Global Warming

[Moonlapse]

(psst, Neil was being sarcastic)

 

Here's a few questions. Assume that global average temperature will rise several degrees C over the next century.

 

Which is more practical: adapting to predicted changes, or trying to control the temperature indirectly by reducing energy usage?

 

Considering the failure of past and current supranational CO2 controls, how could we possibly reverse or even significantly reduce CO2 output without crushing economies worldwide?

 

Would adaptation or CO2 control prevent the most human suffering?

[Melvadius]

(psst, Neil was being sarcastic)

 

Here's a few questions. Assume that global average temperature will rise several degrees C over the next century.

 

Which is more practical: adapting to predicted changes, or trying to control the temperature indirectly by reducing energy usage?

 

Considering the failure of past and current supranational CO2 controls, how could we possibly reverse or even significantly reduce CO2 output without crushing economies worldwide?

 

Would adaptation or CO2 control prevent the most human suffering?

 

The Standard UK Government (and EU) view is that the cost of reducing emissions is actually cheaper than trying to adapt afterwards.

 

The May 2007 UK White Paper on Energy cited the Stern Review on the economics of climate change (pg 25) as estimating that the "cost of not taking action could be the equivalent of losing between 5 and 20% of annual global GDP wheras the cost of taking action can be limited to around 1% of annual global GDP, if the world pursues the optimum policies."

 

I should point out that the 5 to 20% GDP cost would not be a one off it would run over an unspecifiable but significant number of years with the same annual costs as power plants and general infrastructure were redesigned and rebuilt to take account of rising sea levels, loss of agricultural and commercial land, changes in weather patterns, etc, etc.

[Faustus]

(psst, Neil was being sarcastic)

 

The Standard UK Government (and EU) view is that the cost of reducing emissions is actually cheaper than trying to adapt afterwards.

 

The May 2007 UK White Paper on Energy cited the Stern Review on the economics of climate change (pg 25) as estimating that the "cost of not taking action could be the equivalent of losing between 5 and 20% of annual global GDP wheras the cost of taking action can be limited to around 1% of annual global GDP, if the world pursues the optimum policies."

 

I should point out that the 5 to 20% GDP cost would not be a one off it would run over an unspecifiable but significant number of years with the same annual costs as power plants and general infrastructure were redesigned and rebuilt to take account of rising sea levels, loss of agricultural and commercial land, changes in weather patterns, etc, etc.

 

IMHO we should be asking the question: What should the policy/action to be taken be?

Can the free market solve the problem, or the bludgeoning hand of 'World Government" be applied?

A look at how several countries are doing might be helpful. Take a look at AN INCONVENIENT REDUCTION. If that doesn't work for you say so and I'll put up text. Also there are some excellent 'links' at the bottom of the page once there.

[Gaius Octavius]

Faustus, in my not so humble opinion, that is typical WSJ editorial page twaddle. Blame it all on Al Gore. We all know that busche can do no wrong! The 'free market' didn't prevent the Los Angeles smog; nor did it prevent the acid rain and pollution emanating from Ocato, Penciltucky, and, New Caesar, from poisoning New England. Regulation had to come to the rescue. Those 'pollution credits' are illogical.

 

Once again, I challenge anyone to define and cite a 'free market', and to give an example.

[Faustus]

Faustus, in my not so humble opinion, that is typical WSJ editorial page twaddle. Blame it all on Al Gore. We all know that busche can do no wrong! The 'free market' didn't prevent the Los Angeles smog; nor did it prevent the acid rain and pollution emanating from Ocato, Penciltucky, and, New Caesar, from poisoning New England. Regulation had to come to the rescue. Those 'pollution credits' are illogical.

 

Once again, I challenge anyone to define and cite a 'free market', and to give an example.

 

I would only answer by asking in response: did you read it or just dismiss it out of hand as more twaddle?

Define free markets? I'll work on that, but at this point I'll just say that I've pretty much worked in a local free market, somewhat modified, for the past 40 years, and have seen both the benefits of doing so by having to compete, and the consequences of government interference through regulation and taxation. I might have to fall back and paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart

[Gaius Octavius]

Of course I read it. BTW, I have, and have had a subscription to the WSJ, NYT, and Barron's for decades. Never really bother with editorials; they pollute the mind. I rely heavily on my own 'editorials'. Can't wait for your response to my challenge. Of course you are well aware of the fact that you will be severely mauled. :lol:

 

"Define free markets? I'll work on that, (1) but at this point I'll just say that I've pretty much worked in a local free market, somewhat modified (2), for the past 40 years,...."

 

(1) You have to work on that? My good man!

(2) "somewhat modified"?

 

"You shall die exquisitely!"

 

Cyrano

Edited January 28, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[Faustus]

Of course I read it. BTW, I have, and have had a subscription to the WSJ, NYT, and Barron's for decades. Never really bother with editorials; they pollute the mind. I rely heavily on my own 'editorials'. Can't wait for your response to my challenge. Of course you are well aware of the fact that you will be severely mauled. :lol:

 

"Define free markets? I'll work on that, (1) but at this point I'll just say that I've pretty much worked in a local free market, somewhat modified (2), for the past 40 years,...."

 

(1) You have to work on that? My good man!

(2) "somewhat modified"?

 

"You shall die exquisitely!"

 

Cyrano

Gaius,

 

If it comes down to your rhetorical or literary skills, versus mine, or even to your understanding of free markets versus mine, I

[CiceroD]

(psst, Neil was being sarcastic)

 

Considering the failure of past and current supranational CO2 controls, how could we possibly reverse or even significantly reduce CO2 output without crushing economies worldwide?

 

Would adaptation or CO2 control prevent the most human suffering?

 

I can think of a Historic precedent for this. Easter Islanders ran out of trees they adapted to a life without wood. But they were limited and their society suffered.

Had they simply stopped building Big stone statues...

 

Likewise Moonlapse we can adapt and live (in a fashion) and you make a valid point that it will cause a negative impact on our society NOW.

but to prevent negative effects we'd have to predict what will happen.

 

And you yourself stated that "we dont know enough to predict"?

[Gaius Octavius]

An Inconvenient Reduction

December 3, 2007; Page A20

 

Thousands of government officials, diplomats, NGO folks and journalists are in Bali this week for the United Nations' global warming powwow. While they try to outline an even tougher set of restrictions on so-called [Yes, these are oxygen rich gases produced by what's left of smoke stack America.] greenhouse gases to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, we'll venture that little will be said about America's record on curbing An inch or a mile? emissions without such caps. It's too big an embarrassment to the assembled worthies. [And so he prates]

 

The Bush Administration announced last week that U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide fell by 1.8% From where to where?] from 2005 to 2006. Output of all greenhouse gases [Ahha! So now there are greenhouse gases!] was down 1.5% last year. All this while the American economy grew by 2.9%. It's the first time since 1990, when the U.N. began counting these things, that the U.S. has reduced emissions without also suffering a recession.Thus one may invalidly conclude that reducing greenhouse gases causes depressions!]

 

Critics immediately pointed to the Energy Department's acknowledgment that the reductions were in part due to higher energy prices i.e., just a wee bit - not alot - of inflation] and favorable weather. But greater use of lower-carbon energy sources, including natural gas, also played a big role.A Revelation biblical in scope! The U.S. reduction also suggests that letting markets work through higher prices Now, if you read these lobotomized twits and running dogs else wise, they will reveal that inflation is a curse] will reduce carbon emissions more than the cap and trade mandates favored by environmental lobbies and most Democrats. One must get this last bit in when preaching to the pea nut gallery.]

 

The EU hasn't yet released figures for 2006. But from 2000 to 2005, the U.S. outperformed Western Europe. Carbon emissions were up 3.8% in the so-called It likes to use 'so-called'. That is because it is a sign of pseudo intellectual plausibility to the uninformed] EU-15 during those years, versus 2.5% in the U.S. Over the same period, there has been virtually no difference between the increase in all greenhouse emissions in the U.S. and EU-15.

 

We refer back to 2000 instead of 1990 because the real agenda of those who blame America's role in global warming seems to be to blame President Bush for not signing Kyoto. It's true that U.S. emissions have grown more than Europe's since 1990, Now, let's get our ducks in a row here, ducky.]but how can this Administration be held responsible for what happened on Al Gore's watch? So, how can Al Gore be blamed for what happened on reginald z. reegan's watch?]

 

For all the unproven claims about mankind's contribution to global warming, here's something that can be said with authority: If curbing emissions really is the goal, then the heavy-handed approach promoted by the U.N. and Europe isn't the best way to do so. Conclusion proven beyond a doubt. Case closed. Idiots dismissed.]

 

------------------------------

 

I wont.

[tflex]

Global warming is not manmade, it's not even significant. We're due for another ice age in the near future, that's what scientists should be worrying about, instead of using this "global warming" myth to enrich themselves.

[Moonlapse]

I'm not talking about adapting afterwards, theoretically probable statistics are misleading at best.

 

Likewise Moonlapse we can adapt and live (in a fashion) and you make a valid point that it will cause a negative impact on our society NOW.

but to prevent negative effects we'd have to predict what will happen.

 

And you yourself stated that "we dont know enough to predict"?

Exactly. We can't predict how it will turn out, but we do know that if things significantly warm up one definite effect would be a rise in sea level. There may be extreme weather such as flooding or drought, hot or cold. Adaptation to these things would require improvements to infrastructure which are by themselves beneficial regardless of anything else.

 

One thing I'm absolutely convinced of after studying economics is that if governments restrict energy usage to the extent required to reverse or even cap CO2 production, it will surely result in economic ruin. In fact, I think we are headed that direction anyways, but thats besides the point. Recent economically damaging energy policies had almost no effect on CO2 output. Much alternative energy technology is already being developed because it is profitable. Letting this process proceed without economic burden will be the most efficient way to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and prevent human suffering.

[Melvadius]

I don't know which GHG smoke stack the author of "An Inconvenient Reduction" was sitting under but the Scientific evidence for man's involvement in the increased production of GHG is well founded.

 

Yes there is a natural cycle of warm and cold periods on the earth but the average temperature increase has never been as rapid as it has been in the last 500 years or so as man has been merrily burning everything in sight.

 

I am afraid that contrary to Bush's free-market blinkered vision there is no easy get out clause to the situation we are now in. Nothing can be done without some real cost invovled and if we don't act quickly some of the future decisions will be tough or even taken out of our hands.

 

In Europe the motor manufacturers had several years of "Voluntary Agreements" to reduce average vehicle emissions but there has only been limited reductions - nowhere near what they had agreed to achieve. Th story is similar in most other area's where there is no immediate 'real' financial incentive to make industry change its ways.

 

The bottom line folks is that the world cannot continue to support as many of us as it is currently doing - climate change is going to reduce a significant proportion of the arable area's of the world's surface. If everyone currently living in the third world achieved an average Western World let alone American level of resource use the situation will obviously accelerate.

 

We all need to change how we use resources and the level of GHG emissions must be reduced before thigns really do hit the fan because at that point all bets are off. At that point the survivors will probably be too busy trying to salvage what little can be saved of the dwindling resources to worry about what could and should have been done now.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Melvadius

[tflex]

There is nothing we can do about climate change, simply because we are not the cause. Global Warming is an unproven theory and is probably nothing but the usual leftist propaganda that plagues politics and pollutes the air we breathe. It was invented by tree hugger hippies for financial gain and political influence to further their twisted leftist agenda. The current climate change, as far as we can tell, is a natural process, until it is proven otherwise. The Earth has gone through countless periods of warming and cooling, and in many cases a lot more extreme than the climate change we are experiencing today. Liberal environmentalists use fear mongering to further their personal agendas. Politically and financially speaking, they have benefited enormously from this myth and created a whole industry out of a lie. It's the biggest con of the 20th century and continues to be in this century.

 

Just to clarify, the warming of the climate is tangible and a fact, although it's insignificant and slight, but it is not due to human activity; the warming itself is also exaggerated. The woolly mammoth didn't start screaming

[Melvadius]

I am all for taking an environmenatlists view of what can and cannot be done about climate change but it is possible that some of you are not really aware of the range and depth of scientific evidence that backs up the view that man is responsible for the impending climatic crisis. While it is true that temperatures have been higher than today's in the distant past, for the Northern Hemisphere at least, it is clear the rapid warming of the past half century has resulted in a level of warmth not seen in at least 500 years, and likely for at least the past 1300 years. Southern Hemisphere measurements are scarce and therefore it is difficult to draw such clear conclusions. The important characteristic about the current warmth is that it is global, whereas many previous warming periods have occurred over smaller areas.

 

Climate models indicate that if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, by the middle of the century the world could reach a level of warmth not seen since the peak of the last interglacial period, around 125,000 years ago. At that time, sea levels were around 4 - 6m greater than today.

 

Equally although human emissions are relatively small compared to natural emissions, particularly from ecosystems and the oceans, this is not the whole picture. These natural emissions are relatively in balance: the amount emitted is then reabsorbed. Human emissions tip the balance and lead to an accumulation of gases in the atmosphere. The human source can be shown through, for example, examining the chemical make-up and distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

It is very unlikely that the rapid increase in global temperatures seen over the past half century could be caused by natural factors alone. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report concludes that most of the observed warming since the mid-20th century is very likely, i.e. a more than 90% chance, due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. Both the spatial patterns and trend of warming can only be explained by the inclusion of human emissions. The IPCC's conclusion is based on a comprehensive peer-reviewed analysis using several lines of evidence. Objectivity is ensured by the broad and open review process and shared responsibility for the report.

 

C/f http://www.ipcc.ch/ for the current situation but be warned there is a lot of information on this website to wade through.

 

No one government, organisation or individual has sole responsibility for any part of the IPCCs reports unlike most of what has been presented by climate change cynics touting the opposite view or in deed that it is ALL 'perfectly natural'.

 

All too often the cynical line is based on poor or at best mistaken science that has at some point been posted on the web without any form of peer review. Even when corrections have been made to originally mistaken premises the uncorrected versions are what continue to be uses as 'evidence' that climate change does not exist.

 

Basically a lot of people would rather believe there was a Government conspiracy to generate more taxes than that there really is a problem that sooner or (much more expensively and with less likelihood of success) later the world's population will have to deal with.

 

Possibly it will take the American Breadbasket to turn into a dustbowl or a different crisis to directly affect them before some will believe there is a problem but somehow I doubt even that would work.

[Gaius Octavius]

tflex, it has been a long time since I have seen so lucid, factual, and cogent an exposition. I congratulate you. You would win an Oxford debate hands down. Who is paying those liberal, left wing, commie, hippie, tree hugging, perverted, environmentalists? They must be exposed for what they are. Tobaccos' doctors had it all right. That above mentioned crowd is trying to take away the pleasure of smoking. 'More doctors smoke Camels, than any other brand!" It's not pollution and smoking that causes cancer and emphysema - it's ones life style. When a hunk of ice the size of Rhode Island rips off of the Ross Ice Shelf, Saudi Arabia can tow it to one of their ports for fresh water. When glaciers melt away, the oceans will become less saline. Solves the fresh water problem. We all know that one pop from Pinatubo, Krakatoa, Mt. St. Helens, or Pele, causes more pollution than man ever did. It's some thing like a hood bumping off ten people this year, and another only six. The later is a much better person than the former. Does that crowd consider animal flatulence? Even butterflies and ants contribute. Don't people realize that the Earth is surrounded by a flatulosphere that could be ignited at any moment, and spell doom for mankind? That is the problem that has to be addressed! Perhaps, if every animal were fed Beano, it would alleviate the problem! The much maliglinated flush rimflour, who manages to take the obvious into the surreal, has always been my personal hero.

 

Edited January 29, 2008 by Gaius Octavius