any of our behavior now or should we just wait for the actual changes to occur and react to them as they occur? Or should we ignore it entirely and pretend that things will not change enough to matter to our way of life?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
The environmentalist answer would be ...
We should not interfere with nature. So if the warming is natural we should leave it alone. :-)
Poppycock! Science can't even tell me what the temperature is going to be next week, much less in a hundred years. And as for these computer models, how often are they having to change them because they realized that they had it wrong? Fairly frequently if memory serves.
The idea that science knows everything there is to know on this subject is the utmost in arrogance. And it wasn't that long ago (a few decades maybe) that science was telling us that we were facing another Ice Age. In fact, they're still predicting it!
. So much for that "consensus" on global warming I keep hearing about.
This is a good skim on what science has been "telling" us for more than 100 years.
Any discipline that is predicting irreversible global warming at the same time that they are predicting a coming Ice Age obviously doesn't have the whole story.
Dire predictions of Ice Ages and Global Warming. That sounds like fear mongering to me. I guess all of those so called "climatologists" that keep suckling at the federal teat have to justify their paychecks somehow ... and they probably want them to keep coming too. What better than a coming cataclysm?
Sorry, but I find it hard to support destroying the world's economy by trying to avoid something that is on as shaky ground as this.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm not sure of your point
Are you saying that global average temperature is increasing or that it is not? Or that we cannot know if it is or is not?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
My point is ...
That the scientists are alternating between conflicting predictions (Ice Ages and Irreversible Global Warming). This suggests to me that they don't heve the slightest idea what they are talking about.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You should take the time
to understand the significance of those historical fluctuations. Climatology is a serious science that can be verified empirically. You can take your global model and apply it to the past thirty years to infer accuracy, for example. They are constantly refining and updating their models. There is still a degree of uncertainty because we haven't been measuring temperatures everywhere for very long. But you're being too dismissive. GW is real, measurable, and unprecedented.
You are confusing the effects of chaotic fluctuations (very difficult to predict, even short term) with long-term temperature and precipitation averages that come from heat transfer equations. This is not like projecting social security shortfalls fifty years from now. This is adhering to the laws of physics.
Serious science?
Hmmm. So you believe that if you can show that a model is accurate over a span of 30 years that you can safely extrapolate out hundreds of years from that?
So am I to assume by this possition that you actually believe that a model which has been tuned to fit a specific set of known data cannot vary quite significantly from reality outside of that range?
For example, a plane serves as a reasonable model for the surface of a sphere over a sufficiently small range, but I wouldn't try to use it to extrapolate outside of that range.
You are using 30 years of data out of what, 4 billion?
And this is exactly my point. If they had a model that was right, they wouldn't need to refine it, would they? The fact that they still are is just proof that they don't know what they are talking about.
I am not confusing anything. Let's take the Sun for example. Are you suggesting that these models somehow account for the chaotic fluctuations present in the Sun, and do so accurately out for hundreds of years? Because if they don't then they have no more idea than the man in the moon what the average temperature on the earth will be 100 years out. If those random fluctuations cause the projected solar output to be off by even a few percent the models will be meaningless.
The reality is that these models are being way oversold on the level of accuracy that they can support.
What does adhering to the laws of physics have to do with anything?
In order to make the predictions that we are talking about with any sort of accuracy you would have to know the exact state of matter on the entire planet and within the entire sun to such a high resolution that we can't possibly have it, or possibly even store it for that matter.
And THAT assumes that we have already DISCOVERED all of the relevant physical laws and natural processes that will come into play. Which I doubt that we have, otherwise they wouldn't keep refining their models.
Can these models accurately tell me what the solar output is going to be over the next few hundred years? Or how about when the next large volcanoe is going to erupt? Or the next large meteor strike?
A large volcanoe or two could easily spew enough dust and debris into the air that it could create a Nuclear winter. Then what happens to all those predictions?
Nope, these models have no idea what is going to happen in 1, 5, 10, or 100 years out.
If I just did a straight line least squares fit of the trend of the average global temperature over the past 30 years I would have as good a chonce of getting it right as any of these models, most likely.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Scientific Method
The scientific method
incorporates iteration, evaluation, and alteration.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
And that fact that
you iterate means that the upteen previous iterations were what? Wrong. But you would have had me change all of society based on whichever iteration was "current" at the time even though the next iteration could completely reverse the results (as demonstrated on this very topic of climate change).
So how do you know if you need more iterations? You can't.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Do you have
a better method to attain facts? Of course it's not 100% all of the time. But it is the best method humans have devised to understand the physical phenomena of our universe (unless you have a better one).
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I think you misunderstand
how climatology actually works, and what separates it from other sciences.
Yes, models have to be refined and updated. The same holds true of any science. Our models of the human brain have changed drastically in the last few decades, and that doesn't make our studies of the brain any less valuable for that.
But climatology faces a problem that many other sciences do not: a barrage of variables without a proper control. Even assuming you could get your hands on the majority of influential data for any particular moment, there's always something else to throw you. Maybe a fluctuation in the sun's light for the day will cause an almost imperceptable change in the temperature, which in turn will cause a slight fluctuation in the wind pattern, which in turn... chaos theory.
So you're left with two choices: ignore climatology altogether, or acknowledge that its best models will always have limitations. I'm fine with the latter, because most of its predictions haven't given me cause to doubt them.
That leads me to a longer point, which is more in response to Ender, but I'm already on the topic:
It is naive and dangerous to assume that any ecosystem can sustain long-term, toxic damage and not be affected. I have not been a proponent of global warming legislation per se because I think its existence as a phenomenon is largely arbitrary: I've lived in three different cities in the past decade, and in each case the dome of smog hovering overhead is not an invention of some anti-capitalist cabal. Look at how health has been affected in recent years: life expectancy goes up because our medical technology is improved, but the cases of allergies, asthma, and cancer are skyrocketing. Because you can't live like this and expect that it won't bear consequences.
Unfortunately these unhealthy umbrellas aren't limited to the cities: ecosystems are fluid, and what you dump in the river doesn't stay in your bend of the river. We don't have to be green tree-huggers to see that our impact on the environment has been enormous, and when left unchecked, enormously negative. Lake Victoria is on life support because of our meddling, slash-and-burn foresting has wiped out species and rapidly increased the southern migration of the Sahara in Africa, American lakes that were once safe for swimming and drinking are unswimmable and unpotable, and in my own neck of the woods, the warnings of "crazy environmentalists" turned out to be 100% true with regards to marsh deterioration and sustainability.
The amount of pollutants we dump into the air on a daily basis is beyond the point of absuridity. To think that they have no impact is naive and dangerous.
To answer Purpleface: touché, and a great diary. What sacrifices would I be willing to make, especially as someone who travels abroad as a necessary function of my job? That's a tough question to answer. I already walk/bike/bus to work, so my impact in those areas is minimized. I would be willing to pay more for a more environmentally conscious form of international travel, but I'm currently bound financially. And there's the rub: it costs more to be environmentally conscious, in the short run. Sadly, one's job only involves the short run, and is impossible to ignore.
But why can't we refocus the bulls**t subsidies we gave oil companies last year (the year of their greatest profits, huh?) into development of innovative technologies. The only people who lose there are companies unwilling to diversify beyond oil? Why are we slaves to their demands? Is it an "evil socialist plot" to plan for the future?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
The key argument is this:
No. Climate change predictions are not dependant on initial conditions. It simply applies the principle that the extra heat retained simply has to go somewhere. They can't predict where the snowstorm will hit next week because of all the unknown variables and computing limitations you mentioned.
But this is a different type of analysis. "Adhering to the laws of physics" means doing heat transfer balances on earth & its atmosphere. This is a gross summary of the process:
1. The only significant external heat source for our planet is the sun. It's radiance can be measured relatively easily.
2. The amount of solar radiation absorbed or reflected by the earth's atmosphere and surface will determine the heat transfer balance. Atmospheric reflectivity changes with the concentration and composition of GHG.
3. A positive balance inevitabley unavoidably to higher average surface temperatures. These are mostly perceptable and measurable over longer (30+ year) averages.
As for the "refining the models" part, it doesn't mean that the old models are wrong. It means they are incomplete or too uncertain. They can't predict rainfall patterns in most areas with a sufficient degree of accuracy to be useful. They can't say whithin how many years the Northwest passage will be navigable.
Extrapolation does imply a higher degree of uncertainty than interpolation, but scientists know that. There are several curves representi
I am pretty confidant there is no significant undiscovered GHG source (we already know all about bovine flatulance) that would invalidate all the work that's been done. We're not discovering new laws of physics each day.
Good scientific method always addresses uncertainty and is careful not to overstate. But the evidence of current and past trends is overwhelming. Global warming is happening, and man-made GHGs are causing it.
Fair enough
(Although I think you'd be able to reconcile the seeming discrepancies with a bit more study, but that's beside the point.) The realm of prediction is not an exact science and the folks studying this do indeed make changes to their models as their knowledge improves. This same element of uncertainty also applies to suggestions of possible "cures," which is where I perceive your greater concerns to be.
What I am hoping to get at is a bit more deeper thought on this, something that goes past the usual talking points. It is in no-one's best interest to "destroy the world's economy" through poorly-reasoned actions.
In the case of the USA, scientists may determine that minimizing the impact of the temperature change will require that we cut our emissions by a level that most here have said would cause results that are unacceptable to the average American. In other words, the "cure" may be extreme and uncompromising; half measures may not suffice.
The intent of this diary is to get people to think about how extreme a cure they would be willing to stomach, regardless of their position on who or what is responsible for the rise in temperature. If one believes the science, then the time for decision and action is now. It sounds like you are in the "the weather is not going to change so why do anything about it" camp, so you may not need to think about this much ;}
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I think that the level of sacrifice
I am willing to endure is dependent on the following:
1) Some reasonable assurance that we are not reacting to nonsense. I don't currently have this level of confidence in the science behind global warming.
2) Some resonable understanding of the likely impact. I am not in the "any change is bad camp". If the coastline moves inland a few miles, so be it. It's not like it is going to happen overnight. I suspect that people will be able to get out of the way of the flood in this case. :-)
The earth has been changing for billions of years. We, as a species, have already benefited from the undeniably NATURAL warming that has occured since the last Ice Age. Who's to the same won't be true moving forward from here?
I understand the shortcomings of any models that can be currently available today, and as such I weight their significance accordingly so as not to through the baby out but keep the bath water. (common phrase misquoted on purpose)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Then all I ask
is that you try to keep an open mind about the information that is presented to you on this topic instead of automatically thinking that anyone who says that things might change or that action is needed is an ignoramus who wants to destroy the economy. Critical thinking and the ability to objectively weigh options are skills we need to use to their fullest. Partisan dismissal gets in the way of that, IMHO.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I think that I do these things already.
But fair enough. Ditto to you.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Absolutely
but I've been fascinated by the physical history of our planet since before most of these posters learned to walk, so this is one topic I've been following for years. Didn't anyone else ever take historical geography or petrogenesis and get hooked by the stories in the rocks? Utterly fascinating. . . .
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Reply
Actually, environmentalists want to create a world where we live in harmony with the earth through sustainable means. (I can see by your smicon that you probably said this tongue in cheek.)
Hmm, are you suggesting that climatologists can’t look at trends to see future results. I think that their long term predictions are more accurate than their week by week predictions. Your argument is equivalent to saying that we do not know the sun’s energy output tomorrow, so we cannot discuss when the sun will die out.
Whoa! Scientists change their prediction as new information comes in? Those guys don’t know squat since they do not get it perfect the first time. Great point!
Great ‘still’. You give an article seven years old as ‘still’? I think we’ve learned some things about the climate in seven years. Also, the article mentions that we are only at the beginning of the pendulum swing for another ice-age which will not be in effect for the “next few thousand years”. Global warming has its effects now.
Yes, let’s get rid of science.
Maybe you do not understand the whole story. First, global warming could create an ice-age in Europe as Purpleface explains in his post (due to a significant change in the northern ocean temperatures from an infusion of fresh water). Also, as stated above, we can enter inot a long term ice-age but still screw up the short-term atmosphere.
My favorite question to ask Ender is what the motive to lie for the climatologists is? You have a great one: federal funding. Yes, that is keeping them all in unison and prevents one scientist from proclaiming the truth (not one scientific journal since 1998 doubts global warming and not one has been able to disprove human cause. Today’s report gives more evidence that it is human caused).
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Replies.
Actually, I think ELF has a slightly different plan for people ... at least based on their actions.
I agree that their long-term predictions are probably more accurate than their week to week ones. But I can say the same thing about the stock market, and you know what they like to say: "Past performance is no guarantee of future results!" I would argue the same holds true from climate changes.
Sure, the general trend of the market is up, up, up!. But that doesn't mean there can't be things like depressions and recessions for signficant periods of time (and those tend to be hard to predict). Hence my claim that they can't know what is going to happen to the mean global temperature.
The climatologists cannot account for the variables in the climate any more than the Wall Street guys can account for market fluctuations.
Well, strictly speaking, this is a true statement (as long as you replace "discuss" with "prove". We're "pretty sure" the Sun won't blow up tomorrow, but you can't prove it won't, either!
I don't fault them for refining their models, but I also don't want them claiming that they've gotten it right this time only to find out that they missed something that completely reverses their prediction.
Oh, that won't happen, you say? I refer you back to the previous literature on Ice Age vs. Global Warming predictions over the years.
Seven years vs. thirty years vs. a hundred years? Close enough. Either way it doesn't really matter to my point, which is that these things go back and forth. Hey, isn't that a trend? So I predict that within a decade or two they'll be back to predicting Ice Ages again.
You are asking me to believe the "scientists" now that we're all gonna burn up. But you would have also had me believe the "scientists" 30 years ago that we were all gonna freeze. Burn before that. Freeze before that. Ad nauseam. All the while they were just "refining their models" based on new data, which is a good thing.
If this history teaches us anything, it is to not make major changes to society based on scientist's predictions about what the climate is going to do.
Until they change their minds ten years from now. Al Gore has been predicting a 10 year time window to disaster for like 12 years now. We should all be toast but here I sit, nice and comfy.
Typical liberal BS. You're loosing the argument so you fly off the handle.
I never said that. But I did say that we shouldn't "fly off the handle" every time they come up with some bad news. Gee, you like to fly off the handle it seems. Maybe that's just a lib thing.
Republicans are chicken hawks, and libs are chicken littles! :-)
Yes, I understand this. Sucks to be the Europeans, but hey, our land value just went up so its not all bad!
Besides, I don't think that a localized effect on a single continent constitutes an "Ice Age" in the traditional sense of the term. Another typical lib move, change the meanings of things to fit your arguments.
They aren't all singing in unison. You just like to discount the opposition as being corporate hacks so you don't actually have to confront their data and analyses.
You do the same thing with ID but they are "religious" instead.
What is your definition of "Scientific Journal"? Peer reviewed? Peer reviewed is over rated. It's a good ol' boys club of sorts. What good does it do to have your work reviewed by other people that just believe like you? As far as I am concerned it might be meaningful if stuff was reviewed by your opposition who might actually have something interesting to say.
But of course you would rather just discount your opposition rather than address the merits of their arguments. Case in point: the concept of irreducible complexity and its implications for evolution. Note that the concept of irreducible complexity in and of itself has nothing to do with religion.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4PS regarding "scientific journals".
Look what google just turned up:
Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'
See, good ol' boys club. So much for the "everyone agrees" meme you guys are trying to foist on everyone.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Re: Scientific Journals
The main opponent that the article discusses (Benny Peiser
) is not a climate scientist. He is an anthropologist arguing that there was not consensus on global warming in academic journals. He did no science himself regarding whether global warming exists or not. He later capitulated his argument:
The other professor the article discusses, Roy Spencer, is a known shill for Exxon
and a vocal advocate for ID 
. I know that doesn't carry much weight for you, but it sets off alarms for the rest of the scientific community.
The only person in the article that has a bit of credibility regarding atmospheric science is Christopher Landsea (I happen to know him, though we are not good friends or even regular acquaintances). Here is a more recent analysis regarding global warming
from him:
Hardly the good ol' boys club. Most everyone that matters in the scientific community agrees.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
You of course ignore the main point of the ...
article: That the scientific journals are suppressing opposing research! The cliche of reviewers used by the journals is what constitutes the good ol' boys club.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If you call
suppression not letting research through that doesn't have adequate evidence, then you are probably correct (the inadequate evidence is shown by their relatively quick turn-around in their positions).
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Newsflash: Leading "scientific journals"
also reject articles arguing that life on earth was created by an intelligent designer! Stop the presses! Liberal bias!
Snark aside, there's one definite moment in the politicization of climatology that I resent: the resignation of Chris Landsea
, of the former hurricane expert of the NOAA. He actually agrees that human intervention in the environment is causing global warming, but he was offended that this was being arbitrarily applied to supposed increases in hurricane activity. His (to my mind, perfectly reasonable) argument is that we can extrapolate models of global warming based on decades upon decades of data, but people were trying to extrapolite this hurricane cycle from the past year, which isn't nearly enough to go on.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Conservatives are supposed to want to keep things the same.
Conservatives are supposed to not want change.
Here, without using one brain cell, if you have a spare one, proclaim that the life our grandkids have on this planet is less important than some corporations future profits.
You sir, are a cad and selfish butt.
Not so.
Conservatives (captialists actually) want profits to go up! Up means change.
Where did I say anything like that?
Even so, your comment is based on the false assumption that "climate change" = "bad". Why do you assume that a changing climate will make things "worse"? As with any change there will be winners and losers. How do you know that there will be more losers than winners and hence it will turn out to be a net loss? It is just as likely to be a net win as far as I can tell.
As I like to point out, global warming is an undeniable fact. There used to be 2 miles of ice over the Great Lakes. All in all, from my perspective global warming has been working out pretty well for us so far, wouldn't you say?
So the imperical evidence suggests that global warming is actually a good thing.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not sure you want to play that game
Right now, the planet is admirably suited to our needs. Or, better put, we're perfectly adapted to the current environment. Now you want to start tweaking things, increasing the temperature, raising the water level, because it *might* be better? Doesn't that strike you as a pretty high risk, low reward sort of thing?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I am not advocating tweaking anything.
Your side is.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If you've been paying close attention
to this thread, you should see that contrary to the stereotype you just expressed, quite a few have stated that, no, they are not really that thrilled with the idea of having to tweak their lifestyles (and by extension the economic activities that enable those lifestyles) in a significant way. There is much common ground.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
You are right. I apologise for any insults you might
take from my comment. That was quite rude of me.
However, my angst reguarding your argument is that you seem to be saying that the issue hasn't been definitively identified. It seemed to me you were stating that there is some ambiguity, scientifically, reguarding mankind's involvement in adding to gases that trap heat to our atmosphere and it's effect on the potential to raise the temperature of the planet. That is your objection, am I correct?
Coupled with that, the idea that we are presented with a problem, that we KNOW we can tackle, but that it would take effort on our part not to address it simply because some people might lose future profits from addressing an issue is what I consider selfish. It isn't giving of your time energy and money to help your future family and their future family enjoy the bounty that our forefathers worked so hard for to be able to provide us with.
Does that answer your question on what I think any better?
Do not give Stephen Harper
any more credence on this issue than you would Dick Cheney. He's from Alberta.
Climate change specialists (I just saw a brilliant presentation by the Ouranos Institute on Monday) agree that Kyoto amounts to a drop in the ocean. I believe the value in Kyoto is that it sets a framework and targets for starting to address the problem. And it's right to exempt China and India and other developing countries. Their per-capita GHG emissions are tiny compared to ours.
I actually asked the question of what percentage of total GHG planetary emissions are man made. What I unterstood from the rambling answer was that it's around 5%. That may seem small, but the guy argued that the human contributions can cause instability and compounding effects (polar ice melting means more absorption of sun rays on dark water, more dissolved C02 in the oceans is released at higher temperatures, etc.). If total GHGs go up 5% compounded every year for the next 50 years, there will be 11.5 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Man-made GHGs are not negligible. Think of it this way: a 12-gallon tank of gas produces 230 pounds of CO2. That's a lot of plants. It also takes a hundred-square-mile forest to absorb the CO2 of a single 1000MW coal plant.
Global warming is not a "farce", whatever the cause may be. You may have heard one too many doomsday predictions and feel understandably skeptical about another scare from environmentalists. There is a lot of uncertainty and the effects are so incremental, they're difficult to perceive on a small scale. But I think you're failing to recognize a serious threat to our way of life.
Why should I distrust Albertans? n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not distrust
simply not trust them any more than you would Texans or Wyomans. You seemed to imply "well, if even those lefty Canadians are against it..." I'm simply implying that Harper represents the interest of his home province, a significant oil producer. He has every reason to find flaws in Kyoto and prevent it from being implemented.
I'm not saying Harper's wrong to do that, or that his opinion is worthless. It's just that he's more likely to see the economic cost than the global benefit of taking at least the first steps to reducing GHGs.
I would never call Stephen Harper a lefty! :-)
My wife is Canadian, BTW, so I have good fun when we go up for a visit to her family in Brandon, Manitoba. They aren't fans of Stephen Harper either.
Personally, I distrust those "wascally" separatists in Quebec. They talk funny. Can't understand a word they say. It's like they're speaking a whole different language. :-)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ironically
The French would agree with you. I heard that Quebec delegation went on some junket to France in the 1980s and sounded so funny they were asked to please speak English instead.
Did you hear the one about the uniligual Québécois whose car breaks down in Florida and is worried he cant get repairs? "Oh non! Ma strap de fan est loose! Comment j'va leur dire ça (How am I going to tell them that)!"
True in most respects
but I think throwing our arms in the air in resignation is not the correct route also. Your diary is superbly written, but the end implies an either/or fallacy: either you do all of these things or you are not doing anything.
I think people need to make what changes they can. Hopefully, these small changes incrementally, with improvements in alternative energy technologies, will usher in a new paradigm model of how we live. Of course we cannot individually model our lives on a new paradigm when the structure of society will not permit such drastic change.
We should make as many changes as we can individually. For example, I do not drive but once every two weeks or so. My wife and I share a car, and I leave it at home during the work week, since I walk or ride my bike (about a mile and a half or so). She drives the car about three times a week to get groceries in the winter and to take our boy to his various classes. We also use the economical and effecient flourescent light bulbs, which I highly recommend to everyone. We are not perfect though. My wife's driving has increased recently due to her pregnancy and the weather (snowy and freezing as of the last few months). We fly or drive to see her parents about twice a year in Chicago, but we limit our unnecessary/convenience driving as much as possible.
I think people should do what they can, but I think the system needs to change also (as you kind of imply through your pragmatic examples). The government needs to take a role in this change by funding R&D for alternative fuels, incrementally raising taxes on fossil fuels to dissuade their use and force people to adopt alternative travel options, educate people on the dangers of global warming, promote local food suppliers (local farming), promote sustainable and renewable product uses (recycling, less one-time use products, less packaging, tree farms, food co-ops to buy in bulk, etc), and most importantly limit our population (including immigration).
The Earth will do what it needs to with or without our consent. Smoking is a good analogy, because we are essentially killing ourselves. We can either learn from our mistakes and make changes, or continue the downward spiral to our demise. The planet does not care. Our generation must begin the changes even if we do not bear the brunt of the consequences (left to be seen). I just fear for our children and grandchildren.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I'm attempting to
drill down into the actual mechanics of some future scenarios, so the tone may be rather absolutist but sometimes that's what's needed to get folks to think a bit deeper about a problem.
If, as they say, the window for effective action is short, then the choices I posit are indeed ones that each of us might face in the next few years, if the consensus is that action must be taken. I would certainly love to approach this incrementally, each of us doing our part (as your family seems to be doing *applause*), but given the currently suggested window of ten years or less, I do not see that gentle incrementalism guarantees success within that timeframe. If incrementalism does not succeed, it is the functional equivalent of doing nothing, yes? A sinking boat bailed too slowly will still sink.
To frame my questions in a slightly different way: Are you in favor of governmentally-imposed limits only on corporations, or would you support them on individual behavior, including your own, such as the limits I described above?
("Drill down" hehe. You can take the person out of the corporation but you can't take the corporation out of the person. . .)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
No thanks
I'm not willing to go to those extremes, even though I firmly believe global warming is a genuine and significant concern. My list if I were in charge:
1. Cut down on private jet flights
2. Sell pollution credits to cap emissions
3. Start building more energy-efficient homes (e.g. two pane windows)
4. Fund electric rail public transport
5. Incentivize nuclear power
6. Most importantly, share (or sell!) modern clean technology with developing nations.
My list for individuals (some of these I do already, some I should do more):
1. Carpool or take public transportation where possible
2. For some houses you can only heat the rooms you're using (save $$ too)
3. Buy local foods as much as possible (lots of good reasons for this, really)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
To expand slightly
I think that such a sudden regression in the technology we allow ourselves simply will not be accepted. It's not realistic and if we demand that sort of sacrifice upfront I think it jeopardizes more attainable goals by tainting all these efforts with "those wacky environmentalists want us to go back to the stone age!"
With respect to personal steps versus governmental intrusion and regulation, I'm sorry but I think this has to be handled in a top-down manner to make any significant impact. The people who are going to make changes in their personal lives along the lines you suggest have mostly already done so, and those who think global warming is bunk aren't going to change their minds, as you acknowledge. Federal regulations that don't strangle business but do seriously cut down on emissions is the way to go in my opinion. What that looks like in practice I don't know.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Inferior to a carbon tax
But that's exactly what regulations do: they dictate particular solutions, quite often inferior and overly expensive solutions.
That's the beauty of a carbon tax. It doesn't dictate any solution! Since "a penny saved is a penny earned", if you can figure out a way to reduce CO2 emissions by 1 ton, you can save and therefore earn, say, $20 (or whatever the number comes out to).
Put that incentive in front of people and I guarantee you that every business in the world is going to be thinking about how to save energy. Remember, these are EVIL PROFIT-MAXIMIZING CORPORATIONS! They ONLY CARE ABOUT MONEY! Think of the visions of $20 bills dancing in their CEOs' heads after the carbon tax is enacted!
As you can see
I agree that we should tax carbon, but how will that affect an industry that is currently robbing us blind anyway from continuing its current practices when there are no other alternatives in store? In other words, the oil industries can easily pass it on to the consumer. We are already paying inflated prices (as seen by Exxon's record-breaking profit yesterday). We, as consumers have no alternative other than to buy gas at this moment. Our society is structured around fossil fuels, so there is no immediate alternative.
In the above scenario, the oil companies can pass the tax on to the consumer with no real viable alternative.
I don't buy it. Maybe if we saw an 'authentic' price for gas that did not create this record-profit margins would I say maybe. But not with our current structure. We need a tax along with other forced regulations and solutions.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Yes -- carbon tax will be passed on to the consumer
Precisely! That's the entire point -- each level of industry will, in part, pass on this cost to the downstream industries.
When I buy a pencil, I have no idea how much CO2 was emitted as part of the pencil production process. I also don't *need* to know -- it was already reflected in the price of the pencil. If producing 1000 pencils produced 1 ton of CO2 taxed at $20, then 1 pencil's price would go up by approximately $0.02 after the tax was enacted. This gives me an incentive to buy fewer pencils, and thus
Actually, it would probably go up somewhat less than 2 cents -- pencil producers (and the companies they buy from, and the companies they buy from, and so on ad infinitum) would all be looking for more efficient production processes where they could produce the same product with less CO2 emissions. It might be that after the tax went into effect, those businesses might now only produce 1 ton per 2000 pencils, and the price increase would only be 1 cent.
I beg to differ. Individuals have a huge amount of influence over their energy consumption. Let me throw out some examples from personal experience.
1. Every day I face a choice: work from home or commute to work? If the price of gas went up, I might work from home more often.
2. There are many cities and neighborhoods I can live in, some closer to work than others. If the price of gas went up, "living close to work" would become a far more important criterion in deciding where to live. I might even be willing to accept a higher rent just to live close to work.
3. I bought a fuel-efficient car (a Toyota Corolla that gets about 40 mpg on long trips). Forget the big SUVs -- I know lots of people who drive cars that have *less* space than my Corolla that easily consume twice as much gas (think sportscars). If gas was more expensive, they might think twice before buying such impractical cars, or they might drive their cars (and in some cases motorcycles) for fun less often.
4. Some people buy insanely powerful computers that draw nearly 1000W of power when running at full blast. Other people buy normal computers that consume more like 200W peak, or laptops that consume more like 20W peak and 1W idle. Guess whose electricity bill will be higher? Would maybe fewer people buy those insanely powerful computers if electricity cost more?
5. My brother who lives in Minnesota sets his thermostat to 60 in the winter, and much colder (just enough to prevent his water from freezing, etc.) during the day when he's not around and at night. This saves him both money and energy. How many other people can say they do this? How many more people might *start* doing this if energy was more expensive?
6. See 5, but air conditioning rather than heating. Is air conditioning a necessity or a luxury when the temperature is 85 degrees? Would people use it less if energy cost more?
I could go all day coming up with examples. All of have the ability to save energy if we really put our minds to it. The question is not whether we have the ability to conserve -- it's whether we have the *desire* to conserve, and what we are willing to give up to conserve.
Just asking people to conserve "to save the planet" is ineffective. My personal actions will have a negligible impact on the planet either way. All the "think globally, act locally" brainwashing in the world doesn't change the cold hard economic reality that my marginal impact on the health of the planet is, for all practical purposes, zero.
Hit people in their checkbooks, and now you'll have their attention.
As usual
I think we are talking past each other. I agree with implementing this tax, but I do not think it goes far enough. Here's why:
1. We are trying to lessen (or rid) the use of fossil fuels.
2. The intent of the tax is to change people's behavior (use less fossil fuels).
3. People have shown that even with higher gas prices, habits do not change drastically. While people often say they will cut back
, the cuts are often elsewhere besides the majority of their driving.
4. To see this point, look at how gas prices have jumped up to 228% in the less than ten years
($.949 p/g in Feb. of 1999 to $3.117 in Sept. 05), but driving habits have not significantly changed 
(.4% at the height of gas prices). Instead we make cuts elsewhere 
.
5. This is further shown by the fact that we are willing to pay record amounts for gas, giving the oil industries record profits.
6. There are alternatives to driving (as you point out), but from the evidence shown, we need to do more than just raising gas prices to get the desired result.
7. Raising gas prices quickly and drastically may cause the desired effect, but it could also cause irreparable damage to the economy due to its shock to the system.
For these reasons, I think the plan needs to be more comprehensive than just a carbon tax. I think we must fund R&D to create viable alternative fuels, along with educating people about lifestyle and population changes to maximize the result with limited consequences.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Price elasticity of energy demand
Many studies have found that people don't change their behavior much in response to what they view as short-run changes in the price of energy. They *do* change their behavior a lot in response to what they view as permanent or long-run changes in the price of energy.
In any event, if people are willing to pay a lot for gas and drive a lot, so be it. That is their choice. It is none of my business to interfere with that choice as long as they compensate me and others adequately for the consequences of their decision -- even if I happen to think it is a stupid decision. People should be free to do things that are stupid.
I disagree. A carbon tax will incentivize R&D just fine without any need for additional government programs.
We have come full circle
If this is true and a possible outcome:
Then we are not accomplishing the goals as I stated in #1 and #2:
Thus, global warming continues unabated making my stated alternative solutions necessary (perhaps including further forced regulation). Full circle to my original position.
Another complaint is that the poor would be hit hardest during a transition stage, while the rich would be frustrated at the extra burden, but could easily pay the higher prices while they smoothly make changes (or not). Perhaps gasoline powered cars will become in vogue much as Hummers are already. Instead of attaining the aimed goal of ridding ourselves of fossil fuels, we instead run the possibility of making them another statement of class luxury and status while global warming persists.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Your goals, not mine
I am *not* necessarily trying to lessen the use of fossil fuels. I am *not* necessarily trying to change anyone's behavior. I am only trying to make sure that if people want to engage in activities that indirectly harm third parties, those third parties are adequately compensated for that harm.
I happen to think that a carbon tax *would* change behavior significantly, especially in the long run, but that's incidental to the real point, which is to internalize the externality.
The fact that it generates tax revenue and therefore allows us to cut income taxes is also another important bonus. In the very long run I would want to eliminate income and sales taxes entirely and fund all government operations through these sorts of user fees (carbon taxes, sulfur taxes, traffic congestion user fees, road depreciation fees, etc.). In such a world the tax system would actually *create* economic value by correcting pricing errors, rather than destroying economic value by placing a wedge between supply and demand.
Oops, sorry
I thought we were discussing solutions to global warming. My fault.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Who are you to set my costs?
If I am a third party being harmed by someone's activities, and we follow your theory, haven't I lost the right to economically engage in this commerce by setting my own price? You want to pollute my air? $10,000,000. Don't like it, then pollute somewhere else. Am I being unreasonable? Sure, but if you don't like it, you don't need to engage in said commerce with me. After all, if a company wanted to buy 10 acres and I wanted way more than all my neighbors, you shouldn't be able to force us to all sell for the average price should you?
And no, I don't expect this model to be enacted, I'm just trying to construct one that embodies your requirements.
- Government doesn't decide the 'right amount of pollution'
- Nobody is forced or prohibited from managing their own financial dealings.
Some prople have more attention than others
Your theory is already reality for the vast majority of the world, most of whom don't have enough money to open a checking account, much less hit them in it. Unfortunately they are not the ones who are the problem.
If gas was $10 a gallon those
drivingriding in stretch Hummers would not let up in the least. If there were any effect you should be seeing a big increase in sailboats among the boating much less yachting set. While any quick look shows that the results are dramatically the opposite of that.The implementation of your market theories has cast the worst offenders beyond the reach of any such market forces. If the real costs were as privatized as the profits, to say nothing of back charging, the howls of anguish over Government "theft" would be piteous.
Meanwhile those who do work for a living are forced to include the cost of fuel just to go to work, as a real world pay cut, to be balanced by the loss in something more discretionary, in a world that is making discretionary, things you would not have put in that list before.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
This is priceless! :-)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It is amazing to me
that so many easy solutions go the opposite direction either because of crazed notions, or weird disincentives that could be easily fixed.
When the Congress started to regulate fuel economy, the industry trotted out huge trucks as examples of cases that should be exempt, so they were. Then the industry designed all their cars to pass as trucks and avoid the regulations.
Those same huge trucks were trotted out as a necessary expense for some industries, so Congress allowed that only to have industry build private cars (Hummers) heavy enough to get around the regulations.
Personal commute transportation need not have less than 80-100 mpg and could do it with 20 horsepower, hauling loads, particularly in mountain areas would need more, but not at all times (like going down the mountain).
Nobody buys them because nobody builds them. People make choices based on price and availability, not because the design is perfect for them. If they could design their own, the whole direction of the industry would be very different.
I have long advocated what I call Ultralight rail, small rail electric vehicles that only hold 4 people or two with personal transport (segway/ bike/hoveround) and are electronically controlled to go to the destination directly without stopping or sidetrack, as that is the main objection to Public transportation. They are also scalable and flexible unlike the behemoths that travel empty most of the time just in case someone might need it, and horribly overcrowded when too many do.
But again this requires a level of thoughtfulness and a desire to achieve something beyond a personal fortune
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Disaster
The world is facing a disaster and as in all such cases the poor will bear the brunt of it. There was a meeting of African leaders last month about climate change.
The focus was on amelioration not prevention. They have already given up on the idea that there is anything they can do to prevent change.
The libertarians in the US and others who justify greed will find themselves among the suffering in the future. Perhaps they won't be in as much trouble as those in Bangladesh where 1/3 of country is expected to be under water.
The US is still the biggest contributor to global warming, China and India won't catch up for decades, if ever. Even liberals balk at the thought that they have to modify their lifestyle in any significant way.
I think that Katrina showed that the US is not willing to take preventive steps or to remedy things after disasters occur. Sorry, it's not going to be pleasant and there is little that you as an individual can do about it.
The single largest user of fuel in the US is the military.
--- Policies not Politics
Maybe one thing we can do
under your scenario is to quit using this topic as yet another wedge between the partisans. Or, maybe we could go further and use it as an issue of joint concern and actually work together?
Yeah, I know, but I can dream, can't I?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
How?
First, there are those who deny that global climate change is even happening. As I pointed out in the previous thread the AEI is even offering $10,000 to people who can "prove" that the UN report is false.
Second, there are those who may acknowledge that something is happening, but feel it all just a natural phenomena and we should just go with the flow.
Third, are those who know that climate change is real and is caused (at least in part) by human activity, but don't feel that they are in any way responsible.
Fourth, are those who feel that they might be responsible, but feel that any change to their personal lifestyle won't make a difference.
Fifth, are those who wish to make a difference and take some nominal steps (like buying a Prius). This then allows them to continue to be wasteful in other areas while feeling personally virtuous.
I frequently propose a serious restructuring of our industrialized societies so they aren't as based upon the consumerist/capitalist model. To change to a new economic system is not something that individuals can do. It requires a plan and leadership as well as a long educational process to get people on board.
My estimate is that the per capita standard of living of a sustainable US would be at about the same level as Bulgaria (about 20% of what we now consume). The Bulgarians aren't starving, they have a decent enough lifestyle, but I don't see us changing to that level of consumption without being faced by (or as a result of) a disaster.
What we in the blogosphere can do is try to educate people as the magnitude of the problem and get them to be more politically active. We can also try to discredit the naysayers, especially the shills.
I recently proposed an "adopt a blog" program. Find a site that you don't frequently contribute to and bring the message of ecological sanity to it via postings and comments.
--- Policies not Politics
The right response...
...is a carbon tax (preferable) or a cap-and-trade scheme (second best). Make people pay the marginal cost of the externality.
It's the tragedy of the commons. Talking about what your individual response will be is sort of pointless unless we put in place a system where it is in an *individual's* interest to do the right thing. Self-interest is a powerful force -- harness it for good!
Repeal CAFE. Repeal ethanol and "alternative energy" subsidies and mandates. Stop giving tax credits for hybrid cars. Forget about Kyoto. Just replace all of them with a big carbon tax (made revenue-neutral with a big cut in income taxes).
Carbon taxes are easy to implement. They're incredibly effective. Unlike so many other policies, they *aren't* a special-interest boondoggle. And because they raise revenue, they're actually a double win (you are replacing an economically destructive tax, the income tax, with an economically beneficial tax).
The only thing that stands in the way of doing the right thing is political grandstanding. It's easy to go out and give a speech about how conservation is wonderful and then never do anything. A carbon tax would force people to put their money where their mouth is: conserve, or pay up.
Carbon Tax Options
How might a carbon tax work on an individual level? (Working under the assumption that capping/taxing only corporate emissions would not be enough to keep the boat from sinking.) Can you elaborate?
Carbon taxes on a corporate level would be passed on to the consumers. So, for instance, a carbon tax on jet fuel would translate into higher airfare prices, theoretically discouraging folks from flying any more than absolutely necessary. I would suppose the result would have to be monitored and the tax increased if people kept flying "too much" anyway, yes? So the idea of a carbon tax could work, in theory, if the tax rates were adjusted when needed (quarterly?) to match actual consumer behavior/carbon output. Because any approach we choose to follow has to have as its goal a given total national carbon emissions level, doesn't it? Or am I missing something?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Rough mechanics
Each fuel has some carbon content as a fraction of its total weight. Multiply by 44/12 (the mass of CO2 divided by the mass of C) and you have the CO2 produced by burning it. You don't have to fill out a form saying how much you used per year -- just slap a tax on each major form of fuel (oil/gasoline, natural gas, coal, ethanol, etc.) according to these calculations.
Now, you have to be a little careful because there are other applications for these products (petroleum is often used, but not burned, in chemical processes to create other molecules), or to make sure you don't double tax (what if I convert coal to gasoline? don't want to tax it both as coal *and* as gasoline). But, as taxes go, these are solvable problems. The regulations for a carbon tax would be far simpler than our existing IRS income tax regulations (carbon is a lot easier to define than income).
Yes, the taxes would be passed on to consumers. Yes, the result would be that (for example) the cost of flying would increase. However, these cost increases would be mitigated in part by behavioral shifts -- in economic jargon, "substitution effects." For example, I don't know for sure, but I assume that large jets like 747's, if fully loaded, consume less fuel per passenger-mile than smaller jets like 737's. If so, airlines might use more large jets and fewer small jets, and then have fewer flights per day. Or, airlines might have more direct flights and fewer stops through hubs, because direct flights consume less fuel for a given trip.
Where I differ is the following:
The tax rates would be set based on the scientifically determined harm from the externality, not based on some preconceived notion of how much CO2 we "should" be producing. The only reason we would significantly change the tax rates (outside annual inflation indexing) would be if new research comes out proving that CO2 emissions are (more, less) harmful than we previously thought.
The goal is not to eliminate all CO2 emissions. The goal is not even to cut CO2 emissions by any particular amount. The goal is to internalize the externality -- to force individuals to pay the costs of their own behavior, rather than having third parties pay the costs.
It's a starting point
This gets me a bit too far into the realm of hypotheticals for my comfort, but it's an interesting idea, so FWIW my additional two cents:
This might be where difficulties with this method arise: disagreements over the exact harm of a given CO2 molecule.
As I understand it, calculating a "cure" (the total amount of water that must be bailed to keep the boat from sinking, to reuse the metaphor) involves estimating the current total emissions and adding in current CO2 levels, deriving their heat-related values, then working backwards from there to determine the how much less CO2 is needed to reduce the heat values to the "proper" level. In other words, to know that the bailing will indeed keep the boat afloat, we have to be assured that the correct total amount of water (or more) is being removed from the boat, or else we sink anyway and have done all the bailing for naught.
We could be very conservative in the calculations and set the tax value higher than the worst-case scenario (e.g., the USA is the only one bailing while China keeps putting holes in the boat), but that might result in drastic lifestyle changes that the electorate would balk at, even those who claim to be worried and to want action about global climate change.
But a carbon tax does at least begin to link the price of fossil fuels to their true cost, so it sounds like a step in the right direction.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
There is no such thing as the "proper" climate
Our goal is not to get the earth to any particular temperature. In fact, it is not at all immediately obvious (without some actual research proving it) that mild global warming is necessarily harmful *at all*. There are parts of the planet where it would even be quite beneficial.
Mild, gradual sea level changes, for example, are no big deal. If the sea rises 1 foot in the next 50 years, that makes very little difference -- we can build sea walls where necessary and build new houses further inland. (If it rises 10 feet in 10 years, that would be a different story, but that should be reflected in the cost estimates.) The money from the carbon tax is, in effect, compensating people for the cost and inconvenience of having to relocate homes.
One could even argue that climate *change* is what is really economically costly, not the higher or lower temperatures themselves. Suppose the earth warms up by 2 degrees 100 years from now but then stabilizes at the new temperature, and then we have the ability to press a magic red button and cool it back down by 2 degrees. It's not at all obvious that cooling it back down would be a good idea -- this would cause the exact same disruption in reverse all over again.
The previous historical temperature of the earth is not terribly relevant. That's in the past. The real question is what to do *now*. What is the *optimal* temperature of the earth, and are we currently above or below that optimal temperature? How costly is gradual climate change? How costly is rapid climate change? What is the cost of preventing or reversing climate change?
This is nothing other than an optimization problem: how do we get the best outcomes given where we are today?
I agree with everything you said
except the revenue-neutral offsetiting tax cut. The proceeds will be needed to provide the public with alternatives to emitting GHGs, not allow wasteful consumers and big polluters to continue business as usual.
Fix your logic
and you have just argued for progressive taxes and welfare.
To take the usual sheep example of a 100 sheep capable Commons with and 100 people each originally have one sheep. One person gets 5 sheep and now the Commons deteriorate, so there is a sheep getting frenzy, and soon what was the Commons is private and will only support 20 sheep, and a lot of terrible times for everyone else.
The solution is to enforce the Commons! If each additional sheep in increasingly expensive, say twice the cost of the sheep before, and those who are a part of the Commons but have no sheep are paid for the use of their part "ownership" of that commons as a equal share.
Since wealth uses a very much larger portion of the Commons than poverty and the idea is to restrain runaway use of that Commons then a "tax" that does not restrain enterprise, but does restrain outrage, becomes a good thing quite aside from the money raised.
And since every member of the community is an "owner" of that commons, those who take less than their share in "sheep" are still entitled to benefit from those who take more than their share.
An Income tax is a very blunt instrument to that end, as is old fashioned welfare, but the result was a better civilization than the current "sheep getting frenzy". And if the tax is not revenue neutral, but increases the wealth of all by expanding the Commons (this assumes investment rather than waste)is that a bad thing? And in our case anyway our credit cards are near maxed out and so every dollar paying off that card makes its own interest in the interest not paid to those who we gave the money away to in the first place.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
waste not, want not
We could stop subsidizing conventional air travel and start subsidizing other forms of long distance transportation such as trains and air ships. The problem lies in the fact that Americans don't get enough vacation time to afford non-jet plane travel that might take a day or two each way.
Here the problem lies in the fact that people build their houses with little regard to the cost and availability of energy necessary to keep them warm in the winter and cool in the summer. There is a very simple solution to this problem, and quite doable even though it involves higher initial cost of building an energy efficient house, which is sustainable, and costs less in the long run.
Moving to a smaller house should be a straight economical decision - it's called "living within your means". Once people start paying the true cost of energy which in their myopia they so happily waste now I don't think you will need to "make" anyone choose an energy efficient lifestyle.
When the cost of transportation approaches your salary it just stops being an issue "whether" and becomes "how".
If buying American is a problem for anyone I sincerely suggest they move to China.
Only on an economic level. People should have a choice - either conserve our limited resources or waste as much as they can afford without being subsidized by the society.
Sic semper tyrannis
All very good points (n/t)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I'll try to address your tough questions
Not entirely. I will take the train if it's GHG-efficient to do so (the life-cycle people said something about the dead point being around 300mi). It is a significant contributor; I read that a quarter of the world's crude goes to jet fuel.
No, but I work in the nuclear industry. Coal plants are the single largest polluters in the US, and replacing them with nukes will make a huge difference.
My home is plenty small, and it's heated/air-conditioned by hydro-powered electricity.
I live in a big city and either bike or take the subway to work. I don't expect many other people are able to do the same. I would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to subsidize a national program to develop and commercialize plug-in (not hybrid) electric cars. Recharged from nuclear power, of course.
Yes and no. I could pay a little more for electronics or clothes if I knew it was preventing offshoring and GHG emissions at the same time. Some goods we should import anyway.
Ah, the 64,00$ question. Yes. Years of working in government and experiencing laziness and indifference up close has made me conclude that unfortunately, most people have to be forced to to what's best for them and all of us, especially if there's no immediate benefit to them.
The idea that makes the most sense to me is a carbon tax. The cost of emissions isn't free, and the proceeds must go to offsetting the emissions with reductions from elsewhere. And this would apply, at the same rate, to everything we own. Sure, it will make mining, transport and power generation much more expensive. But it will reflect the true cost of such practises.
People should pay through the nose to live in a McMansion and drive a Hummer. If you want to live in Phoenix, you need to pay for the effects of all that coal that's burned to keep your house cool. And if you fly every week, you can help pay a tree-planter's salary.
Based on the responses so far
it seems that many could agree with some form of a user-based solution such as your suggestion of a carbon tax. But the nuclear option should not be dismissed entirely and gets too little airtime. France has pursued the nuclear strategy to great success.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Dead Arguments
Who ever said anybody had to give anything up or change their lifestyles to stop global warming? This is a strawman propped up by Republicans, who have everything to gain from the denial of global warming in the short term (in the long term, of course, they're as dead as the rest of us should they be wrong).
We have all the alternate forms of energy we need, and while we can't start using them literally tomorrow (even if we did, we still have decades' worth of carbon emissions catching up with us), we can start using them by and large by the end of this year.
Naturally, I will continue to avoid cars, TVs, airplanes, and imported food, but that's just my style. These are tacky distractions from a more comfortable, self-centered life. Sure, it will be nice to know* that everything I need will arrive by solar train rather than deisel truck, but aside from the extra money in my pocket, my lifestyle shouldn't change that much.
Environmentalists that wanted to scale back technology, rather than improve it, died out in the 70s. Why are people still arguing with them?
==========
* "nice to know" as in "happy that the world won't end in my lifetime after all", which is very reassuring feeling; I have actually been having fleeting experiences of this since the 2006 mid-terms.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
So, for the slower among us
what exactly are you referring to as alternative energy sources we can begin using this year that will stop global warming?
Sounds awfully like you are saying we can have our cake and eat it too. Not that I'm against that, in principle. . . .I love cake.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Leadership
Simple: solar power with hydrogen batteries, no pollution in the harvesting or usage of this electricity. Any other source is a "middleman" between the sun and my car's propulsion, so we should rule out any other matter-based fuel source as too primitive (including nuclear). Naturally, we will all be buying new cars this year, and little Bobby's college will have to wait (we don't want his species to go extinct first).
The technology is there, the political will is not. Taxes will need to be raised and a major technological shift engaged, with the entire nation rallied behind this world-changing effort. But we have higher priorities, it appears; after all, we have been told that we know how to spend our money better than the government does. Or something like that.
It will take a great deal of leadership, more than that which founded our country or led it through the civil war, the world wars, or the cold war -- combined. And the results of this leadership will have a far greater impact, as a failure in this leadership spells the end of our species.
Bush simply isn't up to the task, which is sad considering how pivitol the next couple years' policies will be. Markets have proven inept at dealing with "meta" issues like this, and Bush doesn't believe in "big government", so my money is on our extinction. (Not that I'll ever get to collect.)
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
Personal Responsibility
It comes down to personal responsibility and very limited and reasonable oversight. As I mentioned here where you'll also find a list of lies about Ethanol...
But that’s not what were hearing, we’re hearing the world is going to end in 10 years if we don’t give up our technology and revert back to common farmers – problem is if we were to do that, with today’s population we have to level all known forests and land to cultivate and feed everyone, but they don’t mention that part!
Most of the scientists from the report say "no matter the cause there’s nothing we can do about it"! If true, debate over – go buy a Lincoln Navigator!!!
If not and something can be done about it we run the risk of replacing one BAD for another!
The problem with alternative sources is The law of unintended consequences which is now raising its ugly head in places like Brazil were they're just now finding out that ethanol emissions are just as bad or worse than petroleum emissions. Something they could have learned from CA when, against Recommendations from nearly every scientist asked by the state to study it, they decided to blend ethanol in CA Gas.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Point is,
If awareness is raised correctly which it has been since the 60’s (CA’s air quality proves that) and people do what they can in their personal lives we don’t need an intrusive government program or taxes.
Like I said in the response to my post at TMR
As long as the debate doesn’t involve an intrusive government program or tax I’m there until then I will remain here fight back against the alarmists and doom-pushers!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I've said it before and I'll say it again
If I could get a decent car that had a battery (not hybrid) that got 400 miles between charges I would pay the money and buy that puppy.
Yes I know, electricity can also introduce pollution into the atmosphere. But 2 things, where I live MOST of my communities electricity is generated by hydro dams out of Yosemite. The other notion is economics of scale. You can generate more power with less pollution from a single power plant than the 1000's of autos they would eliminate.
Fusion reactions. Lawrence Livermore Labs are so close to working on containment systems. They have a fusion generator, almost built. It has like 64 high power lasers in a sphere that will fuse atoms so we can study how to do it on a larger scale safely. They've had to stop work on it after building this huge facility for it and having 4 or the lasers attached because the budgeters in Washington wouldn't pay for the remaining lasers. Penny wise Pound foolish.
Read my latest piece...
... The Tesla Roadster: Looking at the Future this is the one for you!
You’re right, until we can safely create and harness zero point energy or no emission perpetual motion machine we're a bit stuck in our choices.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Did you get to test drive it? (n/t)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Nope, would have liked to though n/t
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Yea, I saw it.
My difficulty is coming up with the 80K it costs. But on all the specs I put up, that one would fit the bill.
But 80K, that's a hair steep for me right now.
That Tesla Roadster looks hot!
And the guy has some great ideas. Nice article, by the way. Just what I was looking for! DAH
The Hinzsight Report - Citizen Journalism
Welcome
I'm glad to see some Redstate locals here. Thanks for stopping by and participating. I hope you stick around for some discussions. We sometimes get a bit cantankerous, but we try to keep it civil (at least on a personal level).
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
CA Air Quality
Um.. There were MANY government regulations and taxes that were involved in improvements in air quality.
I recall an article not too long ago about an EPA lawyer who had been enforcing the clean air act. One of the CEOs of a coal burning power plant acknowledged afterwards that there was no way that he would or even COULD follow the regulations until they were enforced (If he followed the regulations but his competitors didn't, he'd go out of business).
Of course, part of the story was that the administration had ceased such enforcement.
I was speaking to awareness... n/t
But for the heaviest of polluting companies those regs did little if anything to help the problem it was the awareness of individuals that made the change.
And the tax monies get bound up in bureaucracy then pulled into the general fund never going were originally allocated. That’s why CA is in the shape it’s in we have a huge services delivery problem in this state.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Can't you just acknowledge that some regulations do good?
Sure, it was a public awareness that made the change. The change being the passing of the clean air act.
I'm not even talking about taxes, I'm talking about fines and criminal penalties (which have no causal relationship with the state's financial issues. That's like saying that the drunk's job is making him poor because he buys alcohol with most of the money that he earns)
Some regulation is good
I never said anything to the contrary.
But let’s not try and pretend that the clean air act didn't replace one bad emission with another, as mentioned above!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Your rigid adherence to "no regulation" is inane.
Sorry, but it just is.
A mix of regulation and market forces work.
It has worked for years in any number of spheres, both positive (promoting industries and technologies), and on the negative (crubing pollution and security fraud, for example).
To claim, as you do, that no regulation is required is absurd and extremist.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Once again...
...your utter lack of reading comprehension is making you look foolish!
I never said no regulation is required!?!
The only thing absurd here is your assertion and it’s also a perfect example of the problem expressed in the OP!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
California -No intrusive Government program?
If I recall correctly there have been mostly "intrusive government programs" from regulation and enforcement of many businesses to pollution control inspections etc of every car on the road.
That sounds pretty intrusive to me, and it certainly is not an industry program that makes stuff that improves the environment for California, but refuses to sell the same equipment to the rest of the country, and improve their environment.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
All the more reason
for us to get past the "is not" / "is too" level of discourse.
Ethanol is a prime example of a poorly thought out US response. By your guy, by the way. Or perhaps it was just a political giveaway. Either way, you are absolutely right -- it's a rotten idea.
For biofuels, I myself like the thought of converting animal processing refuse. Seems I read something promising recently about turkey innards. . .seriously. Couldn't use cow refuse; there isn't any part of a cow that's not already processed into something useful.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Good luck with PETA... ;0) n/t
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Wait
even cows' brains?!
Sic semper tyrannis
Yep
Dog food, chicken feed, fertilizer, other chemicals (paint components? I forget). No mad cow prion transfers there yet, although the last time I read up on this was a few years back and they may have switched brains totally to non-food uses since then to comply with stricter EU and Asian import rules. Cattle processing is said to be so efficient that not one scrap ends up as landfill waste. It's all turned into something.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I ride my bike to work almost every day (12.5 miles each way).
Even in this dastardly cold weather in Chicago (much less persistent than it was when I was a child, thanks to global warming).
I try and even ride my bike to the grocery store and on errands around town.
I am not a fan of cars, even though we own one.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
In the winter, I ride the bus.
I'm sorry, but it's below zero right now. No bike riding for me...brrrrrr.
I'm sure the Chicago wind makes things equally exciting. I'll be wearing ten extra layers when I visit later this month.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Personal energy is not available to all
With a moderate disability, bike riding is not an option for me. A 5-10 hp personal enclosed transportation system would be great, but is not currently available.
I have inquired into making and selling them myself, but there are many barriers that Government could eliminate if it was the policy of Government to move in that direction instead of reverse.
Like solar power on the roof and many other "green" technologies, the profits would easily exceed the costs, but the temporary losers would be the entrenched financial powers that be, and while they are perfectly willing to make the American People with jobs sent to China be losers, they are not willing to treat themselves so cavalierly.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Why?
Here's the issue:
There are two types of climate change deniers. The first type, let's call it the Exxon type, has a financial interest in the status quo. If the link between carbon dioxide and climate becomes established they can expect to see some sort of restrictions on the use of the products they sell. This is the same thought process that is behind the misinformation campaign of the tobacco industry.
Then there are individuals who are not corporate shills but yet refuse to accept the evidence. Why? I can only come up with one possible reason and it is also a variation of self interest.
It is clear that the world is going to have to alter consumption patterns if climate change is going to be slowed. This means less use of fuel and things made where the process uses fuel. In other words, cutting back on essentially everything.
So the expectation that there will be restrictions on SUV's and other environmentally questionable things means that people's selfish lifestyles will have to be altered.
From a certain point of view this is perfectly rational. You're only here (on earth) once, so live it up as much as you can. You won't be around to see the consequences of your excesses.
Philosophers have a hard time explaining altruism anyway...
--- Policies not Politics
Hi, Purpleface. Wonderful diary. Thanks for this.
I read this diary and all the comments about it with much interest--and enjoyment, and, as a new poster here, would like to add some pearls of my own. Global warming, without a doubt, is happening. I feel, however, that the best thing for people (myself included), is to start in their own backyards, so to speak. As the proud owner of a 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid, which has given me no trouble whatsoever and gets great mileage both in the city and on the highway, I also end up only needing to gas up the car every 2-4 weeks, depending how much driving I do. The hybrid cars run on both gasoline and electric. We also have a recyclling program in our building, and I recycle things that need recycling, instead of just pitching them in the trash. Since I live in a small city just outside a larger city, I use the subway train, go on foot, or, I ride my bike to appointments and all around town during the really good weather,( which will be coming soon to this neck of the woods.), whenever I can.
As far as giving up anything, the weather here in our neck of the woods, imo, is far too intense to give up either heating in the winter, or airconditioning in the summertime, especially if one lives on the 4th story of a 5-story building. I know from personal experience that my place would be like an oven without the A/C. What I do, however, is make a special effort to keep my airconditioner on as low as possible, and, when I leave home for any length of time, I turn my A/C to the economy mode, which most, if not all of the newer A/C models have.
As for giving up driving altogether, I admit that I wouldn't want to do that, either. Regarding air-travel, I think the ordeal is a little much. The idea of taking off one's shoes to be searched and to have shampoo and water bottles confiscated, and being under super-armed security, especially when flying international flights is really too much, imo. I admittedly like to be in controi, and not on other people's schedules. I've made road trips to different parts of the country in my hybrid, and the mileage I get is amazing.
Btw--I also saw Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, which I thought was an excellent documentary on Global Warming, and well-done, to boot. Al Gore advised at the end of the film was for people to start in their own backyards. Recycling and purchasing hybrids were some of the things that he suggested as a way of starting out, although it's clear that not everyone's amenable to a hybrid. Come to think of it, I have friends who think that hybrids are a wash, but that's their opinion. I also make an effort to avoid wasting, in general. When I shower, I turn off the water completely when I'm not rinsing, I have a dishwasher, which I only use every few days, in a ful-cycle mode, and, as I said before, I never turn my A/C on high. However, in the event of a heatwave, I also keep my venitian blinds closed, with the slats facing outwards, which helps keep the sun and excessive heat of a heat-wave out of my loft.