The impossibility of stopping GW

[Puppycow]

I accept that GW is happening and that it is mostly anthropogenic, but it seems to me that just because it is mostly anthropogenic doesn't mean that it is within our power to do anything more than marginally slow it down a little bit.

This short article summarizes what would be necessary to make a serious dent in greenhouse gasses (http://www.reason.com/news/show/123945.html). It would require:the greatest project in the history of human civilization

It seems to me that we should of course try to increase efficiency and find practical ways to make energy as clean and efficient as possible, but also to assume that GW is an inevitability and start thinking about how to adapt to it and mitigate its consequences. For example, people could migrate to areas where GW will actually be good locally and away from areas where it will be bad. Also, It would be great IMO, if the poorest countries stopped having so many babies. Aid in the form of family planning, women's education, and women's empowerment should be top priorities (more educated and empowered women have fewer babies).

[Yllanes]

Actually, cooling the planet is not that difficult. Heating it would be a problem, but lowering the temperature is just a matter of finding a place with sufficiently dark soil (say, Krakatoa) and dropping a bomb on it. Would work just like a thermostat...

[mhaze]

[quote=Puppycow;3251117It seems to me that we should of course try to increase efficiency and find practical ways to make energy as clean and efficient as possible, but also to assume that GW is an inevitability and start thinking about how to adapt to it and mitigate its consequences. For example, people could migrate to areas where GW will actually be good locally and away from areas where it will be bad. Also, It would be great IMO, if the poorest countries stopped having so many babies. Aid in the form of family planning, women's education, and women's empowerment should be top priorities (more educated and empowered women have fewer babies).[/quote]

So with a world population better educated and richer, they have fewer babies, and if you build nuclear plants for electrical power, that CO2 baseload goes away.

That was easy. What were we worrying about exactly?:)

[sol invictus]

It's a false dichotomy to assume that we should either attempt to stop or slow GW or prepare for its effects. I realize that's not what you're saying, but many people seem to take that point of view. But clearly we should do both.

And I agree that it is nearly inconceivable that we will be able to stop significant increases in global temperatures - just about all climate projections agree on that point. Just look at how many coal-fired power plants are currently being built in China, for example. Short of some major and unpredictable event, the economics make it inevitable that will continue.

[bokonon]

I for one welcome our warmer winter warlords.

[DRBUZZ0]

Oh Ron Baily. I spoke with him quite a bit at the Forum party at The Amazing Meeting. I thought he had some really good articles and info on the whole global warming thing. Admittedly, he's something of a political type on things, but his articles on it are basically spot on. Actually he has something of a relatively pesimistic view on it, which I am increasingly sharing.... unfortunately.

No we cannot stop global warming. Without humans, the earth would warm, but much much more slowely than it is now. Human activity means we are committed to global warming for at least a few decades. If we stop making CO2 completely today, it still gets warmer for a while, because there is a delayed action caused by all the water on earth and other factors.

The question is how much we can cut CO2 and whether that might be enough to prevent global warming from being disiasterous. It's no longer an issue of stopping, but reducing it to the lowest levels we can hope for.

[mhaze]

No we cannot stop global warming. Without humans, the earth would warm, but much much more slowely than it is now. Human activity means we are committed to global warming for at least a few decades. If we stop making CO2 completely today, it still gets warmer for a while, because there is a delayed action caused by all the water on earth and other factors.

The question is how much we can cut CO2 and whether that might be enough to prevent global warming from being disasterous. It's no longer an issue of stopping, but reducing it to the lowest levels we can hope for.

We disagree, but here is a what if based on your premises.

Some "action" is taken, consistently, for four decades, resulting in some lower than business as usual CO2 emissions.

Question 1. How do you know at the end of 2017, 2027, 2037 and 2047 what effect if any your actions had?;)

Take that logic and apply it backwards in time.

We've built and installed some 450 nuclear plants in the last four decades, resulting in far less CO2 than would have been the case if fossil fuel plants had been used which would have been the alternative.

Question 2. How much global warming have we already stopped, then? (For which the US and the major industrial nations must take credit).:D

Question 3. How does the numerical value of the Q2 response compare to result of Kyoto?:)

Question 4. What is the number of nuclear plants that have been stopped, shut down, or not built because of anti-nuclear radical greenie lobbies, and the resulting higher (and supposedly cumulative) CO2 emissions from this?

[Puppycow]

It's a false dichotomy to assume that we should either attempt to stop or slow GW or prepare for its effects. I realize that's not what you're saying, but many people seem to take that point of view. But clearly we should do both.

And I agree that it is nearly inconceivable that we will be able to stop significant increases in global temperatures - just about all climate projections agree on that point. Just look at how many coal-fired power plants are currently being built in China, for example. Short of some major and unpredictable event, the economics make it inevitable that will continue.

I also would like to point out that there are very good arguments other than GW for increasing energy efficiency and reducing consumption of fossil fuels:

One is simply natural resource conservation. We don't know how much oil is still buried somewhere waiting to be found, but we do know that that amount is finite and that there will come a day in the future when it will no longer be available. To me, this problem is as at least serious as GW, and also there cannot be any scientific doubt about it. It's alarming to compare the rate of consumtion of oil (currently 85.7 million barrels per day (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iSRHymwJ4ZWPZw2r-zjBZXr6cMEA)) with the geologic timescales needed to produce it. All of human history so far, is like the blink of an eye compared to natural history. And how are we going to live a million years in the future? (a million years is not very long by geologic timescales).

Another agrument (more short-term) would appeal to security hawks. Almost every state that exports oil is a potential security threat, and when we don't conserve, it drives up the price of oil. This puts money in the pockets of Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Putin, and other dictators (I used to think Putin might be an ally, but increasingly it seems like we have to be wary of Russia again).

[mhaze]

Absolutely correct.

[Loss Leader]

For example, people could migrate to areas where GW will actually be good locally and away from areas where it will be bad.


You seem to be ignoring the fact that global warming is a worldwide problem and not a human one. For example, cold water holds more oxygen than warm water. As our oceans heat up, there is less oxygen for fish to breathe. Fish tend to respond to the lack of oxygen in water by dying. If the fish die, everything dies. It doesn't matter where people live.


Also, It would be great IMO, if the poorest countries stopped having so many babies. Aid in the form of family planning, women's education, and women's empowerment should be top priorities (more educated and empowered women have fewer babies).


Okay, but it's the richer nations with low birthrates that are contributing to global warming. Italy has a negative birth rate and the US would too, IIRC, if it weren't for immigration. Developed nations dwarf third-world ones in contributing carbon to our atmosphere. I'm not sure what family planning in Somalia would do for global warming.

Read The World Without Us for a great discussion of the problem.

[Puppycow]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that global warming is a worldwide problem and not a human one. For example, cold water holds more oxygen than warm water. As our oceans heat up, there is less oxygen for fish to breathe. Fish tend to respond to the lack of oxygen in water by dying. If the fish die, everything dies. It doesn't matter where people live.
OK, but that still doesn't mean we're going to be able to avoid this. (You're not suggesting that all the fish in the ocean will die, right? There will be cold water near the poles, and even the warmer water should still be able to support some fish (maybe they need to evolve bigger gills or something).




Okay, but it's the richer nations with low birthrates that are contributing to global warming. Italy has a negative birth rate and the US would too, IIRC, if it weren't for immigration. Developed nations dwarf third-world ones in contributing carbon to our atmosphere. I'm not sure what family planning in Somalia would do for global warming.


All of that may be true, which suggests to me that it's important to reduce human population to mitigate the consequences of GW, not to prevent GW. Fewer mouths to feed would mean fewer victims of famine. Likewise, fewer people in places that will become deserts will mean fewer victims of famine.

[Puppycow]

Absolutely correct.

:D

[DRBUZZ0]

We disagree, but here is a what if based on your premises.

Some "action" is taken, consistently, for four decades, resulting in some lower than business as usual CO2 emissions.

Question 1. How do you know at the end of 2017, 2027, 2037 and 2047 what effect if any your actions had?;)

Take that logic and apply it backwards in time.

We've built and installed some 450 nuclear plants in the last four decades, resulting in far less CO2 than would have been the case if fossil fuel plants had been used which would have been the alternative.

Question 2. How much global warming have we already stopped, then? (For which the US and the major industrial nations must take credit).:D

Question 3. How does the numerical value of the Q2 response compare to result of Kyoto?:)

Question 4. What is the number of nuclear plants that have been stopped, shut down, or not built because of anti-nuclear radical greenie lobbies, and the resulting higher (and supposedly cumulative) CO2 emissions from this?

Well you don't really know for certain, but the fact that we have built 450 nuclear plants has no doubt helped a significant amount. It hasn't helped enough to make it a non-issue though. More would have helped more.


It is basically saying that the more we had built the more it would have helped. had we built more we would be in better shape now. If we build more now we'll be in better shape in the future. The alternative would be looking back and syaing "too bad we didn't have the brains to build more reactors back in 2007. Had we done it then we might still a good portion of Florida above water"

I think the logic is "The more CO2 we cut the less f**ked and up-s**t-creek we'll be in decades to come."

[portlandatheist]

My biggest question about the AGW models is this:
How important is the rate of CO2 emissions vs. simply the total amount of emissions? To be put another way, say we are to burn all the usable coal, oil, and natural gas in the world EVENTUALLY. Would it make a significant difference in terms of our best forecasting models that we have presently if this were to happen in a period of 100 years vs. 200 years or at the end of the day, would the net outcome be the same? How much of a difference would it make? The best counter argument to this of course is slowing down emissions as much as possible will buy us more time to develop alternatives which is a completely valid and good point and we may be able to free ourselves of fossil fuels before they run out but I think its a very valid question nonetheless. We need to figure out what the eventual purpose of curbing our carbon appetite really is and what effect it will actually have.

[portlandatheist]

I also would like to point out that there are very good arguments other than GW for increasing energy efficiency and reducing consumption of fossil fuels:

I also agree 100%

[mhaze]

.....The best counter argument to this of course is slowing down emissions as much as possible will buy us more time to develop alternatives which is a completely valid and good point ....

A point grounded in an unproven hypothesis.

At the end of decades of misery (of reducing CO2) you do not know if you had any effect.

[Puppycow]

My biggest question about the AGW models is this:
How important is the rate of CO2 emissions vs. simply the total amount of emissions? To be put another way, say we are to burn all the usable coal, oil, and natural gas in the world EVENTUALLY. Would it make a significant difference in terms of our best forecasting models that we have presently if this were to happen in a period of 100 years vs. 200 years or at the end of the day, would the net outcome be the same? How much of a difference would it make? The best counter argument to this of course is slowing down emissions as much as possible will buy us more time to develop alternatives which is a completely valid and good point and we may be able to free ourselves of fossil fuels before they run out but I think its a very valid question nonetheless. We need to figure out what the eventual purpose of curbing our carbon appetite really is and what effect it will actually have.

I think it would make a difference because CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by plants.
So, a faster rate of release would result in more global warming. There's apparantly not a real simple formula like a half-life to tell you exactly how long it will stay in the atmosphere (although there are different atmospheric lifetimes for other greenhouse gasses). Details here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gasses#Removal_from_the_atmosphere_and_ global_warming_potential). So, I guess we have to rely on the climate models as the "best guess." As far as "the real purpose of curbing our carbon appetite," I still submit that resource conservation is a valid justification regardless of GW. I hope there will come a day when we have virtually unlimited clean energy based perhaps on fusion, but until that day arrives, we should conserve our fossil fuels.

A point grounded in an unproven hypothesis.

At the end of decades of misery (of reducing CO2) you do not know if you had any effect. I think he had a valid point about buying time. Buying time before fossil fuels run out, at least, regardless of GW.

[Puppycow]

One more thing on this subject, which occurs to me: As far as resource conservation is concerned, "carbon offsets" or anything like that are meaningless (even assuming they actually do what's advertised). They don't recreate the lost fuel. So buying "carbon offsets" might make you feel better, but I don't think it fully compensates for the damage. One aspect of the damage, perhaps, but not all of it.

[Loss Leader]

OK, but that still doesn't mean we're going to be able to avoid this. (You're not suggesting that all the fish in the ocean will die, right? There will be cold water near the poles, and even the warmer water should still be able to support some fish (maybe they need to evolve bigger gills or something).


I am in fact suggesting that there may be no way to "adapt" to global warming. We may already have reached a tipping point that will destroy so much of the biomass of the earth that continued human survival is impossible.



All of that may be true, which suggests to me that it's important to reduce human population to mitigate the consequences of GW, not to prevent GW. Fewer mouths to feed would mean fewer victims of famine. Likewise, fewer people in places that will become deserts will mean fewer victims of famine.


How does having fewer victims of famine mitigate the consequences of global warming? Why, for example, does a shrinking food supply do to global warming necessarily mean that the people in the third world will be denied food disproportionately to people in rich nations? Moreover, what is the moral difference between encouraging poor people to have fewer children (so we don't have to share our food) and just letting the children be born and starve (so we don't have to share our food)? If non-industrialized nations aren't the major cause of global warming, why should they disproportionately bear the burden of mitigating the effects of global warming?

A mother and father with ten children in poverty in Somalia has far less impact on the world's carbon cycle than a single computer programmer in New York City.

[mhaze]

I think it would make a difference because CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by plants.
So, a faster rate of release would result in more global warming. There's apparantly not a real simple formula like a half-life to tell you exactly how long it will stay in the atmosphere (although there are different atmospheric lifetimes for other greenhouse gasses). Details here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gasses#Removal_from_the_atmosphere_and_ global_warming_potential). So, I guess we have to rely on the climate models as the "best guess." As far as "the real purpose of curbing our carbon appetite," I still submit that resource conservation is a valid justification regardless of GW. I hope there will come a day when we have virtually unlimited clean energy based perhaps on fusion, but until that day arrives, we should conserve our fossil fuels.

I think he had a valid point about buying time. Buying time before fossil fuels run out, at least, regardless of GW.

Estimates by credible scientists as to how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere are all over the map, ranging from 5-15 years (Schwartz) to hundreds of years (Mann, Hansen). Leaving the details for other threads, we have to make note of several issues regarding conservation.

Consider "carbon sequestration", which allegedly is a good thing - using perhaps half the energy output of a fossil fuel power plant to compress exhaust gas down to where CO2 is essentially a liquid. Then the CO2 can be pumped into underground storage or deep ocean where it does not pollute the atmosphere. Leaving aside the problems of this science fiction concept which seem ignored by it's proponents -

Using a strict conservation rule - we should not waste half of the inherent energy in fossil fuel reserves on carbon sequestration. Even though the sequestration produces a CO2 clean exhaust stream, the cost in the irreplacable fossil fuel resource used to do that is quite high.

We don't "buy time" by going down this particular path....

[quarky]

Stop GWB to slow GW

[Puppycow]

I am in fact suggesting that there may be no way to "adapt" to global warming. We may already have reached a tipping point that will destroy so much of the biomass of the earth that continued human survival is impossible.
Really? That strikes me as hyperbole. Is this the consensus of reputable scientists?



How does having fewer victims of famine mitigate the consequences of global warming?Isn't that self explanitory? Do you not understand the definitions of these terms? Mitigate means to make something bad, less bad. Fewer victims of a famine is less bad than more victims. The word consequence means someting that happens as a result of something else. The famine here is assumed to be a result (consequence) of global warming.

Why, for example, does a shrinking food supply do to global warming necessarily mean that the people in the third world will be denied food disproportionately to people in rich nations?
For one thing, people with more money will be able to buy more food. Also, IIRC, the effects of GW will not be uniform, but will affect some areas more than others. I seem to recall reading that some climatologists had predicted that it would hurt poor countries in the global south more than rich countries in the north. This article for example indicates that the poorest countries will be hit hardest by rising food prices (http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/agm07/jvbagm2007.asp)

Moreover, what is the moral difference between encouraging poor people to have fewer children (so we don't have to share our food) and just letting the children be born and starve (so we don't have to share our food)?Seems like a big difference to me. And it's not so we don't have to share our food, it's so their children don't have to starve. If you could not afford to provide for your children, would you still have them?

If non-industrialized nations aren't the major cause of global warming, why should they disproportionately bear the burden of mitigating the effects of global warming?I'm not suggesting they do it as a favor to us, but as a favor to themselves. I think we in the west will probably be alright, it is the poor who will suffer, but fewer will suffer (and there will be more food per capita) if there are fewer people.
A mother and father with ten children in poverty in Somalia has far less impact on the world's carbon cycle than a single computer programmer in New York City.True, but I don't see how that's relevant. Parents should be responsible for feeding the children they bring into this world. My wife and I had two, and we provide for them. If the Somalis want to have ten children, fine, but don't expect me to feed them. I consider that I have an absolute moral obligation to my children, because I made the decision to bring them into the world. For those who are the result of other people's decisions, I may choose to help--and if I can afford to, I do--but I don't consider that I have an obligation beyond not initiating violence against them.

[mhaze]

I am in fact suggesting that there may be no way to "adapt" to global warming. We may already have reached a tipping point that will destroy so much of the biomass of the earth that continued human survival is impossible.....If non-industrialized nations aren't the major cause of global warming, why should they disproportionately bear the burden of mitigating the effects of global warming?....A mother and father with ten children in poverty in Somalia has far less impact on the world's carbon cycle than a single computer programmer in New York City.

I assume that you sincerely believe these things, therefore, I respectfully have the following questions for you. What evidence, observational or scientific, would cause you to change your point of view to -

Man made global warming is a problem but not a severe one
Man made global warming is not a problem.Thank you.

[DRBUZZ0]

I also would like to point out that there are very good arguments other than GW for increasing energy efficiency and reducing consumption of fossil fuels

Agreed 100%. Even if global warming were not an issue at all, the fact that fossil fuels are problematic remains. As far as oil, world supplies will not run out soon, but they will begin to get into a severe crunch, probably in our lifetimes. (and what we see now is really not a severe resource shortage). Even without the issues of the finite supply of oil, it's a fuel that introduces a lot of political and international issues just because of where the supplies are. Transporting it, refining it and so on also have ecological issues.

And coal is a fuel which will will not run out of in your life time or your great great grandchildren's. it's very very plentiful, but that might not be a good thing. It is absolutely filthy to mine it and to burn it. It generates acid rain and increases mercury and other heavy metals in the air and water. It contributes to a great deal of respitory problems in millions. And even "clean coal" does not elimiate this, but also increases the need to dispose of huge amounts of highly toxic contaminated waste like flyash and sulfur compounds.

Fossil fuels are becoming more and more of an ecological nightmare as we use more and more of them. Even without CO2, there's plenty of good reason to cut back

[Loss Leader]

For one thing, people with more money will be able to buy more food.

....

And it's not so we don't have to share our food, it's so their children don't have to starve.


Perhaps another way their children might not starve is if we share our food.

Considering the fact that one New Yorker has a bigger carbon footprint than ten Somalis and considering the fact that you want to mitigate the effects of global warming, it seems you would agree that the solution that really helps the world is if the Somali parents come here, shoot and kill you, and then return home to live a low impact life secure in the knowledge that your death will feed many, many more people than you cared to in life.

having wealth doesn't mean you deserve it.

[DRBUZZ0]

Perhaps another way their children might not starve is if we share our food.

Considering the fact that one New Yorker has a bigger carbon footprint than ten Somalis and considering the fact that you want to mitigate the effects of global warming, it seems you would agree that the solution that really helps the world is if the Somali parents come here, shoot and kill you, and then return home to live a low impact life secure in the knowledge that your death will feed many, many more people than you cared to in life.

having wealth doesn't mean you deserve it.


(taking off my shoe and banging it on the desk)

Very good Comrad! I shall make sure the great leader knows you are on our side. Soon we shall spread equal poverty around the world and make a day when nobody has the wealth they do or do not deserve. By all living like Somalis we will share our food in our workers' paradise!

Obviously sharing from our communal foods shall insure that the society is far better served than it would be if we actually tried to make the Somali's live better. It's much easier to make the New Yorkers live worse! As long as everyone suffers we will have the Equality that the great thinker Marx so loved. FOREVER!

[mhaze]

(taking off my shoe and banging it on the desk)

Very good Comrad! I shall make sure the great leader knows you are on our side. Soon we shall spread equal poverty around the world and make a day when nobody has the wealth they do or do not deserve. By all living like Somalis we will share our food in our workers' paradise!

Obviously sharing from our communal foods shall insure that the society is far better served than it would be if we actually tried to make the Somali's live better. It's much easier to make the New Yorkers live worse! As long as everyone suffers we will have the Equality that the great thinker Marx so loved. FOREVER!

Next thing, you are going to be suggesting we need to turn our air conditioners off in the summer. And that is treading on dangerous grounds.:mad:

[Puppycow]

Perhaps another way their children might not starve is if we share our food.If they have ten children, and each of those children have ten children, and so on, there will come a day when there won't be enough food to go around, even if we share. I'm perfectly happy to share my food as long as I have extra food to spare, but what happens in the future when the population of the globe finally exceeds the amount of calories available necessary to keep that population alive? I'm sure that you will happily donate your family's food to the poor, right?

Considering the fact that one New Yorker has a bigger carbon footprint than ten Somalis and considering the fact that you want to mitigate the effects of global warming, it seems you would agree that the solution that really helps the world is if the Somali parents come here, shoot and kill you, and then return home to live a low impact life secure in the knowledge that your death will feed many, many more people than you cared to in life.


Have you factored in the carbon produced in the round trip from Somalia to NY (or Tokyo)? ;)

[portlandatheist]

Perhaps another way their children might not starve is if we share our food.

Considering the fact that one New Yorker has a bigger carbon footprint than ten Somalis and considering the fact that you want to mitigate the effects of global warming, it seems you would agree that the solution that really helps the world is if the Somali parents come here, shoot and kill you, and then return home to live a low impact life secure in the knowledge that your death will feed many, many more people than you cared to in life.

having wealth doesn't mean you deserve it.

A couple of simple points. I’m sure you have heard the expression “Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime”. Feeding the starving in times of crisis is the right thing to do(and the wealthier we are, the more able we are able to do so) but its just a short term solution. Better to focus on education, healthcare, equal rights for women, family planning, etc for the Somalia’s than simply feeding them. Prosperity, education, democracy and freedom, human rights, etc. lead to lower birth rates than underdeveloped and impoverished communities have. Vietnam is a perfect example of this changing trend. Second point I would like to make is that economics is not a zero sum endeavourer. The better and wealthier we in the developed world are, the better the Somali’s are. The wealthier and better off the Somali’s are, the better off “we” are. It’s win/win, not win/lose or lose/win. Example: China

[David Rodale]

A couple of simple points. I’m sure you have heard the expression “Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime”. Feeding the starving in times of crisis is the right thing to do(and the wealthier we are, the more able we are able to do so) but its just a short term solution. Better to focus on education, healthcare, equal rights for women, family planning, etc for the Somalia’s than simply feeding them. Prosperity, education, democracy and freedom, human rights, etc. lead to lower birth rates than underdeveloped and impoverished communities have. Vietnam is a perfect example of this changing trend. Second point I would like to make is that economics is not a zero sum endeavourer. The better and wealthier we in the developed world are, the better the Somali’s are. The wealthier and better off the Somali’s are, the better off “we” are. It’s win/win, not win/lose or lose/win. Example: China

Good points. There is another saying: "The vice of capitalism is that it stands for the unequal sharing of blessings; whereas the virtue of socialism is that it stands for the equal sharing of misery."

[a_unique_person]

A couple of simple points. I’m sure you have heard the expression “Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime”. Feeding the starving in times of crisis is the right thing to do(and the wealthier we are, the more able we are able to do so) but its just a short term solution. Better to focus on education, healthcare, equal rights for women, family planning, etc for the Somalia’s than simply feeding them. Prosperity, education, democracy and freedom, human rights, etc. lead to lower birth rates than underdeveloped and impoverished communities have. Vietnam is a perfect example of this changing trend. Second point I would like to make is that economics is not a zero sum endeavourer. The better and wealthier we in the developed world are, the better the Somali’s are. The wealthier and better off the Somali’s are, the better off “we” are. It’s win/win, not win/lose or lose/win. Example: China

Not quite. It would take six planet earth's for everyone to have the same standard of living as the average Australian. Why do you think grain and fuel prices are rocketing up at the moment.

[mhaze]

Second point I would like to make is that economics is not a zero sum endeavourer. The better and wealthier we in the developed world are, the better the Somali’s are. The wealthier and better off the Somali’s are, the better off “we” are. It’s win/win, not win/lose or lose/win. Example: China

It's a win/win yes, if we encourage them to industrialize, help them build power plants, instead of encouraging them to be dirt poor farmers.

[Jimbo07]

Even without CO2, there's plenty of good reason to cut back

Agreed, and that message seems to be lost on Global Warming deniers. The fact is that everything is being looked at, but they've been bundled into the GW message, because that's what people seem to be listening to at last. At the same time that industry is being asked to cut back on CO2 emissions, they are also looking at SOX emissions, NOX emissions, energy efficiency, etc.

It's a win/win yes, if we encourage them to industrialize, help them build power plants, instead of encouraging them to be dirt poor farmers.

Here's the problem (even ignoring pollution). To get all those people up to a standard of living enjoyed by... well... me is going to require a lot of energy. Even if we keep all of our current generating capability and dot the landscape with nukes, we still might not be able to power the demand. It's like the ethanol problem (again, I ignore the environment). Our government has assumed it's a good thing and wants to mandate minimums, however, regardless of the marginal benefit of a 5% blend, we don't have the plants to produce all the ethanol we'd need (Canada), anyway!

[Loss Leader]

(taking off my shoe and banging it on the desk)

Very good Comrad! I shall make sure the great leader knows you are on our side. Soon we shall spread equal poverty around the world and make a day when nobody has the wealth they do or do not deserve.


That was uncalled for.

Puppycow was talking about reducing the effects of global warming. My answer had nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth - it had to do with the fact that his claim that it somehow mitigated global warming to keep poor Africans from reproducing. What I pointed out was that his answer was ridiculous in the extreme as poor Africans are not the cause of global warming and any harm they suffer from it will be far more because he insists on maintaining his way of life than anything else.

It's ridiculous to say that they shouldn't have children because they won't be able to afford food after global warming makes it more expensive when it's his actions that are causing it to be more expensive.

Actually, he seems to have absolutely no concept whatsoever about what global warming is, how he contributes to it or what really needs to be done to slow its effects. He just wants others to change their behavior so he doesn't have to.

[Loss Leader]

Have you factored in the carbon produced in the round trip from Somalia to NY (or Tokyo)? ;)


Yes, I have. From the perspective of mitigating global warming, even with a first-class round trip ticket from Africa to your house, the world would be better off without you.

[mhaze]

Agreed, and that message seems to be lost on Global Warming deniers. The fact is that everything is being looked at, but they've been bundled into the GW message, because that's what people seem to be listening to at last. At the same time that industry is being asked to cut back on CO2 emissions, they are also looking at SOX emissions, NOX emissions, energy efficiency, etc.


There really has been an inordinate, fanatical focus on CO2 as the culprit in the mainstream AGW thought, not on the side of the deniers, as you would call them.


Here's the problem (even ignoring pollution). To get all those people up to a standard of living enjoyed by... well... me is going to require a lot of energy. Even if we keep all of our current generating capability and dot the landscape with nukes, we still might not be able to power the demand. It's like the ethanol problem (again, I ignore the environment). Our government has assumed it's a good thing and wants to mandate minimums, however, regardless of the marginal benefit of a 5% blend, we don't have the plants to produce all the ethanol we'd need (Canada), anyway!

Here's the problem, "The world is flat". The first world funds, finances and injects progress into the third world, we are past the point of no return on global internet. You can expect the third world to rise quite rapidly, that includes their CO2 emissions, and they really don't care what you think about it. Not one bit.

We can go nuclear, but for a variety of other reasons other than CO2. Obviously, while worrying about the worst, people should be hoping that the skeptics are right that CO2 is of nominal importance in global warming.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Puppycow http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3257622#post3257622)
Have you factored in the carbon produced in the round trip from Somalia to NY (or Tokyo)?
Yes, I have. From the perspective of mitigating global warming, even with a first-class round trip ticket from Africa to your house, the world would be better off without you.

Really? I must have had this backwards, since your comment was about "New Yorkers" and the one of us from New York is you, I thought that in saying this - one New Yorker has a bigger carbon footprint than ten Somalis and considering the fact that you want to mitigate the effects of global warming, it seems you would agree that the solution that really helps the world is if the Somali parents come here, shoot and kill you, and then return home to live a low impact life secure in the knowledge that your death will feed many, many more people than you cared to in life.
were saying the world would be better off without - you, the New Yorker. By the way, I've met no one in Africa that would be anything but horrified at your perverse and anti-humanistic attitude.

[Jimbo07]

Here's the problem, "The world is flat".

I must be dense. I don't understand this.


The first world funds, finances and injects progress into the third world, we are past the point of no return on global internet.


Please define progress. Interestingly, I remember a Slashdot clip talking about people in the First World wondering about cheap PCs, when all the effort was being put into producing 'cheap' PCs for the Third World.


You can expect the third world to rise quite rapidly, that includes their CO2 emissions, and they really don't care what you think about it. Not one bit.

Expect? It's already been happening. Worldwide demand for energy has been increasing at an accelerating rate for years. By the way, what does 'what I think' have to do with anything? Was that just a turn of phrase?


We can go nuclear, but for a variety of other reasons other than CO2. Obviously, while worrying about the worst, people should be hoping that the skeptics are right that CO2 is of nominal importance in global warming.

There are no large scale plans to put any great number of nuclear (or for that matter any other type of) plants in place. Everything is being done in a sort of market-driven hodge-podge. If technologies like cleaner coal can be slipped in... hey, why not?

Meanwhile, "hoping" is about as useless as "worrying."

[mhaze]

Everything is being done in a sort of market-driven hodge-podge.

Market driven hodgepodge (USA) VS. Kyoto top down control and command - (from LR's post on GW)The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories) and ratifying it in 1998. A list (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/comparative_international_statistics/climate_environment/) of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.
Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
Market driven hodgepodge (USA) = Good.:)

[Jimbo07]

Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
[/INDENT]USA = Good.

You're gonna have to drop the patriotism gig...

That chart does not make the U.S. look good at all... :(

[DRBUZZ0]

You're gonna have to drop the patriotism gig...

That chart does not make the U.S. look good at all... :(

Maybe not, but it certainly makes others look bad. Worse even

[Jimbo07]

Yeah. I'm already regretting having posted that. Full disclosure: I'll leave it up.

Essentially, this little fight is one box I didn't want to get into...

[mhaze]

Fixed patriotism gig. Just meant market solution may actually work.

[DRBUZZ0]

Fixed patriotism gig. Just meant market solution may actually work.

Yea. We just need to find some safe, reliable and non co2 producing means of producing large amounts of energy on demand. I hope someday we find one. Only I have to say I consider safety and reliability to be the big factors.

Until somebody can show me such an energy source which is so safe and reliable that hundreds of men are willing to bet their life on it while living right next to it in a sealed airtight vessel for months on end, emeried under hundreds of feet of ice cold sea water at a location known only to themselves somewhere in the worlds' oceans... Well until somebody can demonstrate a energy source that safe and reliable I think we're screwed. Too bad no such energy source exists...

Oh wait...

[Puppycow]

That was uncalled for.You started it.

Puppycow was talking about reducing the effects of global warming. My answer had nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth - it had to do with the fact that his claim that it somehow mitigated global warmingI said mitigated the consequences of global warming, not global warming.
to keep poor Africans from reproducing. What I pointed out was that his answer was ridiculous in the extreme as poor Africans are not the cause of global warming and any harm they suffer from it will be far more because he insists on maintaining his way of life than anything else.All I'm saying is that regardless of global warming, if people cannot feed their children, for whatever reason, they shouldn't have them.

It's ridiculous to say that they shouldn't have children because they won't be able to afford food after global warming makes it more expensive when it's his actions that are causing it to be more expensive.

Actually, he seems to have absolutely no concept whatsoever about what global warming is, how he contributes to it or what really needs to be done to slow its effects. He just wants others to change their behavior so he doesn't have to.I think the population of the Earth is too large, regardless of global warming. I think someone mentioned that it would require 6 earths for everyone to have a western lifestyle. Well, if the world's population was 1/6, that would be another way for everyone to have a western lifestyle. Note that I'm not saying they should have no kids, but 2 or less would be good, because then the population would start to reduce.

Yes, I have. From the perspective of mitigating global warming, even with a first-class round trip ticket from Africa to your house, the world would be better off without you.OK, now we have our headline: "Environmentalist Proposes Solution to Global Warming: Kill the Americans." Lets see how that plays in Peoria. :)

As a side note, Western Civilization has produced such things as vaccines and pennicilin which have saved the lives of many people all over the world. Which is part of the reason why we now have an overpopulation problem. It's not clear to me that these medicines would have been invented or made available worldwide without the Industrial Revolution which caused global warming.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Population_curve.svg/550px-Population_curve.svg.png

[a_unique_person]

It's a win/win yes, if we encourage them to industrialize, help them build power plants, instead of encouraging them to be dirt poor farmers.

It's a false dichotomy, I don't want them to be dirt poor farmers any more than they do.

[soylent]

Ted talk by Armory Lovins on "winning the oil endgame". (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/51)

You can download the book in .pdf format for free. It's an interesting read. (He argues that saving oil is not an expensive proposition, it saves money and oil.)

[Puppycow]

Ted talk by Armory Lovins on "winning the oil endgame". (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/51)

You can download the book in .pdf format for free. It's an interesting read. (He argues that saving oil is not an expensive proposition, it saves money and oil.)

Wow. Now that's an amazing talk and it makes me optimistic. I hope he's right and not a smooth talking crank.

[Jimbo07]

It's a false dichotomy, I don't want them to be dirt poor farmers any more than they do.

I agree. I happen to love electricity. Our pumps to run sanitation and irrigation systems are absolutely dependent on the supply, as are the computers we're using to communicate here. I think every person should be able to enjoy its benefits, and I'm not convinced that there's a population problem. In fact, that sort of thinking reminds me of those grade school problems where you can only take 20 people in a life boat, and you have to decide who goes. It turns out (perhaps cynically) that my thinking is in line with what is happening. People are (essentially) refusing to conserve and demand for power is still increasing.

The solution is direct replacement (such as low power compact flourescent bulbs, or LCD monitors), and building new plants. However, as we've already mentioned in this thread, there's no central plan, so each plant built will have to introduce some interim technology. I can't think of a silver bullet or magic solution, or whatever. I have my fingers crossed for fusion. Meanwhile, I'm just a lowly engineer working on a clean(er) coal plant...

[mhaze]

I agree. I happen to love electricity. Our pumps to run sanitation and irrigation systems are absolutely dependent on the supply, as are the computers we're using to communicate here......People are (essentially) refusing to conserve and demand for power is still increasing.


I rather see it differently. Not that we are refusing to conserve but we are in fact conserving on all fronts: Examples, we run an IPOD instead of a old style vacuum tube stereo, we download mp3s instead of (carbon intensive) driving to music store and buying record/cassette/CD....You get the picture, I could give a hundred other examples.

The issue is that we are by measurable standards so much wealthier than those in prior decades that in spite of above mentioned conservation issues (achieved through free market capitalism and price reductions in products and product delivery systems) that even with these many areas of conservation, we use an increasing amount of energy.

So let's say we are for given daily tasks/issues using 40% the energy of 25 years ago, but we are doing/possessing/enjoying 10 times as many things. (Made up numbers to make the point). 400% energy use - we need to conserve? No, this is a problem of incredible levels of economic success, and this very success creates a tidal wave of cash flows to the third world, which is why they are now bootstrapping their industries up. We are their customer.

Is this a better way of looking at it?

It would follow that "conservation doesn't work", in a continuously expanding world economy. I'm not saying it's bad, just that it does not work as a solution methodology.

On a world wide level, on economic, health care, quality of life issues or other metrics, we are better off than ever before, and these trends seemingly are unstoppable.

[Jimbo07]

Examples, we run an IPOD instead of a old style vacuum tube stereo, we download mp3s instead of (carbon intensive) driving to music store and buying record/cassette/CD....You get the picture,

I define conservation to specifically include some measure of sacrifice on the part of the conserver. The technologies you've listed merely continue my list of direct replacement. I'm all for that! When I say conservation, I mean idiotic notions like, "If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down." I'd rather see my taxes (rates, if you prefer deregulation) go up to build another plant for desalination, than to let yellow water stand in my toilet bowl for significant amounts of time.


The issue is that we are by measurable standards so much wealthier than those in prior decades that in spite of above mentioned conservation issues (achieved through free market capitalism and price reductions in products and product delivery systems) that even with these many areas of conservation, we use an increasing amount of energy.

I'd take a little issue with your exaltation of free market capitalism here, but in this context, it's a minor point.


So let's say we are for given daily tasks/issues using 40% the energy of 25 years ago, but we are doing/possessing/enjoying 10 times as many things. (Made up numbers to make the point). 400% energy use - we need to conserve? No, this is a problem of incredible levels of economic success, and this very success creates a tidal wave of cash flows to the third world, which is why they are now bootstrapping their industries up. We are their customer.

Ummmm... what?!


Is this a better way of looking at it?


No, but I'll have think more about why not.


It would follow that "conservation doesn't work", in a continuously expanding world economy. I'm not saying it's bad, just that it does not work as a solution methodology.

I haven't said that conservation doesn't work, I've said it's not happening. People aren't curtailing their activities. I support direct technology replacement, but I don't want to conserve beyond that.


On a world wide level, on economic, health care, quality of life issues or other metrics, we are better off than ever before, and these trends seemingly are unstoppable.

I'm not quite sure where I want to go with it, yet, but this seems like you're painting with too broad a brush...

[mhaze]

I define conservation to specifically include some measure of sacrifice on the part of the conserver. The technologies you've listed merely continue my list of direct replacement. I'm all for that! When I say conservation, I mean idiotic notions like, "If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down." I'd rather see my taxes (rates, if you prefer deregulation) go up to build another plant for desalination, than to let yellow water stand in my toilet bowl for significant amounts of time.

I'd take a little issue with your exaltation of free market capitalism here, but in this context, it's a minor point.


Well, yes, in this context. I'm not sure that I'm exaulting free market capitalism....just stating facts, that we really do have this tremendous expansion of wealth, world wide, say in the last 100 years but it has been accelerating by numerous metrics in the last several decades. The same statements could be made and one could leave the phrase "capitalism" out, but the problem with that would be that likely no one would think that a heavy socialist or communistic state would engender product innovation that would give us IPODS, so there is an interrelation.

Free market capitalism does the "job of cutting emissions" better than "personal sacrifice", but by a disproportionate increase in wealth. Thus, the net is much higher emissions, and I am saying that this is unchangable in the largest part. (as in the question of the OP). At least that would be true without large scale nuclear power and the downstream effects of that, such as plug in hybrids.

I'm not quite sure where I want to go with it, yet, but this seems like you're painting with too broad a brush...People will by their own volition avoid misery, generally, so they will buy things and live in ways that minimize misery (leaving aside the fraction that loves misery, and regretting the continuing life of the much smaller fraction that wishes to impose misery on others).

Now you could argue that yes, they do this but can be educated that long term maximization of pleasure and minimization of misery involves some level of current sacrifice for the common good - eg, the current barrage of hype on carbon emissions reductions.

And that leads to what skeptics might call the "gullible warmer syndrome".

[quarky]

The population of the planet has more than doubled in my lifetime.
The reverse could happen in my children's lifetimes, without violence...if we had the incentive.

[Puppycow]

The population of the planet has more than doubled in my lifetime.
The reverse could happen in my children's lifetimes, without violence...if we had the incentive.

Maybe. I don't think the downslope can be as steep as the upslope was without draconian measures, however. But as long as it gets turned around and headed in the right direction, i'm optimistic. Another benefit of having only 1 or 2 billion instead of 6 or 8 would be more areas could be set aside as natural habitats for animals and nature. Many endangered species are endangered because of habitat loss.

[mhaze]

Maybe. I don't think the downslope can be as steep as the upslope was without draconian measures, however. But as long as it gets turned around and headed in the right direction, i'm optimistic. Another benefit of having only 1 or 2 billion instead of 6 or 8 would be more areas could be set aside as natural habitats for animals and nature. Many endangered species are endangered because of habitat loss.

The only path to lower population is increasing educational levels.

[portlandatheist]

I rather see it differently. Not that we are refusing to conserve but we are in fact conserving on all fronts: Examples, we run an IPOD instead of a old style vacuum tube stereo, we download mp3s instead of (carbon intensive) driving to music store and buying record/cassette/CD....You get the picture, I could give a hundred other examples.

The issue is that we are by measurable standards so much wealthier than those in prior decades that in spite of above mentioned conservation issues (achieved through free market capitalism and price reductions in products and product delivery systems) that even with these many areas of conservation, we use an increasing amount of energy.

So let's say we are for given daily tasks/issues using 40% the energy of 25 years ago, but we are doing/possessing/enjoying 10 times as many things. (Made up numbers to make the point). 400% energy use - we need to conserve? No, this is a problem of incredible levels of economic success, and this very success creates a tidal wave of cash flows to the third world, which is why they are now bootstrapping their industries up. We are their customer.

Is this a better way of looking at it?

It would follow that "conservation doesn't work", in a continuously expanding world economy. I'm not saying it's bad, just that it does not work as a solution methodology.

On a world wide level, on economic, health care, quality of life issues or other metrics, we are better off than ever before, and these trends seemingly are unstoppable.

If I understand you correctly, the point that you are getting at is that there is not a straight line between energy efficiency/conservation and overall energy usage. Consider the average household in the 1950's: no insulation, terribly inefficient furnace and other appliances, and a car that got 10 mpg. These days, we use energy much more efficiently but there is a car for every driver age person, a huge house to heat, and tons of various appliances. Efficiency can lead to less energy usage, but it doesn't necessarily lead to less. Jevon's Paradox is a situation where energy efficiency leads to more consumption. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox This shouldn't be used as an excuse not to be more efficient however.

[Puppycow]

The only path to lower population is increasing educational levels.

I agree with that (at least the only humane path). I mentioned women's education and empowerment in the OP.

[portlandatheist]

Speaking of the TED conference, there was this speech that I think has relevance to the OP:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/192
David Keith thinks that stopping GW may be solvable via extreme measures that we should at least take into consideration. I agree with his point that we should "begin the conversation" but my biggest concerns with his ideas are:
I don't think we understand the climate well enough to know if his solutions would work or not work.
I don't think we understand the climate well enough to know the side effects and unintended consequences of such extreme measures. Still makes for a good talk I suppose.