Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
Again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
TODO: 753) write sig.
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.
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?
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
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.
--
make install -not war