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.
__________________________
don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
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?
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
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.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I'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?
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
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.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You 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.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Scientific Method
The scientific method
incorporates iteration, evaluation, and alteration.
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.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Do 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).
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 ;}
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
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)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Then 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.
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
I think that I do these things already.
But fair enough. Ditto to you.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Absolutely
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. . . .
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
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).
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.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
PS 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.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Re: 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.
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.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
If 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).
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.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Not 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.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
If 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.
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
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
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Not 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. :-)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Ironically
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.
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. . .)
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
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.
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.
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.
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.
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! :-)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
It 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 lifest