Global Warming

[Minerva]

The real issues are that -

 

1 - There's too many human beings

 

2 - We're too dependent on our nests/infrastructure

 

As there is an issue in you'r view too do you have any solutions in mind? I don't see how it can be done without what you term "conformity and over control" Or do you simply adopt an attitude of laisser-faire?

Over population is one reason why each person's contribution towards lessening green house gases is important. You may not see it as much but it's not nothing

[Minerva]

The third world nations who are destroying their forests aren't going to change their lifestyle - surely thats a more important issue?

 

Have you any proof that "The third world nations who are destroying their forests aren't going to change their lifestyle " ?

[Northern Neil]

Have you any proof that "The third world nations who are destroying their forests aren't going to change their lifestyle " ?

It is not they who need to - I am quite simply aghast that anyone should think it is the lifestyles of people in the Third World which is the root cause of rainforest and environmental damage!! An average westerner consumes a thousand times more energy and resources than a rural inhabitant of a third world country. It is our demand for cheap consumer goods which fuels the destruction of the environment in general, and forests in particular. But in any case, it is not so much the destruction of rainforests which is causing the problem, but consumption of fossil fuels. Chinese coal burning power stations provide the energy which provides us in the West with our cheap luxuries - but at such a cost.

 

Alluding to recent posts by Asclepius and Caldrail, the religious zeal with which Global Warming denyers fly in the face of all evidence reminds me of those who deny evolution because it casts doubt on their own world view.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Moonlapse]

(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?

Salve,

As far as "supranational controls" go, international efforts (The Montreal Protocol, for one) on reducing ozone depleting gases are beginning to have an effect. If there is no backsliding on adherence, ozone levels will return to 1980 levels by the year 2068.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depleti...ozone_depletion

 

We have a responsibility to do all we can to soften the impact of CO2 on the only planet we can survive on.

 

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/micro/...4islandlost.htm

I was referring specifically to CO2 controls, which are essentially energy controls. Ozone control does not correlate well to the current situation with CO2.

 

The island story is certainly sensational, but river delta areas such as the one referred to in the article are usually right at sea level and can become inundated with the most miniscule rise in river or sea levels. In fact that island has been inundated for 20 years. Sediment that slowly compacts under its own weight tends to do that. No one seemed to make a big deal when it disappeared back then, and its not as if it suddenly disappeared in 2006. That area, like every other major river delta has a long history of disappearing and eroding islands. I consider the article to be completely subjective to the authors agenda and it has no meaningful scientific relevance.

 

Explicitly answer those last 2 question in my quoted post, if you would. I'd really like an answer to those two.

 

What I'm concerned about here, is what will happen when governments and unelected global groups take control of the world's energy. Forget the euphemisms, that is what will happen. Are you comfortable with inevitable corruption and corporatism that will follow? Do you think a system like that will ultimately make the population of the world better off? Will it even begin to make more than a negligible difference in anthropogenic CO2? Even if a worst case scenario were predicted with incontrovertible evidence, I would still think that the worst plan possible would be to put control of energy in the hands of pandering politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of how noble they appear to be on camera.

 

Do you see how biofuels are creating an increased artificial demand on food, which is scarce for many people in the first place? Is it alright that some people in the world will have to go without food and die so that Archer Daniels Midland can thrive on government subsidies? The unintended consequences, along with the supposed benefits, of the fantasyland cure-alls spewing from a thousand different political agendas are what we should really be paying attention to. Take housing, for example. The government tried to make houses more affordable with cheap credit (among many other things). The result was sky-high home prices, a housing bubble, and the inevitable bust. Now Joe Schmoe is wondering why he's out of work, why can't pay his mortgage anymore, why his retirement fund is drying up, and why everything costs more than it did a year ago.

 

High five, Uncle Sam!!!

 

BTW, if you are actually making significant sacrifices in your lifestyle in order to reduce your CO2 usage, then you have my respect. I've seen very few people actually act on their global warming beliefs.

[caldrail]

But thats just it! We're NOT putting it right at all! Its all eco-propaganda designed to bring the modern west into line. Its turned into an industry in its own right, and is also exploited by those who want to influence our lives.

 

Global warming is a natural phenomenon - there's been a gradual and ragged climb in temperatures for thousands of years - it was going to happen anyway.

[Ludovicus]

(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?

Salve,

As far as "supranational controls" go, international efforts (The Montreal Protocol, for one) on reducing ozone depleting gases are beginning to have an effect. If there is no backsliding on adherence, ozone levels will return to 1980 levels by the year 2068.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depleti...ozone_depletion

 

We have a responsibility to do all we can to soften the impact of CO2 on the only planet we can survive on.

 

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/micro/...4islandlost.htm

I was referring specifically to CO2 controls, which are essentially energy controls. Ozone control does not correlate well to the current situation with CO2.

 

The island story is certainly sensational, but river delta areas such as the one referred to in the article are usually right at sea level and can become inundated with the most miniscule rise in river or sea levels. In fact that island has been inundated for 20 years. Sediment that slowly compacts under its own weight tends to do that. No one seemed to make a big deal when it disappeared back then, and its not as if it suddenly disappeared in 2006. That area, like every other major river delta has a long history of disappearing and eroding islands. I consider the article to be completely subjective to the authors agenda and it has no meaningful scientific relevance.

 

Explicitly answer those last 2 question in my quoted post, if you would. I'd really like an answer to those two.

 

What I'm concerned about here, is what will happen when governments and unelected global groups take control of the world's energy. Forget the euphemisms, that is what will happen. Are you comfortable with inevitable corruption and corporatism that will follow? Do you think a system like that will ultimately make the population of the world better off? Will it even begin to make more than a negligible difference in anthropogenic CO2? Even if a worst case scenario were predicted with incontrovertible evidence, I would still think that the worst plan possible would be to put control of energy in the hands of pandering politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of how noble they appear to be on camera.

 

Do you see how biofuels are creating an increased artificial demand on food, which is scarce for many people in the first place? Is it alright that some people in the world will have to go without food and die so that Archer Daniels Midland can thrive on government subsidies? The unintended consequences, along with the supposed benefits, of the fantasyland cure-alls spewing from a thousand different political agendas are what we should really be paying attention to. Take housing, for example. The government tried to make houses more affordable with cheap credit (among many other things). The result was sky-high home prices, a housing bubble, and the inevitable bust. Now Joe Schmoe is wondering why he's out of work, why can't pay his mortgage anymore, why his retirement fund is drying up, and why everything costs more than it did a year ago.

 

High five, Uncle Sam!!!

 

BTW, if you are actually making significant sacrifices in your lifestyle in order to reduce your CO2 usage, then you have my respect. I've seen very few people actually act on their global warming beliefs.

 

 

Moonlapse,

Here's an answer to your first question about "crushing economies worldwide." Do you think our current dependence on very expensive and highly fluctuating in price petroleum isn't crushing the US economy at this moment? This fossil fuel is a major contributor to CO2 emissions. There is a growing future, both for business and labor, in the green energy industry. We don't see much evidence of it here in the US because we are almost 8 years behind other developed nations in this area. Spain is satisfying almost 30% of its electrical needs with green energy. Some regions in that country will go over 50% soon.

 

As to your second question, we don't know how much human suffering any of our efforts will relieve. Does that mean we just sit on our hands and watch CO2 continue to rise?

 

In regard to the dangers of converting agricultural to ethanol production, I share your apprehension.

 

Now on to Mr. (and Ms. Schmoe). They are facing forecloses in the millions because an irresponsible US Congress relaxed federal regulation of banks in the 1990's and an irresponsible President Clinton signed the bill into law after a lot of lobbying by financial interests. Their actions were followed by an even more irresponsible administration who looked the other way while as early as the year 2000 everyone knew that first and second mortgages were being sold to people with no money, no credit, and no jobs.

Edited July 24, 2008 by Ludovicus

[ASCLEPIADES]

What I'm concerned about here, is what will happen when governments and unelected global groups take control of the world's energy. Forget the euphemisms, that is what will happen. Are you comfortable with inevitable corruption and corporatism that will follow? Do you think a system like that will ultimately make the population of the world better off? Will it even begin to make more than a negligible difference in anthropogenic CO2? Even if a worst case scenario were predicted with incontrovertible evidence, I would still think that the worst plan possible would be to put control of energy in the hands of pandering politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of how noble they appear to be on camera.

Salve, ML. Let me see if I got this one straight:

 

As inevitable corruption follows governments, you would be more comfortable if there were no police forces at all.

 

Forget the euphemisms, they are trying to take control of our activities.

 

Is that so?

[Moonlapse]

Moonlapse,

Here's an answer to your first question about "crushing economies worldwide." Do you think our current dependence on very expensive and highly fluctuating in price petroleum isn't crushing the US economy at this moment? This fossil fuel is a major contributor to CO2 emissions. There is a growing future, both for business and labor, in the green energy industry. We don't see much evidence of it here in the US because we are almost 8 years behind other developed nations in this area. Spain is satisfying almost 30% of its electrical needs with green energy. Some regions in that country will go over 50% soon.

I'm not sure what point you are making. This is what I said in this thread in January: "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." The price of oil is a symptom of our economic problems, not the cause. The price of oil is not drastically high at the moment if you adjust historic oil prices for inflation, or if you price it in terms of other commodities. Even if oil prices were the cause of our economic problems, it would only serve to prove my point. The level of artificially high fossil fuel prices that would be caused by the required caps of CO2 emmisions would only exacerbate existing problems even to the point of collapse.

 

Shouldn't people be glad that oil prices are rising? Isn't that essentially what they expect when they agree to let the government control the use of fossil fuels in order to reduce CO2 emissions? The higher they go, the less people will use them and the more they will turn to efficiency and alternatives. If business is so good for green alternatives, why would we harm that business by causing collateral economic damage?

 

As to your second question, we don't know how much human suffering any of our efforts will relieve. Does that mean we just sit on our hands and watch CO2 continue to rise?

But, in the current conditions we do know that extremely high energy and food costs will absolutely cause widespread suffering and death. We don't have to sit on our hands, many people and businesses are acting freely and pro-actively, and within their sustainable limits. This is the most direct way to find solutions. Do you know how unbelievably complex the process is to create the desktop computer that you are using? Why is it that the prices of computers drop? Not because of the government, thats for sure. Reducing CO2 emissions will require technology, and the fastest route to developing that technology is the same route that computers have taken - through free competition and free choice. By its very nature, this free action selects the most effecient and cost effective technology. Government control is guaranteed to cater to special interests and breed inefficiency and unsustainable costs. Trust me, I see it with my very eyes every day when I go to work for the government.

 

Now on to Mr. (and Ms. Schmoe). They are facing forecloses in the millions because an irresponsible US Congress relaxed federal regulation of banks in the 1990's and an irresponsible President Clinton signed the bill into law after a lot of lobbying by financial interests. Their actions were followed by an even more irresponsible administration who looked the other way while as early as the year 2000 everyone knew that first and second mortgages were being sold to people with no money, no credit, and no jobs.

Given all that, the housing bubble still required the Federal Reserve to drop the federal funds rate very low for an extended period of time in order to force an artificial recovery from the 2001 recession, much the same way that they are current trying to force and artificial and unsustainable recovery from our current problems. If the government is so irresponsible with the economy, as you've implied, why should you expect matters to be any different with energy? The government will serve the same people that they've been serving and not the people. If I have to choose between more regulation or less special privileges and granted monopolies, I will always choose the latter.

 

Salve, ML. Let me see if I got this one straight:

 

As inevitable corruption follows governments, you would be more comfortable if there were no police forces at all.

 

Forget the euphemisms, they are trying to take control of our activities.

 

Is that so?

I would be comfortable with police forces who are responsible for protecting my rights. Consider drug prohibition or prostitution. Smoking dope or making a mutual arrangement to trade money for sex don't violate anyone's rights, yet they are prohibited. Has this made the situation better? I think not. It has only created violent and unsafe black markets which are impossible to stamp out. Is the criminalization and death of many more people than before an acceptable trade off for allowing the government to restrict these activities? Many policemen, including a member of my immediate family, consider these prohibitions to be the most corrupting force in law enforcement. It also channels vast sums of money to violent criminals, instead of putting it to far better uses, and gives them the opportunity to purchase political power.

 

The same thing will happen with energy. A violent black market will arise and many people will be criminalized and killed because of restrictions on fossil fuel energy. Huge amounts of money will drop into this black market, which will be used to influence and further corrupt the system. This is only one of the many unintended consequences.

 

If the government absolutely must do anything about the situation, I say it would be much more responsible to use the money that would be lost to energy restrictions and black markets to build up levees and other infrastructure, create better emergency response systems, help people move away from the riskiest areas, etc. Let companies on the leading edge of alternative energy continue to do their thing and compete for profits and let consumers choose the most viable options without destroying the economy.

[ASCLEPIADES]

[

Salve, ML. Let me see if I got this one straight:

 

As inevitable corruption follows governments, you would be more comfortable if there were no police forces at all.

 

Forget the euphemisms, they are trying to take control of our activities.

 

Is that so?

I would be comfortable with police forces who are responsible for protecting my rights. Consider drug prohibition or prostitution. Smoking dope or making a mutual arrangement to trade money for sex don't violate anyone's rights, yet they are prohibited. Has this made the situation better? I think not. It has only created violent and unsafe black markets which are impossible to stamp out. Is the criminalization and death of many more people than before an acceptable trade off for allowing the government to restrict these activities? Many policemen, including a member of my immediate family, consider these prohibitions to be the most corrupting force in law enforcement.

 

The same thing will happen with energy. A violent black market will arise and many people will be criminalized and killed because of restrictions on energy. This is only one of the many unintended consequences.

Then, you don't have any problem with the concept of Global warming per se; it's a problem with the concept of authority. The idea that my rights finish where the others' rights begin.

 

I would consider the lack of implementation of required public security measures just for their inherent risk of corruption as nihilistic (at least).

 

Getting a little off from our topic, current medical consensus is that both the use of at least some drugs and sex commercialization pose significant public health risks; ie, we're well ahead from just personal choices. I would agree that the legal definition of what's permissible and what's not on both counts might require a thorough review; but unrestricted access is hardly what I would consider a viable alternative.

[Moonlapse]

As far as the concept of global warming goes, I'm sort of agnostic. I think we are far from having a complete understanding of this planet's climate. CO2 induced warming is perfectly logical to me, but even that is limited by physics. I've seen so much misinformation and contradiction on both sides of the fence, and its obviously become a political tool, so I'm extremely cautious.

 

As far as authority goes, the most atrocious crimes against humanity have originated with authoritarianism in its various forms. If your rights are properly protected what more is required for public safety? I don't accept the notion that its government's job to protect us from making bad decisions or from the consequences of bad decisions. People become smart and gain common sense by making bad decisions and facing the full consequences. That's how most people gain a realistic understanding of drugs and sex. Im sure everyone is glad that they were not always busted for the various victimless crimes that everyone has no doubt committed at some time or another. Sure a few people get trapped in it, but nothing will ever prevent that, and nothing ever has. I consider it my unalienable right to make mistakes and to face the full consequences. If the mistake has violated someone else's rights, then punishment has become part of the consequences.

 

I'd rather allow people to potentially hurt themselves, but punish them for hurting others. If you try to prevent people from hurting themselves, but the result is that they still find ways to hurt themselves in addition to creating an extremely harmful underground system, isn't it better to just let them hurt themselves without the additional and unnecessary death and pain?

 

Can you explain to me how this is nihilistic?

 

As far as these public health risks go, give me an example of how someone who does not participate in the activities is affected by them and I'll try to give you a better answer.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I'd rather allow people to potentially hurt themselves, but punish them for hurting others. If you try to prevent people from hurting themselves, but the result is that they still find ways to hurt themselves in addition to creating an extremely harmful underground system, isn't it better to just let them hurt themselves without the additional and unnecessary death and pain?

No. Please use your seatbelt.

 

Can you explain to me how this is nihilistic?

No matter how much is at risk (ie, public health), you better choose not to fight (ie, no public measures) because you're sure in advance that you will lose (ie, corruption).

 

As far as these public health risks go, give me an example of how someone who does not participate in the activities is affected by them and I'll try to give you a better answer.

Drug abuse: psychiatric pathology (via violence and accidents) , intravenous infectious disease transmission (Hepatitis, AIDS).

 

Commercial sex: Women and homosexual abuse, sexual disease transmission (syphilis, AIDS).

 

BTW, the care and sequels of such diseases eventually require taxpayers' money.

[Northern Neil]

BTW, if you are actually making significant sacrifices in your lifestyle in order to reduce your CO2 usage, then you have my respect. I've seen very few people actually act on their global warming beliefs.

Part of the problem is that people view personal measures against global warming as sacrifices, and people's ears automatically close when the phrases 'sacrifice' or 'Lifestyle Change' are mentioned. In actual fact, common sense economy measures are all that is needed. The fuel for my woodburning stove (newly fitted) is renewable - hence no carbon footprint - but, more importantly, it is freely available in the rubbish skips and supermarket carparks of my town. Predicted saving this winter, based on last winter's gas usage,

Edited July 25, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Kosmo]

The fuel for my woodburning stove (newly fitted) ... it is freely available in the rubbish skips and supermarket carparks of my town. Predicted saving this winter, based on last winter's gas usage,

[ASCLEPIADES]

BTW, if you are actually making significant sacrifices in your lifestyle in order to reduce your CO2 usage, then you have my respect. I've seen very few people actually act on their global warming beliefs.

 

I've seen so much misinformation and contradiction on both sides of the fence, and its obviously become a political tool, so I'm extremely cautious.

 

If there's no explicit contradiction between both statements, you would be basically respecting how incautious such people may be.

[Northern Neil]

The fuel for my woodburning stove (newly fitted) ... it is freely available in the rubbish skips and supermarket carparks of my town. Predicted saving this winter, based on last winter's gas usage,