A Stark Warning On Climate Change

cliffski writes "In a report based on computer predictions, UK government advisor Professor David King said that an increase of even three degrees Celsius would cause drought and famine and threaten millions of lives The US refuses to cut emissions and those of India and China are rising. A government report based on computer modeling projects a 3C rise would cause a drop worldwide of between 20 and 400 million tonnes in cereal crops, about 400 million more people at risk of hunger and between 1.2bn and 3bn more people at risk of water stress."

Comments

Recommended reading

[BadAnalogyGuy]

If you haven't already, take a look at Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel", and "Collapse".

I leave it up to another karma whore to provide affiliate links to Amazon.

Good News & Bad News

[corporatemutantninja]

Won't this help solve the overpopulation problem?

China

[Rydia]

To be fair to China, they've had much smaller growth in their pollution compared to other countries who underwent similar industrialization. Not saying they're perfect, but that should be mentioned.

Wait just a second...

[StevenHenderson]

The US refuses to cut emissions and those of India and China are rising. Come on, now. Failure to sign Kyoto does not directly imply a direct refusal to cut emissions. It just prevents direct government support of such programs.

Also, we are lucky to be in a country where being green is good for business. I can think of some companies that are making a pretty penny off cutting emissions and helping others to do so.

The sky is falling!

[Spud Stud]

Again.

What's the point?

[Luscious868]

Climate change was occurring long before our species arrived here, has been occurring ever since, and will continue to occur long after we're gone. Are we contributing to it? Yes. Does it really matter in the end? No. There are forces at work here that are a lot bigger and lot more powerful than we are. Ultimately, our species is time limited on this planet anyway. Weather it is a large asteroid, nukes, the environment or the dieing sun, something is going to make this planet uninhabitable at some point. Let's spend less time fighting with each other and more time figuring out how we can get our species off of this lovely little rock and onto the next one because that's our only hope for survival in the end.

Re:How could that be ?

[gEvil (beta)]

The difference is that humans are well adapted to large variances in temperature and climate. A whole lot of the other life on this planet isn't, including many of our favorite crops. If the temperature reaches a point where corn, wheat, rice, etc aren't able to tolerate it, it can have a dramatic impact on humans.

And something I never hear discussed.....

[King_TJ]

Since we know our supplies of fossil fuels are reaching depletion, has anyone actually tried calculating the total amount of future "damage" possible to do by burning all of what's feasibly left to use?

It seems to me that most of the people spreading fear of global warming trends are acting as if, without new legislation and drastic changes, we'll keep on creating this pollution indefinitely.

In reality, it seems to me that once gas prices rise to only another $2-3 per gallon (due to demand outstripping supply), the motivation will be there for some serious change anyway. The most likely alternatives for power generation are things like nuclear plants, and for cars, maybe hydrogen - which would nullify most of these concerns.

Re:And something I never hear discussed.....

[MyNameIsFred]

Since we know our supplies of fossil fuels are reaching depletion...

For as long as I can remember, and I am no youngster, fossil fuels have been on the verge of depletion. I can remember in college being shown predictions from before my birth that we were going to run out of fossil fuels in one or two decades. The point my college professor was trying to make was they we have a very poor idea of how much fossil fuel remains.

In a similar vein, as prices go up, more expensive options open up. Do a Google on oil sands or shale oil. More expensive options than Saudi oil, but lots of fossil fuel remains.

My point in all of this is that your hypothesis that we are on the verge of depleting fossil fuels is probably incorrect.

Now watch me get hammered with strawman arguments that I am a Bushie with his head in the sand. Or that I don't believe in global warming. All which is untrue, but watch... :-)

What about Canada?

[LWATCDR]

Canada actually consumes more energy per person than the US and also produces more CO2 per person.
Simple question is why wasn't Canada mentioned?
I am all for the US reducing Green house emissions. I think that we should start building a lot more nuclear power plants, use as much bio diesel as is practical, use solar where practical, and wind in the few areas where that makes sense.

On the bright side...

[Rob T Firefly]

My family in the suburbs will finally have that waterfront house they've always wanted, and they won't even have to move.

you're living in a dreamland

[penguin-collective]

Yes, the US refuses to cut levels (translation: "refuses to devolve our economy")

There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy". In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D, it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure, it would improve efficiency, it would lessen dependence on foreign oil (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses), and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs. Pretty much the only people who lose are the big oil companies, some powerful US politicians, and the military.

the absurd Kyoto Protocol would put no such restrictions on developing nations such as China and India. They could grow and boom, consume all the energy the like and spew unlimited amounts of who-know-what into the atmosphere, but America would have to shrink it's economy to comply.

The US economy is already in deep trouble; it's living on borrowed money, provided by China and other nations, while China, India, and other nations are already booming.

Furthermore, those other nations are rightfully arguing that it is not fair that the US has achieved its current economic strength by emitting carbon without restrictions and now they are supposed to limit their economies by not being allowed to emit equal amounts of carbon. But the solution is simple: everybody should pay for the carbon they have already emitted into the atmosphere; when such payments are set up, then India and China will probably be willing to agree to strong limits on their emissions.

Re:you're living in a dreamland

[gerf]

There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy".

Cool! Let's look at your logic, and play "follow the money"

In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D, it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure,

Yes, there would be vast capital expenditures to update many existing systems. But remember, "Follow the Money!" Where does updated transportation come from? Taxes, in some cases, and restrictions on vehicle emissions in others. Making vehicles or other equipment emit fewer emissions costs money in R&D, and manufacturing changes. Billions of dollars of overhead to attain the same performance, but with reduced carbon use.

it would improve efficiency,

Efficiency is not directly correlated to emissions. Though they're both ideals pushed for by environmentalists and conservationists, they often oppose each other.

it would lessen dependence on foreign oil (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses),

This is assuming the plan of action involves alternative fuel sources. Nuclear is an example of this, despite being controversial in itself, and possibly causing immense damage itself in the event of an unlikely accident.

and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs.

True, new activity would be present. However, most of it would be because of higher overhead costs for companies. They then raise their prices to account for it, and inflation ensues. Also, higher energy costs hurt the little guy, even if he has kept his job this far.

Pretty much the only people who lose are the big oil companies, some powerful US politicians, and the military.

I disagree. Everyone suffers finacial losses when the government requires massive changes in the infrastructure of the country. BTW, how does the military lose? What the hell are you talking about.

then India and China will probably be willing to agree to strong limits on their emissions.

How naive. You're betting on the good will of a crackpot communist country, and a country that refuses to sign the nuke proliferation treaty. They don't care about carbon, they're just happy to be able to force us to give them jobs.

I agree that it would be nice to cut carbon emissions. But the argument remains China/India/etc may be able to spend a minimal amount of money to reduce CO2 emissions, whereas the US may have to spend a substantial amount more to reduce emissions the same amount. But, the US would be required to, and the developing nations would not.

Overall this would create an incentive for companies to move to developing nations. If you think your jobs are being outsourced now, you'd have another thing coming. And don't argue that it hasn't affected Europe; France is just showing an example of protectionist labor laws that exist in Europe.

Re:you're living in a dreamland

[khallow]

There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy". In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D, it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure, it would improve efficiency, it would lessen dependence on foreign oil (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses), and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs. Pretty much the only people who lose are the big oil companies, some powerful US politicians, and the military.

Why hasn't the US already switched away from oil? Because it's cheap compared to competitive technologies. Even adding in the war subsidy (a hundred or two billion dollars a year), I think you'd only add a dollar or so to the price of gas in the US (ignoring whether demand drops as a result). Also, despite all the talk of "modernizing" transportation, I have to side somewhat with the "peak oil" people here. I think a oil-based transportation infrastructure is more capable at current oil prices than the alternatives.

The US economy is already in deep trouble; it's living on borrowed money, provided by China and other nations, while China, India, and other nations are already booming.

Given that Japan and Europe which are far greener also suffer from the same problem, this indicates that the issue of national debt isn't related to oil consumption, but rather how governments borrow to fund regular spending.

Furthermore, those other nations are rightfully arguing that it is not fair that the US has achieved its current economic strength by emitting carbon without restrictions and now they are supposed to limit their economies by not being allowed to emit equal amounts of carbon. But the solution is simple: everybody should pay for the carbon they have already emitted into the atmosphere; when such payments are set up, then India and China will probably be willing to agree to strong limits on their emissions.

Then India and China should have chosen to be the advanced countries rather than be the ones catching up. China probably should get some slack since they are aggressively working on reducing their population.

Re:you're living in a dreamland

[Dachannien]

(thereby also reducing the need for military expenses), and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs

Okay, let me get this straight - public and private expenditure to meet environmental regulations is good for the economy, but public expenditure to maintain the military is bad for the economy? Military spending has historically been a big positive for the economy, as long as debt is properly managed. (Admittedly, the debt is certainly not being properly managed at the moment, but the drop in taxable income and the increase in public expenditure to meet new environmental regs wouldn't help that situation out any.)

those other nations are rightfully arguing that it is not fair that the US has achieved its current economic strength by emitting carbon without restrictions and now they are supposed to limit their economies by not being allowed to emit equal amounts of carbon.

If the intent of Kyoto is to help the environment, then fairness shouldn't enter into it. The reason why China and India support Kyoto now is that it gives them a huge comparative advantage over the US, by letting them continue to emit high levels of CO2 at the expense of the environment. The US gets demonized for opposing such an arrangement, while China and India (which are already heavy polluters, and which release far more CO2 per dollar GDP than the US or EU) are defended for supporting an agreement that not only benefits them economically, but also allows them to continue harming the environment.

That's not fair. That's screwed up.

Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda

[will_die]

It is even more meaningless. According to a scientist interviewed on NPR last week, who talked about localized glacier melting it, even if all humans on earth were to stop all emmisions the temperature would still increase by over 1 degree.

More recommended reading

[cuzality]

Climate of Fear (opinionjournal.com)
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

Re:More recommended reading

[Doc Ruby]

As I posted earlier this week, Lindzen is part of a professional network of Greenhouse deniers. By all means, read his work. And google for rebuttals, cross-reference his citations. And look at the climate you get to see yourself. Then decide whether everything's OK.

Here's a factoid to get you started:

"In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout."

Re:More recommended reading

[shotfeel]

It is certainly a good idea to read what people on both sides of the debate are saying. Personally, it disturbs me when I read articles like the one in the write-up. Lets begin with,

Scientists admit the Earth's mechanisms are so complicated their calculations are uncertain.

So we start with an uncertain model stating a potential 3 degree C increase in temperature with no data given on the reliability of that number -that's not science. For a model to be scientifically valid it not only needs to be tested and found reliable, one also needs to do the extra step in determining variablity in outcome. AFAIK that hasn't been done to a sufficient degree.

Then, based on the results from this model, we use a second untested model with unknown reliability/variability and make another prediction on how this 3 degree change will alter crops on a global level and further how this extrapolates to starving people. What are the assumptions being made? Are we assuming farming techniques are unchanged?

Then we take the results of that model and create policy. Anyone who works with computer modeling should be squirming uncomfortably in their chairs at this point.

I'm not saying its all bad. We do need to act on what our best data tells us, but we really need to know how much stock to put in the analysis. So far that has been sadly lacking. IMO it has a great deal to do with the current political climate where any uncertainty shown is enough to get some people to completely ignore the results. OTOH I think its misleading to be presenting these things as "given" without more information.

Re:More recommended reading

[jcr]

Lindzen is part of a professional network of Greenhouse deniers.

Lindzen is a professor at MIT.

-jcr

Re:More recommended reading

[Doc Ruby]

I think it's worth noticing that there are more than 2 sides to the climate change debate - and there's more than one debate. But if we frame the debate as "if we reduce Greenhouse pollution, will the climate remain more stable than if we don't", there are 2 sides. One side has most of the experts, saying "yes". The other side has some experts, and most of the stakeholders in the factors most of the experts say contribute to the change. The side warning that the problem is imminent and dire has been right before about atmospheric pollution, including the acceptable economic costs of stopping the change by stopping the pollution. The other side has never been right about anything scientific except extracting the most money from the smallest investment.

And the stakes riding on that disagreement are human civilization, and survival of the species as we know it - as well as many other species.

So I encourage everyone to take as broad a look as we can. The proportions and facts are there to be found. I'm not as optimistic about the ability of billions of industrialized people to make wise decisions about uncertainty, but that's all we've got.

Re:More recommended reading

[jcr]

Lindzen uses his credentials to make Greenhouse denials in public.

Why does it sound to me like you're trying to lump him in with holocaust deniers?

His credentials, which you are dismissing, are directly relevant to climatology. He's come to a different conclusion than you have; why should I dismiss his opinion just because you consider him a heretic?

-jcr

The other side of the (gold) coin

[The-Bus]

As a perpetual optimist, I prefer to see this news not as a harbinger of devastation to the world's food supply, but rather as a wake-up call. A wake-up call to buy corn, wheat, and rice futures!

And you know what? You don't even have to bother dealing with the pesky Chicago Board of Trade. While bread goes bad pretty quickly, saltines last for a long time, as does flour. But why go the boring route?

Common breakfast cereals last for a year at least; also, if you buy now, they come with adorable Ice Age: The Meltdown(TM) toy which, down the road, will really make the irony sting. For example, once the famine sets in, you'll be amassing great wealth from selling $45 boxes of Corn Pops to the stupid starving masses who lacked your foresight. Then, as they finish eating their precious sugared grain pellets they will find an Ice Age toy at the bottom of the box. This mere bauble will become a caustic and bitter reminder of the witless folly that created the famine (and your fortune) in the first place.

So it's win/win!

Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda

[lbrandy]

The way things are going in America, what with the offshore prison camps, pervasive domestic surveillence, corporations trampling individual rights by suing their customers, and runaway executive power, maybe it should be stopped.

Not that the Chinese/Indian alternatives are necessarily better, but America is rapidly deteriorating.

This nonsense is never going to end. Do you realize this is the exact reason that public support isn't behind Kyoto here? It's because of people like you.... Because it is so easy to convince people that Kyoto isn't about climate.. it's about people who don't like America and want to punish it. When you bring up Guantanomo Bay in a discussion about Kyoto, every single rational person opposed to Kyoto is going to roll their eyes. Let's keep in mind those rational people are the ones that can be convinced, and make it happen... yet here I am.. having to listen to some guy ramble on about nebulous nonsense generalized into alamarmist and unrelated propaganda..

As to your other, weaker, point... congratulations.. no one is perfect. What does that prove? "Maybe" it should be stopped? And who fills that void... the next upcoming ideal nation? Then we can wait for the next centuries "utopia" to fail.. And we'll just keep destroying all the unperfect nations, one after another, until we finally get it right.

Re:A guess, even an educated one...

[Decaff]

...is still just a guess. "A government report based on computer modeling..." So- a projection from the government based on a computer model says that this is what might happen if the global temperature were to rise 3 degrees. Of course, given that computer models are just themselves guesses about how the various systems that affect climate and weather interact anyway, I remain unimpressed. I'll be taking this with more than a grain of salt. Can someone pick me up a salt lick?

I'm glad you are so confident. I am not. The models (the so-called 'guesses') have been developed and refined over decades, and based on data that goes back for millenia. Almost all scientific work is based on this sort of 'guess'.

Even if you still label it a 'guess', surely you should be concerned that so many guesses from so many who have studied this matter are pointing in the same direction.

Re:That's just economic naivetee

[lbrandy]

Do you really think China and India need the help of the Kyoto Protocol? Production is *already* shifting to those countries. And yes their emissions are uncapped, but their emissions are a fraction of the U.S.'s emissions. When they become part of the problem then we can talk, but right now Europe and the U.S. are the problem.

Hello random internet guy. I do so like your idea about "talking" once China and India become a problem. Allow me to show you the power of 90 seconds and google.com.

Greenhouse gas emission by country

US: 6747 Mtons
EU: 4050 Mtons
China: 3650 Mtons
India: 1228 Mtons

Ah, ok, so, I'm not really sure what your definition of fraction is... but I'm going to go ahead and call 3650/4050, roughly 90%, which is the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by the EU vs China... a "problem". So, can we start talking yet?

Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda

[Jearil]

I have to assume you don't live in the US, or if you do, perhaps it's in a major metropolitan area. You're probably one of those people from Europe, I'll guess the UK for my example, who feels the need to look down his nose at the vast majority of americans who don't use public transport or their own two good legs.

You see the thing is, the US is actually a rather large country. Depending on who you ask, it's between the 3rd and 4th largest country. Larger countries include Russia and possibly Canada and China (depending on if we're including in-land water or not). Now if you'll note, large portions of China is unpopulated. Most of the population occures along the coast. Canada has a very large portion of the country that is not populated as well. I have limited knowledge of Russia, so I just will not comment on it.

In the US, people are very spread out. Our rail system pales to other countries, especially ones with advanced modern rail systems such as Japan. Rail in the US is used mainly for freight shipping between distant parts of the country and not as much for passenger. I know for myself a round-trip train ticket from Albany, NY to NYC would cost around $150. The same trip would be equivilant to about $60 in gas. I'm all for the environment, but the cost of rail is not the way to solve it.

So the train is expensive; let's try one of your other suggestions. Walking is free, so there goes that difficulty. I mean I won't be walking to NYC, but let's think more local. Due to increased housing costs, I'm forced to live in a more remote area. I currently have a 30 minute drive to work each day; which is very unfortunate. A 30 minute drive equates to approx. 20 miles. The average human can walk at about 4 miles per hour. So, if I start walking at about 3am, I could make it to work on time to be at my desk at 8. Granted when I leave at 5 I won't be home until 10, but that does give me 5 hours of sleep before I have to put the hiking boots back on. Hmm, still not very effective.

Ok, last option: "drive there is something that gets double digit miles per gallon." So, the goal with this statement is to drive something that gets 10MPG. Well alright. This one seems the most feasable, but most likely the one with the biggest tongue in cheek if you will. 10MPG.. hmm. I'm not sure if I can recall the last vehicle that got less than 10. I think my uncle had a really large RV camper thing that got 8.. it was like driving a house, but when you're paying about 50 cents per mile, he ended up just leaving it at home. I actually don't know of a single car/truck/SUV that gets less than 10. The lowest I can remember seeing is about 17, and that's a guzzler.

Let's modify it to maybe cars that get 30. That's pretty basic for a regular gas-powered car. My car currently gets about 26MPG since it's 11 years old. So I'll conceed I have room for improvement there. However, I'm also not generating 2 tons of waste through buying a new car every 2 years.. I hear such things are popular in Europe.

The point is, public transport just isn't available in a very large portion of the US. I don't have the option for a bus or train. There isn't one anywhere near my house that would take me to work. A lot of Americans have the same issue. We would use it, if it was around, but it's not. The reason it isn't available is because the geographical distance is just too large to cover with an effective public transport. It's unfortunate, but how it currently is.

I do think that people in the US should start purchasing less SUV's and monster trucks and perhaps more compacts and hybrids. Pointless SUVs carrying around just 1 person most of the time pisses me off when I see them on the road. It will probably happen sooner or later, considering gas prices keep rising, but it takes time for things to get replaced.

In the meantime, consider that perhaps people in the US are not as lucky as you to be living in such a tiny country where public transport is readily available. Being tolerant of other people's cultures and having empathy for their situation may not be as satisfying as assuming they're wrong and placing yourself on a holy pedistool above them, but it really does help make you look like less of an ass.

Re:If you want Kyoto to happen...

[ezavada]

Imagine if someone did a study that showed that internet usage was linked to obesity.

This is an extremely flawed analogy, because the harm (obesity) falls on the actor (the internet user). Whereas with global climate change, the harm falls on everyone. A better example would be if pouring chemicals into the groundwater were linked to increased cancer rates in anyone who drank water. Strangely enough, the people affected in those cases tend to get upset and bring lawsuits that are extremely costly to the perpetrators. In some cases it's even outright illegal. That sounds fair to me.

Re:That's just economic naivetee

[lbrandy]

Those are meaningless numbers. Try dividing by population. The population of China is something like 5 times than of the US (I haven't bothered looking it up, but I think that's close) which puts China at around 1/10 of the emissions of the US, that's a fraction by my definition.

Ah yes, the classic per-capita-retort. Well, being a reformed student of statistics... allow me to go ahead and tell you why using "per-capita" pollution is also meaningless. First, and foremost, the US is not the #1 polluter per capita.... take at look at such irresponsible nations as Paraguay, Luxeombourg, Australia, and Canada if that is your metric... these obviously irresponsible polluters all put more junk into the air, per person, then the United States does.

More seriously, pollution can be viewed in economic terms. Per capita, yes, the United States pumps out alot more junk than the EU, China, and India.. by pretty sizable margins.. however, what do you "get" in return? Well... only 32% of the worlds GDP, for 25% of it's pollution. Given the contribution to the world economy, that makes the US one of the most effecient and least polluting nations in the world..

In fact, over the years, the US has become more and more effecient at creating GDP with the same amount of pollution. The average US person, by far, is the most productive and effecient machine for turning energy into useful things with the minimum pollution. In that respect, the US is the most energy effecient country in the world.

The bottomline here is me and you could go back and forth all day using different metrics to divide up the numbers (read: the blame) however we want... the CO2 molecules in the air don't have labels. The US pumps out 25% of the worlds greenhouse gasses, has 32% of it's GDP, and has 5% of it's population. Depending on how you slice it, the US can look either really good, or really bad... but it's still a numbers blame-game.

Re:no overpopulation problem; only underwealth

[misleb]

Only wackos and flakes think the USA or Japan has an overpopulation problem.

Overpopulation is about the Earth as a whole, not any particular high density area. Although high density does lend itself to problems with pollution and disease.

The population density in Japan is greater than just about anywhere, and yet they have none of the problems attributed to overpopulation.

As long as you don't mind being packed in with your neighbors like sardines.

Note that the population density of Japan is not supported by Japan's own land. They import almost all of their natural resources as well as much labor. The world simply could not support too many "Japans."

-matthew

Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda

[The Fun Guy]

I started drinking when this party first started.

At first, I was just a little tipsy.

Now, I am quite drunk.

In fact, even though most of the other people at this party are also drunk, I am by far the drunkest (although the guys who just showed up are doing their best to catch up by sucking it down hard).

If we all keep drinking, we will all get even more drunk, and we will eventually get into a fight when the keg runs low, fall down the stairs or otherwise hurt each other and probably trash this apartment.

If we all agree to stop drinking right now, we will all still be quite drunk for quite some time.

Even if we all agree to moderate our drinking to just maintain the buzz at its current level, I don't believe those guys when they say that they'll stop drinking if I do. They'll probably wait for me to stop, then keep hitting the keg when I'm not looking.

There's only so much beer in the keg, so even if we all slow down our consumption, it will eventually run out.

If somebody's going to get the beer, I want it to be me. I want mine while it lasts.

Therefore...

Where's my mug?

selection of quotes - dire

[tota]

In 10+ years of slashdot reading, I don't think I have ever read so many pathetic posts for one story!
Here are some of the best quotes:

1) Dozens of posts about how unfair it is to let China and India polute so much. Funny that one, since we are talking about a cumulative effect, anyone care to calculate the total polution per capita since the industrial revolution? Hint: China has only just started and has more inhabitants than Europe and the USA put together. Their (mostly poor) citizens are the most likely to suffer from our (western-made) polution.
But any excuse to blame it on others when you do/don't want to make a difficult decision works for some leaders.

2) "...absurd Kyoto Protocol..."
"..America would have to shrink it's economy.."
"..you cannot maintain economic growth and at the same time reduce your carbon.."
"..Countries in Europe are also failing to meet their targets.."
"..the Kyoto Accords are a socialist mandate.."
We have some Fox-news specialists at hand here, great!
FYI: this story was not about America or capitalism. Oh, and some other economies have done quite well at reducing emissions whilst maintaining growth. Never mind.
We haven't found a perfect solution to an imperfect world, so let's do nothing and keep burning it. That makes sense.
Keep putting your head in the sand until you can't get out - no-one will hear you when the water rushes in!

3) "3C isn't that bad". Right, this is the most clueless one. As if we can just ride this or hope that we develop the technology to correct it in time. 3C average on the scale of the earth is gigantic. This is just a question of scale: how big is the Earth compared to your living room? How much energy does it take to warm (or cool) 1 cubic meter of water (1 ton)? How many tons are we talking about? Google around.

4) "The models are wrong" or "There are forces at work here that are a lot bigger and lot more powerful than we are" (...): implying that either the problem is not real or that the Earth ecosystem has been adapting for billions of years and will continue to do so. Maybe so, but the fact is that the last time on record there was a dramatic climate shift was when the dinosaurs went extinct. Dinosaurs are so 'last extinction event', we are so much more clever.
I won't try to pretend that we know for sure that the situation is just as serious, but all the signs are there.

5) Random:
(warming) "...more favorable to the growing of fruits and vegetables. Good for everyone"
"..would open up vast un(der)farmed plains in the northern Mid-West and Canada"
Silly me! Let's launch a 'freedom to polute' site.

"..African nations where slaughter of their own population is commonplace..." (as an excuse for not doing it here either)

"...it is simply just a natural phenomenon like the Northern Lights."
(someone who needs to do a bit more reading)

"This data is being supressed by hysterical, global-warming cultists, like those found frequenting Slashdot"
The good old conspriacy theories. There aren't any good slashdot stories without one of them.

"So essentially the 'models' 'predicting' global warming actually only predict climate CHANGE"
We are screwing with the climate but it could go either way. Well, here is the news: either way is bad. Any drastic change is bad, and that is what the data suggests.

Summary: lots of posts not making any sense and most of them using some off-topic reason for not doing anything.

Can we get past this?

[TheNucleon]

OK, let's see if we can get past this...

The world is getting warmer. The world is very big, so a small change (e.g., 1 degree Celsius) is a big deal. About this fact, there is little to no dissent.

Mankind is contributing to this change. There is disagreement about how much, but don't be fooled - we are having an impact, and why shouldn't we? There are six billion of us, and rapidly growing. We think that our legacy of burning wood, coal, and now petroleum products, is going to have no impact, and that the exotic chemicals we have used (e.g., CFCs) have no role in this? Come on. Don't make me Google it for you, do the work.

This change IS going to make a difference. Did it cause Katrina? I don't know. Could it cause floods, rise of global sea levels, famine, thirst, and the loss of thousands of species? Probably. Is it already killing polar bears, bleaching coral, and melting permafrost? Yep. Already.

I want to move on to "how much _really_ is a result of our actions" and "what can we do now".

Despite the misinformation campaign from a particular political agenda, this is NOT a political issue, and it IS something to be concerned about. Our lives are on the line, and people are still engaging in lobbyist games and misleading science, just to, what? Get some more power and money for a generation, so the next one can perish? Do we have no conscience at all?

So, please, certain fellow folks in the US, bring the arguments. Tell me how it's OK for a country with 4 percent of the world's population to produce the most emissions, because we don't want to "slow" our economy. Tell me why we should ignore the problem because, of course, there's a big "scientific conspiracy". Tell me how it's OK, because India and China are doing it too, right? I mean, if other people are doing it, it's not "fair" if we can't. Tell me that the permafrost would have "melted anyhow". Tell me about the volcanoes, and that they put out more emissions than we do, which, of course, makes ours "OK".

And, please send all these arguments to /dev/null. Because it's time for the rest of us to talk seriously about what is going on.

I am not an alarmist. I am not part of a left-wing conspiracy. There are people who know 1,000,000 times more than I do (and more than you do...) about climate change and our role in it. And many, many of them believe there is a real issue, one that could get deadly serious in the not too distant future. Maybe they have a point? Have you checked it out - I mean, really, with an open mind, and not through the filter of the talking points you heard on AM radio this morning?

Re:Can we get past this?

[Blakey Rat]

I seem to recall that every other time we (meaning mankind) have tried to "fix" an ecological problem, we end up making it about a dozen times worse. See Australia, for instance.

There's about 4 layers here:

1) Convince me that global warming is happening

2) Convince me that it's due to human activity

3) Convince me that it *can* be 'solved' or at least reduced

4) Convince me that working to 'solve' it won't make things worse like it has in the past.

Right now I'm somewhere between number 1 and 2 there.

Re:As I posted before...

[An Onerous Coward]

As someone who agrees that global warming is a problem, and that this R&D should be done, let me take the devil's advocate position.

The state of the economy shouldn't just be based on the GDP. The GDP is just a proxy for all economic activity, which basically means how well we're doing at getting the stuff people want to the people who want it. If carbon emissions weren't a problem, and we still spent trillions of dollars working on making sure that carbon wasn't put into the atmosphere, that would be trillions of dollars spent on something that people didn't really want, and those resources could therefore have been spent more wisely.

There would be some benefits, of course. More fuel efficient cars, more renewable energy capacity, more efficient appliances. Those are going to offset part of the money we put into it, even if we don't reap the benefits of a saner climate (which I think we will).