Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)

Tools    





there's a frog in my snake oil
Still not sure what I can really do by myself to change the world. We are planning a garden this year and hope to build a chicken coop. Not sure I'll ever be able to afford an electric car... but maybe someday. I deep down just don't believe the world "wants" to change.

What's really interesting to me is how resistant America is to changes in general.
Cheers man

I read this quote yesterday, which kinda touches on the idea of motivation, and what we can do individually etc....

“No matter how the conversation started, whether they believed in climate change or not, the discussion always, eventually, turned to energy solutions,” she told me. “And when it did, it turned out that this guy [who didn't believe in climate change] drove a hybrid car and had changed all his lightbulbs out to CFLs.”
It's interesting how there's a lot of crossover between 'believers & non' on energy policy. IE the desirability of renewables, the good sense of energy efficiency etc etc. (There's plenty of contentious issues too of course, like using coal resources if/when they become profitable etc, but at least there's some crossover in goals )

Originally Posted by Yods
If it's really as simple as using some existing technology, or just having the willpower to produce something different, then the same cutthroat attitude you're positing would have new investors descending on these situations with the same fervor. Since that's not happening, there must be other reasons.
I'm not sure it is that simple. The use of existing tech hasn't allowed us to 'stabilise' our CO2 output so far, so it seems reasonable to conclude that further R&D is required (& that's a riskier sector - large investments, long term repayments, high chance of failure etc. It's not just about 'willpower' )

What 'other reasons' do you see for their not being an investment fervour in renewables / efficiency-tech etc. (Altho I'm fairly sure billions are being plunged into these sectors by independent operators, which seems fairly feverish to me )
__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here



It's interesting how there's a lot of crossover between 'believers & non' on energy policy. IE the desirability of renewables, the good sense of energy efficiency etc etc. (There's plenty of contentious issues too of course, like using coal resources if/when they become profitable etc, but at least there's some crossover in goals )
Yeah, and I think a lot of people miss this stuff. There's really no human being who's against cleaner air or greater fuel efficiency. It's just a question of what's plausible, and what should be mandated by government decree. I think both sides sort of forget this sometimes.

I'm not sure it is that simple. The use of existing tech hasn't allowed us to 'stabilise' our CO2 output so far, so it seems reasonable to conclude that further R&D is required (& that's a riskier sector - large investments, long term repayments, high chance of failure etc. It's not just about 'willpower' )
Well, it seems to me that the "entrenched interests" line is the one that's too simple, because it posits a single reason based on a single human flaw. It's a pretty oft-used catch-all to explain why X thing hasn't happened.

I'm not sure the fact that we're talking about long-term investments changes much here. Private businesses don't shy away from such things in other areas (or even in this one, frankly). Look at XM radio; private investors banded together and launched a flippin' satellite for XM radio because they might, a decade later, turn a profit. Took them four years just to launch the business, and a lot longer to start building a subscriber base. There are all sorts of investors, not just guys clutching paper slips on stock exchange floors, living moment-to-moment.

The only argument here, I think, is one that admits that these things make absolutely no business sense, but we need to do them anyway. I'm not sure I agree, but that would be the internally consistent position. But, of course, we almost never get that. Instead we get politicians and activists trying to make out that all the things government needs to fund or mandate are actually good for the businesses in the long-run, even though the businesses don't think so, and they generally have a much better sense of their own self-interest, for a gazillion reasons.

What 'other reasons' do you see for their not being an investment fervour in renewables / efficiency-tech etc. (Altho I'm fairly sure billions are being plunged into these sectors by independent operators, which seems fairly feverish to me).
Yeah, billions are being plunged into it privately, though I think a huge chunk of that is because they know these things will have government backing. The smart investors get in, get the government support, and then bail. The incentives are all out of whack. Though it's worth pointing out that, if this is happening, then the original idea--that these things don't happen because of the money involved--becomes moot.

There's also a crowding out effect. Let's say there's some ridiculous form of fusion in our future; it's not going to be able to attract the kind of R&D it needs to become viable if the government has simply declared that solar and wind are the future, and starts plunging both political pressure and raw cash into those alternatives. In this case, it's entirely possible that government energy funding and mandates are actually delaying the viability of alternative energy, rather than hastening it. That's the massive assumption underlying all of this: the idea that, even if the government is right about an energy issue, that it has the capability to identify (and support) the solution. It's a huge assumption resting on another assumption.

As for the possible other reasons, I think it's simply this: they come with limitations people don't like, and they still cost way too much. They are not economically viable. The sooner people admit this and the debate moves on, the better, I think.



there's a frog in my snake oil
Well, it seems to me that the "entrenched interests" line is the one that's too simple, because it posits a single reason based on a single human flaw. It's a pretty oft-used catch-all to explain why X thing hasn't happened.
Yep I'd agree that's too simple, altho there are a couple of 'entrenched interests' that do tie in to the topic I'd say...

We are all in a 'carbon economy' - that's an entrenched reality, and of great economic interest to many big players. It's also what makes the alternative energy industries only minorly compelling to the political & investment worlds (IE they provide a degree of 'energy independence', & some alternate routes into a saturated market, but are still a huge R&D jump away from providing a genuine alternative).

In a 'business as usual' scenario we'd probably have some of this R&D & niche installation going on (minus that inspired by govn backing), but mainly with an eye to flowering once carbon options sink below competitive levels. I totally agree investors etc can think that long term.

The distinction here is that everyone struggles to factor in the substantial future cost associated with carbon. Will carbon-company shareholders be living near a flooded coastal plain? (Well, the company can't be sued for that). Will food prices rise in arid areas where they currently operate? (Well yeah, but they could switch their infrastructure from oil delivery to water by that stage). And on.

I've been facetious there, but even if the science could give us precise models of expected changes, which it currently struggles to, I think we'd still see plenty of short-term shareholder-pleasing in terms of sucking that last bit of profit out of these admittedly profit-riven carbon realms.

Originally Posted by Yods
The only argument here, I think, is one that admits that these things make absolutely no business sense, but we need to do them anyway. I'm not sure I agree, but that would be the internally consistent position.
I'd disagree with the absolutely. They certainly have their supplementary roles even in the 'business as usual' scenario. But certainly we should admit that alt-energy sources mainly perform worse that carbon norms, with the key exception of 'likelihood to flood your grandchildren's living room'

Originally Posted by Yods
There's also a crowding out effect. Let's say there's some ridiculous form of fusion in our future; it's not going to be able to attract the kind of R&D it needs to become viable if the government has simply declared that solar and wind are the future, and starts plunging both political pressure and raw cash into those alternatives. In this case, it's entirely possible that government energy funding and mandates are actually delaying the viability of alternative energy, rather than hastening it.
Yep absolutely agree on this. (With the caveat that I think there has been a lot of government cash flung at the 'mini sun' fushion tech that's been in development for decades )



Yep I'd agree that's too simple, altho there are a couple of 'entrenched interests' that do tie in to the topic I'd say...

We are all in a 'carbon economy' - that's an entrenched reality, and of great economic interest to many big players. It's also what makes the alternative energy industries only minorly compelling to the political & investment worlds (IE they provide a degree of 'energy independence', & some alternate routes into a saturated market, but are still a huge R&D jump away from providing a genuine alternative).
This is all true, but isn't being in a "carbon economy" just another way of saying we don't have a viable alternative yet? Meaning, there's no businessman who likes emitting carbon more than they like money. Nobody's sticking to fossil fuels for the sake of nostalgia, or just because they're used to it.

The distinction here is that everyone struggles to factor in the substantial future cost associated with carbon. Will carbon-company shareholders be living near a flooded coastal plain? (Well, the company can't be sued for that). Will food prices rise in arid areas where they currently operate? (Well yeah, but they could switch their infrastructure from oil delivery to water by that stage). And on.

I've been facetious there, but even if the science could give us precise models of expected changes, which it currently struggles to, I think we'd still see plenty of short-term shareholder-pleasing in terms of sucking that last bit of profit out of these admittedly profit-riven carbon realms.
I'd say that's possible, yeah. At least in the sense that such things theoretically be both detrimental and not something that incentives can properly motivate people to prevent. But that, I think, is precisely the problem: if there are few incentives, it's because there's a lot of uncertainty. And if there's a lot of uncertainty, it pretty majorly undermines the government proposing any one course of action. All the things that prevent business from "seeing" this problem in a risk/reward sense are the same things that prevent government from being any better at it. In other words, I think it's possible (perhaps even better) to make a climate change argument that totally believes in it, totally think it's a threat, and still totally regards the market as the most likely entity to respond and adjust promptly.

But anyway, clearly it's not good business now, with the information we have now, which brings me back to the admit-its-not-good-business-but-do-it-anyway thing. Which people have been loathe to do, because I think they suspect it isn't a winning position, right or wrong.

I'd disagree with the absolutely. They certainly have their supplementary roles even in the 'business as usual' scenario. But certainly we should admit that alt-energy sources mainly perform worse that carbon norms, with the key exception of 'likelihood to flood your grandchildren's living room'
A fair reigning in; I probably overshot it with the "absolutely." I should say that they clearly make less business sense than the alternative at this point in time, which I suppose is different than "absolutely" in that the latter implies some kind of total difference, rather than just a fairly obvious one. There are lots of benefits to it.

I kind of liked the McCain tack, where he said the worst-case scenario of some such policy was that we leave our children a cleaner world. I think that argument can be used in service of a much larger intervention than makes sense (if any does), but I think for certain smaller measures it represents an interesting angle. Because, as I said before, we all want that, it's just a matter of whether or not we should be compelled, and whether or not that would be effective even if it's warranted.

Yep absolutely agree on this. (With the caveat that I think there has been a lot of government cash flung at the 'mini sun' fushion tech that's been in development for decades )
Yeah, fusion was just some random example. Take your pick on that front; it can be tricky to find an alternative energy source the government hasn't flung some money at at some point. Which is kind of horrifying because it means, if any of them end up being "the" alternative, we'll have definitely spent tons of money crowding out its growth by funding all the others. The whole process is pretty sloppy and more than a little frantic, and I think savvy businesses are taking advantage of it. Just look at ethanol for a textbook example of how screwed up government can make energy issues. It now seems beyond dispute that our policies there have caused people to literally starve in other countries, for what was essentially no benefit towards the stated goal. Not to mention the influence the policy gave Iowa over the Presidential races, which has surely skewed our politics further in ways we can't possibly detect.

I will say that I'm super skeptical of a few of the options--wind, in particular--ever being viable. The math involved in terms of square footage is absolutely obscene, for example. We're talking wind farms the size of a few states, or some other such insanity.

Biggest potential for common ground, I think: Nuclear. It'll require a big group effort to get over the deaths-in-chunks fear, which always scares people more than other industries where people die all the time, but steadily and not all at once, but if we can get over that I think it represents the most promising option, by far. It's the only solution that exists now that looks even remotely scalable.



there's a frog in my snake oil
This is all true, but isn't being in a "carbon economy" just another way of saying we don't have a viable alternative yet? Meaning, there's no businessman who likes emitting carbon more than they like money. Nobody's sticking to fossil fuels for the sake of nostalgia, or just because they're used to it.
*EDIT* I'm not sure that just coz it's the norm we can assume it's the best option per se. (Altho I'd agree that alt-energies couldn't fulfil our current needs wholesale the way carbon sources etc can).

On financial viability the big question is how would the picture change if we were able to quantify the costs inherent in a carbon-altered future. If we could add those into present assessments all the non-carbon alternatives would most likely be the 'viable' ones - or a helluva lot more competitive anyway

The problem is that such fine-grained predictions of cost etc are unlikely to emerge, and so we're left with the general prediction that accelerated climate change will promote 'near future' volatility, via broadly negative impacts on major coastal hubs & water conflicts in arid regions etc. Volatility is something most economic/political observers can agree on as 'bad' - but is it bad enough to make the carbon-industries & dependants eschew the profitable stability they currently enjoy? The current answer is no

And the issue of 'vested interests' kinda remains as a strand too, because the carbon cash cow on which we all ride is difficult for politicians to beat with sticks (carbon tax etc), or to corral towards its own premature demise, given how influential it is. (And the cow has clearly decided that, as much as it's happy for its kids to be a gaggle of wind-powered wallabies & green-algal goats, it's not ready to retire just yet. Not while the grass is still so green )

/excessive mixed metaphors

Originally Posted by Yoda
All the things that prevent business from "seeing" this problem in a risk/reward sense are the same things that prevent government from being any better at it. In other words, I think it's possible (perhaps even better) to make a climate change argument that totally believes in it, totally think it's a threat, and still totally regards the market as the most likely entity to respond and adjust promptly.
I would say government should still have a role in pushing for action 'sooner rather than later' - but agree it would be preferable to do it via a 'prize' model or something similar, where the objective is agreed (create non-carbon correlates etc), but the method is left open to the market.

Another useful role for government could be for them to artificially quantify the future risk. Certainly many industries/companies have clubbed together to demand that level of clarity over future stances. (I don't think it's the idea or science of CC that many of them have a problem with per se, more the degrees of uncertainty, as you say).

The main impediment to that is it would require international cohesion (nigh impossible ). And we're back where we started, with everyone kinda looking after their own interests.

Originally Posted by Yods
But anyway, clearly it's not good business now, with the information we have now, which brings me back to the admit-its-not-good-business-but-do-it-anyway thing. Which people have been loathe to do, because I think they suspect it isn't a winning position, right or wrong.
No one wants to say 'this will hurt the economy in the short term'. Because we all live in the short term. Bummer innit

Originally Posted by Yods
Just look at ethanol for a textbook example of how screwed up government can make energy issues. It now seems beyond dispute that our policies there have caused people to literally starve in other countries, for what was essentially no benefit towards the stated goal.
Absolutely agree that 'dual use' ethanol crops were an incredibly dumb idea from day one. (I can see why they might have been appealing to areas with massive corn production etc - double your market, squeeze up your prices etc). Definitely massively dumb. (Well, I suspect the government have been dumb & a bit greedy, and the grain guys have been flat out greedy. Always a pork barrel of fun when that happens )

Incidentally this predictive model on food prices is now proving itself, and suggests that financial speculation is the biggest player in terms of riot-enducing food-price spikes etc. Ethanol is in their as the 2nd-runner (pushing up the price slowly over time).

Originally Posted by Yods
I will say that I'm super skeptical of a few of the options--wind, in particular--ever being viable. The math involved in terms of square footage is absolutely obscene, for example. We're talking wind farms the size of a few states, or some other such insanity.
Ah but you're forgetting about innovation. What about 'plant stalk' wind farms that double as parks

Originally Posted by Yods
Biggest potential for common ground, I think: Nuclear. It'll require a big group effort to get over the deaths-in-chunks fear, which always scares people more than other industries where people die all the time, but steadily and not all at once, but if we can get over that I think it represents the most promising option, by far. It's the only solution that exists now that looks even remotely scalable.
Yep agreed it's a known (& still improving) tech that could help tide us over massively. I think we'll see extra expense in building them post-Fukuyama (with so many others revealed as a being a bit unprepared for 'extreme weather' etc). But yeah, nuke does make sense.



Anyway. I thought this was a pretty interesting article. I read it a work a month or two ago. I don't think I'm smart enough to say if carbon is really a pollutant or not but I don't think we can deny that its responsible for some pretty radical changes in this planet over the millenniums. And the signs as I've already mentioned are not good. The way we have abused this planet is forcing it to heal itself and if we don't stop, and soon. We may very well not survive the next big 'carbon event".
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
There is nothing to worry about because when the Rapture comes, what does it matter, as all good Christians go to Heaven and the rest of us suffer on a dying planet. God made this planet for Man to enjoy. To foolishly try to preserve it is against biblical teaching.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



56 million years ago a mysterious surge of carbon into the atmosphere sent global temperatures soaring. In a geologic eyeblink life was forever changed.
^ I stopped reading that article at this paragraph at the top...



First off, I apologize if this stuff has already been answered, but I haven't read this entire thread. Forgive me.

We know that weather is cyclical, but we've only been keeping accurate records for about 100-150 years. So how do we know how big an impact we are actually having on the environment versus how much is just something that was going to happen anyway?

Next point, even if we are wrecking the planet, people will not give up their cars and the oil companies will not give up until every drop of oil is mined from the Earth, so all of this is pretty much moot. The people don't run things, the companies do.

Also, this is probably one of the stupidest questions I've ever asked, but I don't know much about the topic other than it drives me nuts hearing about it (let's face it, both sides sound more like propaganda than actual information). Here goes nothing: How do we know that the greenhouse gasses aren't reflecting just as much solar radiation back into space as what it's trapping in? Does it reflect radiation the way the ozone layer does? If so, would the damage it's doing be negated by this? Again, that may be utterly ridiculous, but I really don't know much about this topic.

I don't know, I guess my biggest concern/problem with global warming is the fact that weather on the Earth is constantly changing so I can't imagine that we are doing that much more than what would normally be happening anyway...
__________________



there's a frog in my snake oil
We know that weather is cyclical, but we've only been keeping accurate records for about 100-150 years. So how do we know how big an impact we are actually having on the environment versus how much is just something that was going to happen anyway?
Our records have been extended much further back thanks to the likes of ice & sediment core samples etc. This information gets layered in with archaeological info on animal & plant life, and we end up with reconstructions like the one mentioned in PW's article - in that case a period with a large carbon release event (in this case a natural one) followed by heating, leading to flooding, shrunken less-nutritious plants, dwarf mammals etc.

When climate scientists design models of how weather & climate interact they have to make sure they can explain both the past and the present. As I understand it all the strong models we have, that tally with data from the past, can only explain present global temperatures via human-released-C02. IE remove that C02 from the model and they predict the earth should be colder etc over the period of fine-grained data that we have for the most recent century etc.

Originally Posted by bouncingbrick
Next point, even if we are wrecking the planet, people will not give up their cars and the oil companies will not give up until every drop of oil is mined from the Earth, so all of this is pretty much moot. The people don't run things, the companies do.
Companies aren't completely psychopathic. They want to be making a profit in the future too. And most outside the fossil-fuel industry seem to openly endorse the idea that climate change is a reality & needs to be tackled.

Originally Posted by bouncingbrick
How do we know that the greenhouse gasses aren't reflecting just as much solar radiation back into space as what it's trapping in? Does it reflect radiation the way the ozone layer does? If so, would the damage it's doing be negated by this? Again, that may be utterly ridiculous, but I really don't know much about this topic.
I doubt any of us here are experts either . But I'm fairly certain they'll have looked into that

(There are, unsurprisingly, thousands of complex events going on out there. You'd be amazed what the scis have looked into. Albedo effects of how even changing a crop type can change radiative heat from a plot of land and alter the rainfall above it. Peak solar radiation causing northern Europe to get colder [via 'gulf streams' etc getting tangled and drawing air down from the Arctic]. Particulate pollution ironically causing the type of 'global cooling' you're talking about, via stimulating certain types of cloud formation.)

And on and on. Climate science has been around so long now that these things aren't just studied in isolation either, but all examined in concert with other effects, trying to figure out how they interact, and potentially 'snowball', or counteract, broader changes etc.

Originally Posted by bouncingbrick
I don't know, I guess my biggest concern/problem with global warming is the fact that weather on the Earth is constantly changing so I can't imagine that we are doing that much more than what would normally be happening anyway...
You say that, but you also mention the ozone layer. There's a large global phenomenon that we clearly were affecting. We managed to alter our behaviour and the really damaging changes were prevented (hence people in the southern hemisphere don't have to wear factor 200 sunblock, or, like, emigrate )

It's a far 'simpler' example, but one that surely shows we can affect the Earth on a significant scale. And that it's probably in our interests to keep an eye on that



Our records have been extended much further back thanks to the likes of ice & sediment core samples etc. This information gets layered in with archaeological info on animal & plant life, and we end up with reconstructions like the one mentioned in PW's article - in that case a period with a large carbon release event (in this case a natural one) followed by heating, leading to flooding, shrunken less-nutritious plants, dwarf mammals etc.

When climate scientists design models of how weather & climate interact they have to make sure they can explain both the past and the present. As I understand it all the strong models we have, that tally with data from the past, can only explain present global temperatures via human-released-C02. IE remove that C02 from the model and they predict the earth should be colder etc over the period of fine-grained data that we have for the most recent century etc.
But how accurate is this? It's still just a theory, right? Is this the sort of info we should literally change our entire lives based upon?

Let me make one thing clear, I am all for less pollution in general. If it were up to me we'd come up with a replacement for fossil fuels immediately. But I have to ask these questions because they are important.



Companies aren't completely psychopathic. They want to be making a profit in the future too.
I honestly cannot put "LOL" big enough to contain the emotion I want to express at this. If you truly believe this, I may have to stop taking you seriously. Let me refresh your memory. A few years back it came out that tons of banks were giving home loans to people who shouldn't have them or giving loans for far more money than the people could afford and then some of them even changed the conditions of the loans so that the monthly payments increased. A rational thinking person can look at this and say "boy, that's really f***ing stupid". A rational person could say "Hey, this may have ramifications down the road for everyone!" And yet, this practice went on because the current bottom line was looking good. Until the entire global economy was hit! The entire world! And no one got in trouble for it. In fact, they still have variable interest rate loans, though I can't imagine anyone other than the stupidest of people signing for one of those.

So, go ahead and delude yourself into thinking that companies are smart and/or thinking about the future...



I doubt any of us here are experts either . But I'm fairly certain they'll have looked into that
Have they? I don't know! That's why I brought it up! Where's the info on that?

You say that, but you also mention the ozone layer. There's a large global phenomenon that we clearly were affecting. We managed to alter our behaviour and the really damaging changes were prevented (hence people in the southern hemisphere don't have to wear factor 200 sunblock, or, like, emigrate )
I don't remember there being skepticism on the ozone layer. If climate change were cut and dry then we wouldn't even have this thread.

Again, I don't know either way. I'm not a scientist. All I know is there's people on either side and they are both as convincing as the other. I'd love to cut down on pollution, but I'd also like to have secure evidence before we change how we do business.



Yeah, I think the skepticism primarily comes from the ridiculously high cost of being wrong. Depending on who you listen to, we're talking about possibly shifting trillions of dollars around. The burden of proof has to be similarly high, not just that it's happening, and not just that it will be very harmful, but that it's also preventable.

And, as someone mentioned earlier (Gol, I think), there's a big problem with developing countries. They contribute quite a bit to the problem, but I don't see how we can, in good conscience, try to stop them when if they're going through their own version of the industrial revolution and are simply trying to raise their standard of living to something roughly commensurate with our own.

I still have faith in human ingenuity, though, both in using what we have more efficiently and finding alternatives.

Also, the financial crisis doesn't contradict the idea that companies were forward looking. Even if it were at odds with the idea, it would not be the norm. But I am admittedly too busy today and too headache-y at the moment to argue the case. Maybe later.



there's a frog in my snake oil
But how accurate is this? It's still just a theory, right? Is this the sort of info we should literally change our entire lives based upon?
Well, first off it's lots of theories really (modern climate science involves a synthesis of everything from the earth's rotational issues, to long term 'weather cycles' - like oceanic currents being in a heat storing or releasing state, the albedo effects of clouds etc - onto atmospheric gas influences [CO2 etc], solar effects, and on and on). All of these disciplines have experimental data to back them up, so they're more than 'just a theory' in each case. The main difficulty comes when trying to run experiments on how they synthesise together, as the scale of the subject is so large (frequently global), and the time frame over which the elements flux can run to decades etc. In some cases the only 'experiments' we have are all the examples of past climate changes (which are all unique, as befits the complex potential interactions that can set them off and sustain them. I believe one constant, in heating periods, is the presence of airborne carbon though ). These are however pretty damn cool 'experiments', and we have unearthed a lot of data about them.

Of course it's far more complicated still than I've conveyed there. Which does lead to your point about certainty. I absolutely agree that the claim that anthro-CO2 will fundamentally alter the world is massive, and needs a comparably immense level of proof. But I would say that there is a huge quantity of very convincing evidence out there, in terms of historical precedent, & a good 50 years plus of current investigation into how everything plays out in the real world. That's still a blink of an eye in terms of trying to understand it all, but we have made huge strides in understanding the past and present of climate alteration. And the precedents suggest we're going to hit C02 levels, amongst other global norms, which in the past correlate with massive warming.

The biggest question, for a 'believer' such as myself, is how strongly to act seeing as the science hasn't reached fine-grained predictive levels (despite it's strengthening hold over the past and the present). We can be pretty sure it's gonna get hot etc, and disruptively so, but it's difficult to know how exactly that will play out. Maybe we'll get on just fine with drought-hit plants & tiny horses .

My instinct is very similar to yours, that we should do what we can to replace fossil fuels. But I'd go further, and say we should take an economic hit (taxing carbon or whatever works best) if necessary, so long as some kind of 'levelled playing field' can be worked out between countries (which is highly unlikely to happen, but there y'go), and the result would be more time to generate alternative tech etc.

Originally Posted by bb
Let me make one thing clear, I am all for less pollution in general. If it were up to me we'd come up with a replacement for fossil fuels immediately. But I have to ask these questions because they are important.
Absolutely

Originally Posted by bb
I honestly cannot put "LOL" big enough to contain the emotion I want to express at this....
Hey I was putting the most positive spin possible on it . All I said was they want to make profit in the future. I didn't say they can't be incredibly short-sighted and venal and liable to act counter to their long-term interests in the meantime

Originally Posted by bb
Have they? I don't know! That's why I brought it up! Where's the info on that?
I don't have the articles to hand, but I know that CO2's albedo/heating effect was debated for a long time in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and was initially thought to have a cooling effect, before them settling on the warming effect later, in terms of isolated physics modelling. So certainly it's been investigated for a long time, and continues to be so.

Originally Posted by bb
I don't remember there being skepticism on the ozone layer. If climate change were cut and dry then we wouldn't even have this thread.
Yes the climate change issue is a far more complex one, both in cause and effect. I brought up ozone because it's an example of humans impacting on a global feature, which is one area of global warming you had a problem with. (IE the idea of humans being able to have an impact on such large scale phenomena).

Anyways, just glad you're up for looking into it generally



My instinct is very similar to yours, that we should do what we can to replace fossil fuels. But I'd go further, and say we should take an economic hit (taxing carbon or whatever works best) if necessary, so long as some kind of 'levelled playing field' can be worked out between countries (which is highly unlikely to happen, but there y'go), and the result would be more time to generate alternative tech etc.
This is exactly why I am dubious of the whole subject! This is exactly what I don't want happening!

I already have to pay close to 4 dollars a gallon for gas and no matter who gets taxed for CO2 the cost will roll down to people like me. I can barely afford gas now and I know I couldn't if it went up even more because of pollution taxes.

There has to be a better solution.



there's a frog in my snake oil
This is exactly why I am dubious of the whole subject! This is exactly what I don't want happening!

I already have to pay close to 4 dollars a gallon for gas and no matter who gets taxed for CO2 the cost will roll down to people like me. I can barely afford gas now and I know I couldn't if it went up even more because of pollution taxes.

There has to be a better solution.
Sure, no one wants that. (And as I suggested it's unlikely to happen, given the geopolitical cohesion that it would require - IE everyone disadvantaging themselves simultaneously etc. And that during a recession. No chance).

To be fair most Kyoto signatories have been operating under a minor version of that scenario at no great loss - but the initial 'tax' on industrial emissions has been low in most areas (except air flight I believe, based on its greater effect - depositing emissions at the most 'effective' heights etc). The 'carbon market' that trades off emissions quotas against 'counter-emission' actions like sequestering (planting trees ) & selling renewables (to coal-heavy developing countries in particular) has helped mitigate costs to the consumer, but has also proved nigh impossible to regulate. (Did the people really plant the trees etc - and will they still be there in 30yrs, mopping up the CO2 as required)

But I get it. I don't want higher energy prices either. If we could categorically say 'take the hit on your fuel bill, or your grand-daughter will have to ride a tiny horse and subsist on far less nutritious food than you enjoy', then it becomes a much easier choice. The fact that the science is close to saying something to that effect (with more caveats ), is what makes me more willing to countenance it than you are.

*EDIT* Altho I'd also love to see better solutions on the table. Or some of the promising new renewable tech really taking off. But I suspect both of those will remain wishful thinking for a while.



What did you think of the article Golgot? Interesting eh? I get that we'll need a metric trillion tons of hard data to convince most people that we may need to change our ways and frankly, better change, if we want to survive for another few thousand years on this planet.

I have to balk a bit at what Chris mentioned though. And he said he thought maybe you mentioned it first, either way. Sure, burgeoning young countries do "contribute" to the problem. But let's face facts here and I can google as good as anyone. There is not a country on this planet that hasn't created and polluted this world more than the U.S. I am in no way going to try to persuade the nay-Sayers either. If you want to educate yourself and look into then by all means, go ahead. There is literally tons of data out there already and it is very easy to find.

But the fact is, the world is taking its lead from the U.S. and until we really step up and address this issue it will continue.



there's a frog in my snake oil
What did you think of the article Golgot? Interesting eh?
Thought the article was dead interesting P. Historic climate change is always mad (and as the article says, normally leads to crazy new forms of evolution - once everything's been put through the wringer for a bit. From a distance it's almost refreshing to see creation come from destruction, as it were. Seen close up, it's probably less invigorating )

Originally Posted by PW
I have to balk a bit at what Chris mentioned though. And he said he thought maybe you mentioned it first, either way. Sure, burgeoning young countries do "contribute" to the problem. But let's face facts here and I can google as good as anyone. There is not a country on this planet that hasn't created and polluted this world more than the U.S.
True, but China in particular are catching up fast (and are set to overtake us all in a big way), and all developing countries have the moral argument that us lot razed our forests, fired up dirty industries & plumbed the easy-carbon options like coal with abandon to get where we are. So why shouldn't they?

We're all set up with pollution-reducing measures, R&D for new tech, geopolitical access to more efficient carbon fuels (oil & natural gas) - meaning we don't have to exploit the extensive coal seams we all still have. Etc etc. Which is why any deal on 'capping' emissions by country will never get off the ground holding all nations to the same standard (which is also why Kyoto has experimented with making selling renewable tech to developing countries 'worth more' in carbon market terms). And for all its flaws, Kyoto (and its later incarnations) have been the only real attempts made to come to terms with this issue.



You're talking about something different than I am. You say the U.S. has polluted the most so far--that may very well be true. But we don't pollute the most now; China and India pollute more, and other developing nations contribute a great deal, so we're not really capable of fixing this problem on our own.

There are lots of ways in which the rest of the world takes its lead from the U.S., but less developed nations are not going to stop building factories because we tell them to, nor do I think we really have the right. They're trying to achieve a standard of living that most of us would consider very modest.

EDIT: some of this is a little redundant with Gol's post, but you get the idea.



I guess you have a way of getting me to argue even if I don't want to. You're a good egg and I want to save you I guess.

You're talking about something different than I am. You say the U.S. has polluted the most so far--that may very well be true. But we don't pollute the most now; China and India pollute more, and other developing nations contribute a great deal, so we're not really capable of fixing this problem on our own.
China only pollutes a bit more and considering how many more (over a BILLION) people there is there I'd say they have a long way to go before they can cover the earth with as much pollution as the US already has. Seriously, its not even close. Now of course with well over a billion Chinese mostly burning Coal for power it won't take them long to not only "catch up" but far surpass us. So, I guess that's good, we won't be first anymore.

Please check out some of these numbers and facts. That first blog post is just an article but do check out a bunch of the stuff on the sides, there's a lot of good stuff and that's just one little page on the intraweb.

And while I do agree that we're not capable of fixing this on our own it is true that the vast majority of the world is taking our lead and never before has so many countries had so much of our industry in their own environments. Again, you can look it up.

There are lots of ways in which the rest of the world takes its lead from the U.S., but less developed nations are not going to stop building factories because we tell them to, nor do I think we really have the right. They're trying to achieve a standard of living that most of us would consider very modest.

EDIT: some of this is a little redundant with Gol's post, but you get the idea.
We don't have to tell them to, we could just do it for them. Whether we do it by being a large part of their economy which is already the case in many countries or by force. Is that too strong? No. We use force for many things and will continue to. Why not use it to actually help the planet? You say we don't have the right. Do we have the right to go into a country and topple a government? And yet, we do those things in the name of freedom. Why wouldn't we also do things in the name of the planet?