Slashdot Mirror
Tackling Global Warming Cheaper Than Ignoring It
Coryoth writes, "In a report commissioned by the UK government, respected economist Sir Nicholas Stern concludes that mitigating global warming could cost around 1% of global GDP if spent immediately, but ignoring the problem could cost between 5% and 20% of global GDP. The 700-page study represents the first major report on climate change from an economist rather than a scientist. The report calls for the introduction of green taxes and carbon trading schemes as soon as possible, and calls on the international community to sign a new pact on greenhouse emissions by next year rather than in 2010/11. At the very least the UK government is taking the report seriously; both major parties are proposing new green taxes. Stern points out, however, that any action will only be effective if truly global."
Before someone brings up the citations in Michael Crichton's State of Fear , which inevitably happens in global warming discussions here, let's remember that Crichton is not a scientist, he's not competent to judge the strength of the material he was relying on, and you shouldn't be forming your opinion about grave issues from airport paperbacks.
Also of some note is the fact that we are all going to die. ...but yeah, 5 percent, lets do something about that...
It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value. Arthur C. Clarke (1917 - )
Governement thinks new taxes is a good idea!
We'll also have to figure out how to get along with each other, at least better than we are now. I think the report mentions there could be as many as 200 million refugees as a result of climate change and the various ramifications, that's mind blowing stuff! So taxes are all well and good, but we also need to prime our societies for massive influxes of environmental refugees that will probably be coming from poorer parts of the world, predominantly Africa(?).
Ignoring problems is the new American Way. We're doing the same thing with budget deficits, social security, medicare, and solving the root cause of global terrorism. Since a politician's time in office is typcially short (2-8 years), it's always far less costly during their tenure (politically and economically) to push off problems than to tackle the issue and risk losing voter support.
Unfortunately, global warming is a problem who's impact is even less tangible to Americans than problems like future social security shortfalls. As such, I doubt the government will support action until we're in the midst of cataclysmic environmental impact at a nationwide level.
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
I remember Stephen Hawking saying something about global warming. When it starts it will accelerate rapidly, I know this is very vague but can somebody find the direct quote for me?
What's the point of the UK political parties talking about all these green taxes when our prime ministers boss, George Bush (well at least he thinks he is), is out destroying bits of the world and the US culture in general is about wasting energy.
We need to encourage our allies to act sensibly, the UK is small and insignificant compared to the US.
I am not an atmospheric scientist, but I have discussed this topic (and this exact issue) with an atmospheric scientist I used to work with when I worked for NASA. The bottom line is that global warming is very real, however we simply don't have good enough models yet to work out the necessary information for making informed policy information - we don't know what the impact on the human race will be if we keep doing what we're doing, because that depends on how well the earth's homeostatic mechanisms will compensate for the additional greenhouse effect. We know it will have a negative effect, that is sure, but we don't know how well cutting greenhouse emissions will help.
Personally I think a long term solution to this will require technology on an unprecidented scale, not merely cutting back emissions. We should be investing in these new technologies and in general scientific and economic progress, and I am concerned that these short-term "band-aid" measures of reducing output could actually increase the amount of time it takes (and thus how bad it gets) before we have the appropriate technology and scientific understanding to regulate the climate of our entire planet.
Of course, if all else fails, there's always controlled stratospheric particulate matter injection, and the US and Russia certainly have enough devices for that...
Valuable footage is given by the WWF. One scenario is that with a "business as usual" approach the planet is eaten up by appr. 2050. So, keeping in mind that there is a time lag from thinking over action until implementation until effect, we may conclude what?
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
The primary method of fighting global warming suggested in this article is to increase taxes! Globally! It staggers my mind to think how many people might think this is a good idea. Giving politicians more money will save no one.
This needs extensive scientific research and international co-operation. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is openly hostile to both.
The only way to correct for something like this is through taxation etc, where the law can be applied and force better behaviour.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Poster #1 should be banned.
I remain skeptical of the global warming arguments, and divided on what to think of the whole issue. I've seen evidence both for and against the reality and human cause of global warming (see eg. Crichton's propagandistic but informative bad novel State of Fear). It seems as though claims of global warming, even if they're accurate, are an excuse to grant governments even greater power over the economy in the name of Saving the Planet. Because taxation and regulation are undesirable in themselves, I see this movement to create some massively expensive global regulation treaty as a definite harm to the world, being offered as a possible, partial remedy for a problem we're not even sure exists.
We may also be erring on the side of pessimism in judging the effects of global warming (again, assuming it's real). We know there will be problems, but aren't we overlooking some opportunities it will create? In various sources I've heard claims about Scotland's destiny as a premier wine-growing region; easier ice-free shipping lanes through the Arctic Ocean; greening of the Sahara Desert due to increased ocean evaporation; and greater practicality of mining Antarctica's undiscovered resources. Even as we hear about polar bears in trouble, there are also increasing news reports of wolves, manatees and other wildlife flourishing in surprising places. This "crisis" could actually work out better than we think.
Revive the Constitution.
What's so great about an economist telling us how much to spend to fix the problem? What does he know about what is needed to fix it? Nobody knows that, not even the scientists.
There is no evidence to support the belief that any counter measures we take now will be more than "a step in the right direction." We may need a hundred more such steps to reverse the trends. Even if we instantly wiped out all human life, global warming might continue because of the defrosting permafrost in Siberia plus other sources.
The public naively believes that if we just meet the Kyoto protocol goals, then global warming will go away. I think it supremely deceptive to let them go on believing that.
There's nothing special about global warming, and deciding to deal with it. Businesses and individuals deal with these sorts of issues all the time; they're called investments.
Preparing for global warming reminds me of a story I read about a personal injury that could have been prevented. In short, some fellow reposted hundreds of blog comments from an old blog to its new location. In the process, he completely fucked up his hand. Had he spent a few moments writing a Perl script to perform the copying for him, he would have likely not harmed himself in such a way.
Today, we have the same attitude as this fellow. Instead of being intelligent, and preparing to deal with certain problems we know will arise, we just forge ahead without considering the consequences.
Worst of all, we will likely see things get progressively worse. We'll see the first "blister" caused by global warming, perhaps extensive droughts in areas that formerly were quite damp. But we'll keep manually coping away, seeing blister after blister develop. Yet we do nothing. And by the time we realize how stupid we've been, we have been completely screwed over.
Assuming global warming is true (a point I will neither defend nor oppose), the money spent on preventing global warming is a waste. The full implementation of the Kyoto treaty will result in a decrease in global warming by 0.07C. That's right, less than a tenth of a degree Celcius, with all the economic and humanitarian harm that Kyoto would impose. And that harm is real: the EU nations are already trying to figure out how to not do Kyoto while still claiming some kind of adherence to the treaty because the economic consequences are disastrous. That, and they're not meeting the requirements.
Our money is far, far better spent learning to cope with a warmer planet, assuming again that things are getting warmer and staying warmer. Frankly, the technological advances on our planet are going to decrease greenhouse gas emissions without any kind of treaty or government mandate. The rising cost of energy (of all kinds) will lead, quite naturally, to processes that consume less energy, thereby reducing the side-effects like CO2 production. And we mustn't forget that it is industrial processes that create products that consume less energy, like the newly popular compact fluorescent bulbs.
Environmental solutions are often stigmatized as being incompatible with economic issues--that for every spotted owl you save, you put a lumberjack out of work and so on. Similarly, there is an ongoing misconception that money spent on environmental issues does not pay forward in a meaningful way, and that it just means less money for improving education, the economy, or a myriad of other governmental concerns. Finally, we have evidence that a nation need not sacrifice economic growth for the sake of environmental responsibility.
That's not how businesses think. It's not "how much is it going to save me in the long run?" but "how much will it impact this quarter's earnings report?"
This comment brought to you, ironically, by the word "lobbies"
Global warming doesn't exist. It just doesn't. It's all part of a natural cycle that the earth goes through. The big "Global Warming" thing is all just a load of media crap. Notice how there are no actual quotes or refrences made to or used by any real scientists when anything on global warming is ever done. You know why? Because no real scientist would support something that isn't real. Honestly any high school science teacher could tell you that.
It's not -1 Flamebait! It's +5 Funny. You just didn't get the joke...
If economists start to talk that it will be cheaper to treat global warming sooner than later, we can expect big corps to be more serious about this issue in a near future. It is very positive I think.
*** Korbinus ***
http://www.geotruc.net
We should destroy AMD
So, what do we have that can do it? Certainly not corn ethanol, which has a net energy return of 1.2:1, if we're lucky. We can't grow sugarcane in most of the United States, certainly. Cellulosic feedstocks have potential, and the R&D dollars are there. However, there is another option.
Algae as a feedstock for biodiesel, ethanol/butanol, or even Biomass-to-Liquids via a Fischer-Tropsh process. The UNH Biodiesel Group has outlines what we need to make this happen, at least one way. There are other companies working on this problem.
This story I think has the most exciting developments:
So, it soaks up CO2 emissions from powerplants, resulting in a net reduction of gases that would otherwise come from oil. Since we're not going to stop burning coal anytime soon, we now have a way to use that carbon twice.
I regard the Kyoto Protocol as nothing but a band-aid that puts the cart before the horse. Europe as a whole is not meeting their commitments. The CO2 Emissions Trading Scheme is a failure and will likely collapse. Canada and Spain, whose emissions are 30% and 50% over 1990, respectively, cannot meet their commitments without serious impacts on their economies.
Oil replacement first, then reduction.
British politics is positively ablaze with global warming hysteria. A prominant economist heaps uncertain economic reasoning on top of even more uncertain climate science and you expect me to hand over my wallet to "experts"? My guess is that this kind of buffoonery is now required of anyone seeking higher office in Britain. Is potential warming really your top issue? More than world poverty, your own economy, nuclear proliferation? Do you really think you can beneficially manipulate climate by rationing CO2 emission when you cannot predict climate in the first place? Madness.
an ill wind that blows no good
Yes, but most of us already know about him.
The requisite debunking and one reason why he does not deserve any respect on climate related matters.
To those screaming about their back pocket, how else can we direct the economy away from a destructive path other than taxation and regulation?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Hopefully this report will provide the political impetus for governments in the western world to make a serious effort at tackling global warming. I know that in my country (Australia) the government has previously stated that reducing emissions would be extremely costly for the economy.
I'm hoping that our politicians have at least a shred of social responsibility and see this report for what it is: a convenient reason to reverse their initial position without much political pain.
Didn't you know that Bush is the cause of all things bad, even when he's not? The sad thing is it takes away and shred of credibility that his detractors have.
Think of it this way - the US will have people moving from the coasts, inland. Coastal areas are high-income and high-rent. What this means is that the affluent should start caring about global warming. NYC is in deep trouble (pun intended) if water levels raise 5 feet.
Does anyone know where the full study could be accessed or requested?
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
We may be a small country, but we have a high per-capity contribution.
But there's not reason you can't at least start to do something by cancelling out the effect of the power you use (and it you have a ton of dev servers like me, that's a lot).
The power companies here make the pricing so obscure it's hard to actually know what green power will cost, but you can buy green power via a third party (that is, buy the carbon credits directly).
http://www.climatefriendly.com/
I have no affiliation with these guys, but I did use them to buy my own credits.
The best part is you know specifically where the credits come from (i.e. where the money goes) so it works both from thecarbon credit math angle and the "where does the money go at the end of the day" angle.
And if, at the very least, I'm just helping support the development of wind farms in Australia (and New Zealand, damn that place was MADE for wind farms) I'm happy to do that.
Given it has been well over a century since we've had a president who has been as deserving of bashing as Bush, you shouldn't be surprised to see people taking advantage of every opportunity to do so.
There is more than one way to do it:
One of the beneficial effects of sulpherous air pollution is a cooling effect. So, to decrease the global temperature, we can just remove the filters from the coal fired power stations and burn more coal. Stimulating a few volcanoes would help too...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
The way to tackle global warming is not through using less fossil fuels.
If we're going to tackle global warming, we need to do it the smart way: Huge man-made carbon sinks. This is an engineering problem, folks. Solving the problem can be done on the cheap.
And the not-affluent dwellers in the interior get to deal with an influx of wealthier people. Some short-term benefits for homeowners who sell to them, but in the long term - well, ask Spanish youth how much fun it is to try to compete with English property buyers when shopping for their first homes.
Didn't you know that Bush is the cause of all things good, even when he's not? The sad thing is it takes away any shred of credibility that his supporters have.
The old Ben Franklin adage rears it's head again: A stitch in time saves nine.
Global warming. First, the ecologists were convinced of it but they were alone. It didn't take long for the scientists to become convinced, but the economists and politicians were still doubtful. Now economists are starting to come round, leaving just the politicians. And I have a sad feeling it's these guys who will be hardest to sell to because unlike science or economics, politics (at least at the highest levels) is by and large more about "charisma", soundbites, spin, dogma etc. than logic. If politics and logic lead to the same conclusions, that's more likely just a happy coincidence.
All of the companies we pushed to those "other" nations where labor and emissions laws were significantly weaker are definitely going to listen to us now.
Sure amigo, we are producing less green house gases today! Whatever you say homes.
Muahaha
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Even if the future consquences of AGW were shown to be minimal, the UK would have to reinvent them as catastrophic in order to fulfill its insatiable desire to raise taxes.
"Stern points out, however, that any action will only be effective if truly global."
In other worlds, it doesn't matter, because China and India don't give a damn, and will poison as much of their air/water/land as they have to to make a buck.
At least that is self-correcting, they seem to have reached the point where they are killing themselves off with the toxins at an exponential rate...
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed," bin Laden said as the U.S. war on terrorism raged in Afghanistan. "The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life." linky
Of course, we should keep in mind that Bush is simply the symbol of this decay. The Administration as a whole is what scares the hell out of me. Add to this the people in Congress who support these shenanigans. And places like the UK have some nasty new laws as well.
Global warming will melt ice caps, screw up ocean currents, destroy biodiversity and costal cities, and maybe even toast most of us. But is it possible that having a massive problem that forces humanity to work together as a whole could promote a lasting unity and perhaps end a lot of the problems we currently have with war and poverty in the very long run?
When the isostatic rebound from the melting global ice jiggles the Yellowstone caldera into erupting and takes out the neocon infestation in America, it will rid the planet of a dangerous meme reservoir that might otherwise require untold expenditures to pacify. The loss of the declining "liberal" population will have to be regarded as unavoidable collateral damage.
The injection of ginormous volumes of dust into the atmosphere will block enough sunlight to reverse the global warming.
The planet takes care of itself, and a Darwinian cycle brings forth another roll of the dice toward producing intelligent life on Earth.
Nuts! Snake-eyes again!
That's cool, as long as we Americans don't have to do anything!
does it have whale skin hubcaps?
Cause as an arsehole, I'd only be interested in it if it had whale skin hubcaps
Give grants to scienrists to study global warming: $5,000,000.00
Pass legislation to Remove CFC pollution from atmosphere: $10,000,000.00
Tackle global warming: $100,000,000,000.00
Human species continues to survive on planet Earth: Priceless.
Seriously, anything is cheaper than death.
lrn2tckle
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
This is from the article:
The article does not say when that is supposed to happen, and like everybody else here I haven't read the 700-page report that the article refers to, only the article itself. What I do know is that if the current world response to climate change doesn't change for the better soon, then you will start to see real consequences in the next several decades. If you don't plan on being alive 10-30 years from now (depending on the data you're relying on), then, well--I hope your life was successful and fulfilling. For the rest of us, we have a very real global problem on our hands that will become at least partially realized within our lifetimes. And you better believe we will be picking up the tab for it.
True. But only if you ignore facts.
I don't see a lot of people screaming his praises, even among his own party. No, not my party, his party. I'm hardly a supporter. I just believe in honestly, and the constant bashing of Bush regardless of whether he is involved in a given problem or not is tiresome.
no way is this guy for real
If you read "State of Fear" by M-C... and actually look up some of the references in there... You come away wondering:
a) Is "global warming" really happening?
b) If "global warming" is really happening, is it due to anything mankind is doing?
c) Even if you buy-into a and b... Is there anything that realistically can be done?
d) If "global warming" is happening, and it is part of a natural cycle... It is almost certainly folly to believe we can do anything to influence it.
I read SOF and was completely shocked at how little is really known about this thing called "global warming" that so many people seem to believe in, yet there is so much conflicting information about it...
What is really amusing is that in the 1970s and early 80s there was talk and fear of a coming ice age or mini-ice age... Then the "scientific community" did a complete about face...
If you don't believe me, read SOF and then check the references. It is not only informative, it is entertaining. Although the parts where they were stranded in a snow-cat in Antarctica were a bit drawn out for me...
--- Just another Code-Monkey
hasn't been published yet, now isn't it?
I am a bit suspicous that the news article claims "could be 5-20%". This makes me think that this is the cost under the worst-case GW, which is highly improbable. Also, other cost-benefit analyses of this issue that I have seen have had much lower returns - something like break-even to 200%, not the 500-2000% implied by the news article. Something seems a bit fishy.
Also, just for reference, fighting AIDS and malaria have 50-fold returns, blowing even this GW analysis away in terms of benefits per dollar spent.
It's good that such a study is FINALLY being done. We can't even seriously address solutions to global warming without knowing whether or not it makes economic sense to do so.
However, we should not take this ONE study as the final word on the subject. More studies are needed. This study needs to be reviewed to check for possible flaws and caveats, such as:
1. What timeframe was considered, for both the cost of doing something and the cost of doing nothing? Multiple timeframes need to be projected.
2. Were the economic BENEFITS of global warming also calculated, and subtracted from the projected costs?
3. Were multiple global warming scenarios considered, both best case and worst case, since we don't know yet just how warm things will get?
4. Were the costs of stopping gllobal warming calculated purely based on one set of solutions (conservation) without also calculating other possibilities like carbon sequestration, nuclear power, sun shield, etc.?
5. What would be the cost projections if ONLY the western world tried to stop it, while China and other developing nations continued to pollute as normal, which would be the likely scenario?
I find it hard to believe that the costs on one side are relatively fixed (1% of GDP) whereas the costs on the other are 5% to 20%, depending on global warmings severity. I suspect, but don't know without looking at the study, that in the 20% scenario, we'd have to spend a lot more than 1% to stop it, especially if China isn't on board.
Bottom line: This is a good first step, but we need another 10 years or so of studies and solutions analysis before we should commit to a global course of response. Overreacting now "just in case" could be far more damaging than doing nothing.
Bruce
I'd like to know if someone was to spend say $100B more on the fusion development projects whether we would know if they worked
any sooner. If it works it would seem to be the solution to the global warming problem without us all having to work in the dark.
Would extra money speed up the research?
I expect that in one of countless classes you took and forgot after passing the test that you where shown a graph of solar energy recieved at ground level vs frequency.
6
and perhaps someplace on the internet you may have seen near IR images of plant life.
Perhaps something like: http://www.f295.org/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=81
Thats right, all those green things that you extolled in your post are reflective as mirrors in wavelenths other than the red and blue photosyhtnesis bands.
So if you think making roads and homes more reflective is going to cause problems, you better start cutting down some forests now!
Sorry, you're going to have to move your dissenting opinion to a free speech zone or face arrest.
This is politics, not science.
The 700-page study represents the first major report on climate change from an economist rather than a scientist.
Oh? Before Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist where he arrives at nearly the opposite conclusion?
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell
We are going to oxidize most all of the reasonably available hydrocarbons. This is inevitable. We will return all the CO2 back into the atmoshpere where it came from. If we supposedly slow down CO2 production it will take perhaps 50 years instead of 40 for this to happen. 100 years from now will we be able to notice that 10 year difference? I think not.
Like New Orleans did? I didn't know polar bears could adapt so quickly. The Inuit, Sammi, and Laplanders need to give up their lifestyles and customs just because others don't give a shit? The same with Tuvalus? And who's going to pay them when their nation is submerged, wrecking property values? Wreck? Ha, more like stealing. I bet the US won't.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you'd like to run your own NASA Global Climate Model (GCM) on your own computer, the EdGCM project has ported a GCM to Mac & Windows and wrapped it in a GUI so you can point-and-click your way around. Turn the sun down or add some nitrogen, whatever you want...
We don't have an economics model attached so it isn't 100% relevant to TFA, but it will let you see the physical effects different CO2 and GHG scenarios will have on our planet.
Disclaimer: I'm a developer on the project.
Space and Computers.
Well, at least they have it better than the non-affluent dwellers on the coast (not everyone in NYC is affluent). They get to drown.
I don't know how we'll all live without carbon dioxide.
And global warming isn't even happening!
Thanks for clearing that up! The article you linked to mentions not only the time frame, but many other important details that are only glossed over in the original article. And this from the same news source! It makes me wish that it had been linked to in the summary instead of the one that was.
You're saying that it's less expensive to stay alive than to be exterminated? ...
actually from an economist points of view it's the contrary!
Why not ignore it? Unless someone knows how to easily block the increased radiation from the sun... Let's see - more radiation from the sun (due to more than usual solar flares = global warming). When the flare rate goes down = global cooling. No ones ever happy about the temperature.. :-)
The best solution for roofs is not painting them white, but turning them green. Cover as many flat roofs as possible with plant cover, and increase evapotranspiration. Stop paying farmers not to farm, and pay them to grow hemp instead. Use hemp to replace all wood pulp and wood fiber applications, especially paper, and save millions of acres of trees, not in tropical rainforests, but in temperate rainforests, where the problem is just as dire.
Green roofs, whether they be grass lawns or gardens are getting popular. Hemp will help boreal forests, as in Canada, as well as other temperate forests. Bamboo is also good. A study by MIT found that an acre of hemp can produce more paper than an acre of forest. Hemp can also be used to make alcohol and biodeisel.
FalconShould there be a Law?
For all the bashing Bush received over Kyoto, he was right. The proponents of Kyoto seemed to have a socioeconomic agenda that corrupted the whole process. Some of the world's fastest growing economies (China, India) had essentially zero obligation to do anything at all.
Even if they work to perfection, CO2 trading schemes achieve nothing more than shifting the CO2 output from one country to another. It makes no sense to punish one group of carbon producers, just to have the same carbon production spring up wherever the CO2 tax money goes. Due to a lack of alternatives, any country with a developing economy will surely generate more CO2. The world economy will simply view carbon-based taxes as a nuisance -- part of the cost of doing business. At the end of the day, it will do nothing more than the latest phony oil shortage can achieve all by itself. We would end up with the same level of pollution with the added bonus of inflation and/or recession.
If we offered tax INCENTIVES for environmentally friendly energy sources, that might help. At the end of the day, this is a scientific problem. Without a scientific solution, there is no solution at all. As you say, many companies are working on the problem. We need to clear the economic obstacles and create a market for solutions when they become practical.
Problem is, guess who ELSE is hooked on oil? Government! Oil is heavily taxed. Gas tax revenue is being spent on everything from roads to social entitlements. Alternatives would have be to relatively tax free, possibly subsidized. California lost a huge amount of gas tax money after successfully promoting energy efficient vehicles. It's not quite so simple as finding something else to tax.
I don't have all the answers, but I can tell the scientists have a much better chance of solving this than the politicians do.
Not really, because nukes suck arse, and wind isn't yet mature. Wait until they start exploiting jet stream winds at altitude. Then you can kiss the coal goodbye.
Until then, a lot of coal infrastructure exists, and coal is readily available at a lot of locations with big power needs. Go figure.
To not use a worse expression. Do these morons realize we are between ice ages? That global warming is a good thing? Do they realize that the human contribution to global warming is f'ing negligible? Are they even aware that oscillations of the Earth's orbit due to the other planets explain every Major Ice Age going back 1 million years with a period of about 100K years between ice ages? Are they even aware that the Minor Ice Ages can be explained as forced by precession and nutation of the Earth's axis due to perturbation by the Sun and Moon? [Pg. 512 New Foundations for Classical Mechanics] (For the dense, global warming is the inverse of the Ice Ages and has the same cause!)
Geezus... just what we need in a world still dominated by tribal warfare (enhanced by nuclear weaponry) -- a super-regulatory authority to add more regs to an over-regulated crippled world industry? (Hint: What is the maximal speed an economy can develop at? Some number orders of magnitude greather than our anemic 3%. Are we anywhere near that? No. )
the owners want the profits now. They can worry about that later when they are sitting in their solid gold bentleys.
They're using their grammar skills there.
If you just, you know, stop releasing so much CO2 into the air the planet will take care of itself. The environment has a great many carbon sinks that don't require us to violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Other than the oceans, what are the CO2 sinks? Yea, the oceans are CO2 sinks but because they are absorbing CO2 they are turning acidic.
FalconShould there be a Law?
People hate paying taxes.
Corporations HATE paying politicians money (especially legally, thru taxation.)
Politicians like money.
Therefore, a plan to make people and corps hate polluting that politicians will like to implement would:
Tax things that are not "green."
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Just in America there is 300 million (something similar in japan and europe). If we have every person plant 3 trees each, that is ~ 1 billion trees. Even if the seedling costs something 3 each, then 1 billion trees cost 3 billion. What does a single new nuke plant cost let alone the fuel for it. The simple truth is that if we start planting trees now, we will have resources (wood) for the future, and will convert the CO2 and release the O2. All in all, it is in our best interest to plant trees as well as start moving off Coal, Oil, and Gas.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
A government could start taxing/increase taxes on something it/voters wants to discourage and decrease taxes on something else it taxes to a similar value, it doesn't have to be a pure money grab.
Of course it may be, but that depends on the government.
I'd be all for a revenue neutral approach and might even support a bit of extra revenue being raised if it were earmarked for research in the right areas.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
A cost of 20% to 30% gdp stands in stark contrast to the numbers yielded by the RICE/DICE climate models. Models that take economic factors into account and have been around for some time now. Once again faced with contradictory data on a serious issue that has far too much political baggage.
For instance, you could use the money raised by a carbon tax to cut income taxes. Or sales taxes. Or inheritance taxes, if rewarding the American nobility is your primary policy priority as it seems to be for most Republicans.
Or how about simply dividing up the returns from carbon taxation by the number of US citizens, and mailing out the same sized check to every one of them?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
If waste were taxed (the manufacturer taxed, not the consumer), it would be amazing how quickly corporations found ways of recycling and reusing old versions of their products. And what is fascinating is that if corporations did this voluntarily, it could actually increase their profitability, not cut it into it.
The book Natural Capitalism cites many studies wherein because a business cut the waste it produced it was able to reduce it's costs as well. One company cited was Interface Corporation, a manufacturer of carpet. They switched from selling carpet to leasing it. They lease the carpet then when it needs to be replaced they remove what's there and lay new carpet. Instead of the old carpet ending up in a landfill, dump, they then are able to use it to make new carpet.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Let me give you an alternative, equivalent plan - have motor. Connect output shaft to generator. Connect output wires to inputs of motor. Start motor spinning. Funnily enough, system does not run forever because of inconvenient laws of thermodynamics.
To make this work, you need to put a lot more energy in from another source. Unless that energy source is something we can't currently exploit effectively in any other way, it makes a lot more sense to use that energy to do whatever it is we were trying to do in the first place.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
What if you have a 4x4 but hardly use it, and you end up paying more taxes than someone with an efficient car who drives it 10 hours a day, emitting far more carbon dioxide?
Easy to solve, tax the fuel used. That way the more you drive and the less fuel efficient the vehicle the more you pay, the revenue can then be used on fuel efficiency and alternative enegry sources. Unfortunately as noted earlier more than likely once a pollution tax is instituted the politicans will use it for something else and won't let go of their power later.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I think biofuels may be a good investment. A study by Michael Briggs found that we can produce enough oil from algae to provide for all transportation in the US from just 15000 square miles of _desert_, and that this is a lot _cheaper_ than buying crude oil to make fuel from. Biodiesel made from these algae can be used in existing Diesel engines (sometimes requiring minor modifications).
Producing fuel for power plants and the like is even simpler, because they are generally less picky about their fuel.
Using fuel from cultivated algae or plants has a net zero effect on atmospheric CO_2, because all the CO_2 emitted in burning the fuel has been captured first, while growing the algae or plants. Biodiesel also causes less emission of many other pollutants than petroleum Diesel.
In short, I think we can kick our oil dependency, stop burning coal, and probably even stop using nuclear fission, and just produce our own, environmentally clean, homegrown fuels.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Yeah, as if giving politicians more money and the power that goes with it will make them want to give some up somewhere else...
We do not have a "Global Warming" Problem.
We have a "Controlling Human Behavior" Problem.
I believe that human beings have the power and knowhow to control Global Warming. Or if we don't, we can get it.
What we have not worked out, is how to control human behavior on the scale that would be necessary to control global warming.
In other words - we're already totally fucked, as a species. Unfortunately, so are most of the other species on this planet, most likely.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Does the model acurrately 'predict' backwards? When you plug in previous facts, does the model reflect the world at that time?
There is nothing you can do against Desertification. There is
:D
nothing you can do against the fact that most agricultural plants
won't grow anymore in that amount as they do today. There is nothing
you can do against the increasing of the level of the oceans. There
is nothing
If for myself see there no possibility of unification. What i see
is chaos and people killing each other for some crappy corn or
a litre of drinkable water. Look what happened in N'Orleans after
it's destruction by Katrina. The people went crazy, the police forces
had quit their jobs, the mob's gone raping and ravaging. The world of
tomorrow is the world of Mad Max beyound the Thundedome
Keep in mind that the current high end estimates are for an increase of less than three feet in sea level by the end of this century. We'll probably have to deal with the other consequences of global warming much sooner.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
For convenience (and posterity) I've copied the article below. The emphasis is mine, but please read the whole thing.
More than half of all life on the earth has been wiped out, repeatedly, in mass extinctions over the past 500 million years. The biggest, at the end of the Permian, wiped out 90 percent of ocean dwellers and 70 percent of plants, animals, even insects, on land.
- Volcanic activity releases CO2 and methane.
- Rapid global warming.
- Warm ocean absorbs less oxygen.
- Anoxia destabilizes chemocline between oxygen and hydrogen sulfide, causing H2S to upwell.
- Sulfur bacteria thrive while oceanic oxygen breathers suffocate.
- H2S kills land animals and plants.
- H2S destroys ozone layer.
- UV radiation kills remaining life.
Rick DeBayCalifornia had a recent study saying that the extreme regulations they plan will bring all sorts of jobs into the state, and actually help the economy. That one looked like junk science, too, starting with the broken window fallacy.
If you can't admit, sans weasely qualifier, that there are in fact valid counterpoints to your original claim, I think I'm done here.
If China, India, and Indonesia and the 2/3rds of the world's population they contain reduce their pollution levels to the current level of the UK, US, Canada, or France, then I am willing for the USA to consider reducing its level of pollution.
The global warming issue should start with the question: "What does it take to get the major third world countries down to first world countries pollution control levels?"
The second question should be: "Now that most of us pollute at or about the same level, what can we do as a group, with no exemptions for poverty and industrialization status, to reduce pollution levels?"
Do you understand that comment was in response to a comment that global warming would be ignored the same way the generative causes of terrorism are being ignored in the US-so how the fuck is the extension in humor of eliminating freedom as policy to eliminate terrorism given the declaration that the freedom is what terrorism is supposedly prompted by? Can you fucking understand anything at all?
I think Luis XV said in its own time "After me, the flood"... well, now that phrase have more less figurative sense. People that forgets the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
Doctors know about the value of preventive medicine...
it's a lot harder to fix someone when they have lung cancer than to stop them from smoking in the first place.
Engineers know the value of tests...
all that "test first" design and building models, it saves having to repair crazy legacy code on live servers... or fix the bridge while cars are driving over it.
Unfortunately what we've got now is the latter situation...
the patient is sick and cars are driving over him.
Interactive Visual Medical Dictionary
Plant some more trees.
Global warming is not.
The real solution to Global Warming is to turn the deserts of the world green and double the size of the habitable planet.
The way this will happen is that the cost of water desalination and transport will collapse by a factor of 10 in the next 10 years--therby making it possible to deliver desalinised water from any desert coast 1000 miles inland for the same as it costs for water in temperate countries.
The way that cost of water desalination will be collapsed is through carbon nanotubes.
In the world of debate, the above would be classified an ad hominem argument.
I'm not sure I see assertions about Crichton's expertise an ad-hominem attack. The statement was that you can't form a conclusion based solely on Crichton's book; that's not ad-hominem friend... accusing Crichton of bias because he is a melon-humping oil-hater is an example of ad-hominem.
I agree that ny evidence needs to be examined on it's merits... and _one_ of the criteria for evaluating the prescriptive recommendations from an "authority" (i.e. Crichton) is their qualifications as an authority.
Below is an outline from a common critical-thinking text (Asking the Right Questions)... Evaluating the quality of the evidence (question 7) is one of the key activities in critical thinking.
1. What are the issues & conclusions?
2. What are the reasons? (question # 7)
3. What words or phrases are ambiguous?
4. What are the value conflicts and assumptions?
5. What are the descriptive assumptions?
6. Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?
7. How good is the evidence?
8. Are there rival causes?
9. Are the statistics deceptive?
10. What significant information is omitted?
Relevantly:
"You can't wait for the answers because there are consequences...You monitor things carefully and make midcourse corrections as you go."
and be touched by his noodly appendage
> At the very least the UK government is taking the report
:-/
> seriously; both major parties are proposing new green taxes.
I bet they are
States normally spend all they take in tax, plus a little more, leading to a chronic budget shortfall.
That, IMO, is a factor in their responsiveness to a proposal to introduce additional taxes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/137343.stm
Perhaps point it at a solar power array somewhere in the middle of the Pacific?
Or simply lower the light hitting the outside of our atmosphere and reflecting inward, perhaps 1-2% could be cut off in such a way.
All in all not as much of a problem as the chemicals causing the warming.
YOU use Chrichtons' movie and then you accuse OTHERS of using Gore's movie to justify it?
weird.
The more you polute, the more you are harming other people.
It is just fair that irresponsible poluters pay by means of taxation for their lack of social conscience.
It is all good and trendy to grab the "free will" and "capitalism" monikers while at the same time using adjectives completely unrelated to the issue at hand.
Just for your information anyway, marxist countries destroyed completely the environment in many places (Chernobyl being the most egregious example), Eastern Europe is filled with examples of how pollution and environmental destruction where not high in the political agenda of true marxists.
But keep using the scare tactics (Booooh! The marxists are coming!) it is amusing to still find pople so ideologically incompetent.
The reality is that sensible people are realizing something needs to be done, and taxing poluters is one way to keep freedoms (nobody is banning irresponsible car owners) while trying to curb a problem.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You are right on both counts. I am a scientist and an engineer, and I work enough with climate modelling to understand the problems and limitations in this area. And from this background, I judge that the esteemed economist is paying more attention to hype than fact.
Global warming is very real. Without natural global warming, this planet would be about 33 C colder than it currently is, so it's an extremely important effect that keeps this planet liveable. The most important greenhouse gas that creates 95% of the greenhouse effect is water vapour (not CO2), and we have no control over the water vapour whatsoever, but we're damn glad it's there.
What's more, there has been a gradual (though erratic) increase of temperature throughout the current interglacial period (18,000 years), which cannot be attributed to "advanced" civilization emissions, and this should be viewed against the backdrop of the longer current glaciation cycle (100,000 years) --- ie. we're at a perfectly normal peak in temperature, and it's not even a high one within the current interglacial.
That's the background. Now let's see where current observations put us.
Man's huge outpouring of CO2 has very significantly increased the CO2 ppm in the atmosphere, to levels unprecedented in recent glacial periods. While CO2 is not a primary controller of global temperature (the long-term paleoclimate record shows almost no correlation whatsoever, the record through the last several glaciations shows a strong correlation between the two.
Of course, graphing CO2 and temperature from the fossil record doesn't tell us which is cause and which is effect, and we are not currently able to model the very complex biosphere nor the chaotic cloud formation processes well enough to make any sound judgements about this. However, that doesn't mean that we can ignore it.
Two things we do know with total certainty:
- Man-made CO2 *does* cause a tiny initial rise in the greenhouse effect (that's just simple physics), even if it turns out that its final effect is not the obvious one expected.
- The climate is in the process of abrupt change, as noted from the extremely rapid melting of Greenland ice flows and polar ice cover, and the very dramatic observed slowdown in the Atlantic overturning that drives the Gulf Stream. And these processes are unstoppable, period, no matter what we do.
So, what do we make of this, in respect of economics and public planning?Firstly, this is what we DON'T do: we don't conclude that the temperature is going to go through the roof. Not only is there no significant temperature excess in the record (the +0.6 C of recent times would be regarded as entirely within natural climate variation if it weren't for the hype), but more importantly, the trend cannot be stopped in the ways suggested because CO2 has a very long lifetime, and all the industrial age CO2 will continue having its effect for a good 800+ years.
Secondly, this is what we DO do: we accept that the North Atlantic and polar melting cannot be stopped and that therefore the sea level will rise enormously in coming decades and centuries. This will have a collosal effect on Man, and we should plan for it, basically through gradual retreat from the shorelines.
That would be economic planning based on scientific facts, rather than hype.
Of course, reducing CO2 while we're at it is a great idea --- we should not polute the planet, FULL STOP, as it's the only one we've got, currently. But to believe that this is going to solve climate change is a complete fiction.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
.... that fuel inneficient cars were socially irresponsible. If not for the issue of global warming, then because polution, oil consumption, etc.
Any half informed person could deduce such profilgate vehicles will have their comupance sooner or later.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
taxing stuff is a good way to control peoples behaviour if you need that behaviour to change.
How would you achieve the same effect? some motivational posters maybe?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
- Yahoo Answers
- Wikipedia
- Google
Please learn to use Google.In specific, younger people like us. You are right, if you are over 50 you wont pay, but anyone in their 20s will pay, and anyone who has kids should consider the impact of global warming on quality of life for their children.
Greed is a part of human nature, so is altruism, so is everything else humans do. It's in mans best interest to improve quality of life for man.
The longer you wait to fix something, the more expensive it will be to fix it. This should be painfully obvious, because in economic or environmental entropy, over time things deteriorate, and get worse, and as things get worse it becomes more difficult to make things better. Basically the longer humans wait to improve quality of life for humans, or to fix the environment, or do make the world more efficient, the more difficult it will be later, because if something is inefficient, and keeps getting bigger and more inefficient, it only means your children will have even more work, and it only means you'll have more work, and your quality of life will be directly affected, because it will be your lack of clean air and water. Maybe if you are 60-70 years old you can say you don't care, but if you are 20 years old, or 30, you might have at least another 30-40 years of life, meaning you arent even half finished yet. How would you like to work harder, while quality of life continues to decrease despite the fact that you work more hours, are more educated and more productive than ever?
And then just think that your kids if you have them, will inherit a world that is harsher and less efficient than the world we are in now. Most civilizations aim to make life easier, longer, and generally build and improve stuff, if a civilization exists to make life harder, to add endless toil, to offer endless and unlimited poverty, and limited wealth and efficiency, over time it just is not sustainable from an economic perspective. In order for an economy to be sustainable, it has to be efficient, and people have to be working for something.
What are we currently working so hard for?
It's pay now or pay later, thats generally how the economy works. College works like this, you pay and go into debt now, so you can have quality of life later. It all solves itself in the end.
However, if people decide they want to do nothing, well, why are they working so hard if the world is going to be in ruins in 50 years?
.. do a study that indicates the blatantly obvious solution to global warming is to stop waste.
Some of my ideas:
1.) No non-HGV which operates at less than 20 km/L will be allowed to be sold. Milage to increase by 1 km/L per year until further notice for a period of not less than 10 years.
2.) No device shall be allowed to have a 'stand-by' mode. Either the item is in use, or it is consuming no power. Wherever reasonable a device must have an auto-off mode. (example: a television or lamp must be explicitely 'programmed' to not turn itself off after two hours.)
3.) The use of fossil fuels for the raw, or derived, material for packaging is forbidden.
4.) Individually wrapped items of fruit or vegetable is not legal. Use of plastic carrier bags not allowed.
5.) Use of HGV to transport items for distances less than 10 Km or greater than 100 Km is forbidden when rail service is available.
6.) Shopping outlets outside of city limits will be taxed for each vehicle that enters the premises.
7.) In-window air conditioning units to be illegal.
8.) Home cooling units may not cool houses below 30C (85F). Home heating devices may not heat houses above 18C (65F).
9.) Do something about the amount of unnecessary lighting. The solution to this is not immediately clear to me.
Wasn't it a member of the Reagan administration who said that there was no need to worry about saving the environment as Jesus would return soon and set everything right?
I can't help worrying that Bush's advisors feel the same way...
Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each- countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html
The US is by far the largest contributor of emissions, with China a distant second. Per capita, it's 5 chinese to 1 american contribution and 20 Indians. So. What's first on your agenda, buying a smaller car and telling your neighbours why, writing to your congressman, or joining in a march?
Oh, come on! The guy is the President of the United States, for crying out loud! There is no such thing as a political problem that he's not involved in!
Now the the real question is, is there anything that Bush has actually improved during his term of office? If not (and I can't think of any), then it actually is reasonable to assume that anything he touches will turn to shit, because everything that he touched previously did so.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
C'mon guys. Report commissioned by government determines that only taxes can save the world? How come this isn't met by peals of uproarious laughter?
Well done. While the rest of the comments are about popular option type books I think you are the only one that has added any science to the debate. Yet we find that you don't get modded up. Instead comments like "nothing to see here..." get a +4 or so. Educated /. eh? I think the slogan should be changed to "News for script kiddies, stuff thats hype".
I too did do a lot of climate modling and still do from time to time and aggree 100%.
Its not anything like the media are claiming. In the 70's we were going to be in a ice age any time soon, then there was the overpopulation problem now its Terrorist and gloabal warming. I even left out nulear war and the winter that was going to follow.
When the general population watch news, they don't want facts, they want entertainment. The problem is that when the music stops who is going to be left without a chair?
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Easter Island's End
hany
And you know it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
UK story, but as you say, global warming. Bush doesn't even believe that global warming is real. The US didn't sign the Kyoto agreement, yet it is by far the greatest polluter on the planet. I don't see how it's possible to have a discussion on global warming without bashing the US government.
First the scientists were ridiculed (What? Global climate change? You should be joking).
Once the scientific foundation of the problem has been stablished, then the economic impact of fighting climate change was given as an excuse ("No US jobs should be lost" was the mantra of a well known individual with too much power but many bad advisers and dubious industry connections on his past).
Now that a reputed economist says that doing nothing would bring a recession of monumental proportions, here we are, doubting the expert again (many people have hinted to this already, but this seems to be tying up everything together).
What else is needed so some pople stop wasting our time and allow the rest of us to get on with the bussiness of minimize the effects of climate change?
Doing nothing, as confirmed by scientists and now economists, is not the rational option.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Neither an environmentalist.
And before I am accussed of nost listening to his message, I have heard the guy, read his book and he is just in a state of denial.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Does this make it OK for Kyoto to have China increase its emissions? Show me a fair Kyoto based on science rather than politics, one that does not make the silly assertion that an American CO2 molecule is "evil" and a Chinese CO2 molecule is "good". Only then might it be worthy of consideration.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Now that the US (not America) has finally reached 300 million - it is still far from the close to 600 million people in Europe. And Japan is only a tiny 128 million people (and declining).
> Global warming is very real. Without natural global warming, this planet would be about
> 33 C colder than it currently is, so it's an extremely important effect that keeps this
> planet liveable.
You are describing the greenhouse effect, not global warming. "Global warming" in this context describes the belief that manmade changes in the composition of the athmosphere will lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect, and thus a noticeable global warming.
There is a rough concensus in the scientific community that "global warming" is happening, but it has nowhere near the status of the greenhouse effect. Anyone denying the existence of the greenhouse effect is simply a moron.
Whatever happened to the vaunted Slashdotter cynicism towards FUD? I know things trend leftward here on /. but don't facts and reality have any weight any more? Check out this website with supporting cites of Crichton's thoughts that the "Panic now" approach to global warming is not the best way to go:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16260#r ight
The argument I always stick on is that Mars is warming as well and there is no way that our SUV's could possibly warm Mars. Earth has been warming and cooling periodically since its inception. Let's find out if action is required before taking drastic steps that WILL cause deaths and misery among the poor.
For example, in America if gas goes up to $6 a gallon then we can mostly suck it up. . .except for the very poor. This type of thing will raise food prices (how do you think food gets to the stores?) and limit the employment options for the poor to travel to find the good jobs by raising the cost of transportation.
And that's just in America, what about in places that are really desperately poor. When you make $200 a year a small increase in the price of gasoline takes a huge bite out of your living standard as every product from food to building materials has to get there with gasoline. Bjorn Lomborg in his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" pointed out facts like these and was pilloried as a heretic for it.
I don't care about agendas, I only care about facts and results. I refuse to support actions that the facts don't currently support as necessary when the guaranteed results cause misery and needless deaths.
Do you guys remember DDT? Environmental extremists caused it to be taken off the market and not used any more. This has resulted and in millions upon millions of deaths for no good reason. Oopsy.
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/000000005591 .htm
"Malaria is on the increase in all tropical regions of the planet - especially in Africa. In 2000, the disease killed more than one million people and made 300 million seriously ill."
There are many, many, many peer reviewed serious scientists who think that Global Warming cannot conclusively be blamed on human behavior. Further, others point out myriad BENEFITS to global warming, so even if it is caused by humans it may be a blessing and increase quality of life.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA165.html
"If history is any indication, greater precipitation may be only one of many benefits of global warming. For example, between the 10th and 12th Centuries, when the temperature of the planet was roughly 0.5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today, agriculture in North America and Europe flourished and the southern regions of Greenland were free of ice, allowing cultivation by Norse settlers. "
Check out he dissenters before you advocate actions that will get people killed.
Soon, we won't need to burn fossil fuels to obtain our energy. We're fine.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
...so Bush isn't involved in environmental policy? He's not responsible for the US backing away from the kyoto treaty? It's not relevant to criticize him for this?
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Fuck that. That means that all the little people take it in the shorts, while Al Gore and Ted Turner and Laurie David go on swanning about in private jets and eight-car motorcades.
I am convinced that global warming, regardless of its truth or falsehood, has become a hobby horse for the statist Left to grab power and money they could never win in a democratic election.
Until we start confiscating Learjets from rich liberals, I'll spend money and consume energy as I please, and vote for politicians who will allow me to keep doing so.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
You're right, the president of the country with the greatest output of greenhouse gasses has nothing to do with a debate on global warming. I'm sure that when speaking of this as a "global problem" and saying it can only be fixed if all countries take part, he was in no way referencing the US or Bush's policies. I'm also a complete fucking idiot.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
If one can read, they can become a self-directed learner, as the world's libraries are open to them. Books contain the accumulated knowledge of the human species; by preventing many children from ever learning to read, and most from learning to read well (see Gatto's A different kind of teacher), the government relegates a large portion of the populace to servile roles. Which is, of course, what our new self-appointed ruling class had planned all along.
A story, to make my point:
When my mother was kindergarten-aged, kindergarten cost extra. Her parents did the math, and decided that a caretaker was cheaper, so that's where she spent that school year. Imagine their surprise when my mother's first grade teacher told her parents that their daughter already knew how to read. They were shocked because they certainly hadn't taught her.
Mom says that she was bored at the caretaker's, so with a little help from some slightly older children, she taught herself to read. And she learned much more than that too: she learned that if there was anything at all she wanted to learn, it was her responsibility to teach herself. That lesson served her well, and even though she jumped from school to school to school (moved every other year or so growing up), her family finally settled down for the last 3 years of highschool, and she graduated valedictorian, and has done pretty well for herself since. She taught college courses for a while, and was good at it too. Many of her students told her she was their best professor.
Self motivation is the only motivation worth a damn, and schools snuff it out by design. Search up a copy of Gatto's The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher essay.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
we have green taxes and do you know the effect?
everyone is pissed because of the high gas prices, but noone drives less, so this tax didn't help the environment at all NOT EVEN financially, because the tax isn't spent on pro-environment projects or so, but to fill the pension fund that has been looted for the good of our predecessor generation...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Jeez whats up with you morons worrying about our GDP.
Why is the fact that our planet would also be totally wasted only a minor side issue to you?
Global warming" in this context describes the belief ...
:-) Science has nothing to do with beliefs.
Oh, so you're talking about the hype, I thought so.
It's pointless to argue over terminology. What's important is what is actually meant, and that everyone understands everyone else. Scientists *do* understand the terms, and you're merely commenting on popular ambiguity. Here is the full story explaining all the terms:
Greenhouse gasses produce a greenhouse effect (that's a tautology): they enable the planet to retain heat rather than radiate it all back out.
The greenhouse effect results in global warming. This is true regardless of whether the greenhouse gasses are natural or created by human activity. Over 95% of the global warming is caused by the primary greenhouse gas, water vapour. It's pointless to say that that's the greenhouse effect and not global warming: it's planetary warming with respect to the -19 C we would be suffering without it, and it combines contributions from all the gasses.
You seem to want to limit the discussion to anthropogenic greenhouse gases and anthropogenic global warming. Well, that's par for the course for politicians and environmentalists and advocates, but it doesn't wash in science. You have to look at the big picture, and not brush inconvenient details like water vapour under the carpet.
Anyone denying the existence of the greenhouse effect is simply a moron.
I guess you're talking about yourself then, since you want to deny the existence of the greenhouse effect from the major greenhouse gas, water vapour. In any case, the parent clearly explained the importance of both natural and manmade contributions, and even recommended reducing our huge outpouring of CO2. I guess you just want to argue over nothing.
Solar energy converts sunlight (aka heat energy) to electrical energy, therefore more solar equals less heat, solar panels emulate forests. Cooler cities, less CO2 -> Utopia
Junkscience.com is written by a guy who works for the Cato Institute and the CEI, rightwing thinktanks that have never met an environmental regulation that they've liked. The author has never published anything in a peer-reviewed journal.
The website also spends most of its time tackling non-issues. SHOCKING REVELATION!!! WITHOUT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, WE'D ALL FREEZE TO DEATH! SHOCKING REVELATION! CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENS WHEN THE SUN GOES DOWN! Other times, he's off muddying the waters with his explanations. Like when he talks about how heat isn't really "trapped," but simply delayed in its journey back into space. Or when he goes after the blanket analogy because greenhouse gases don't deter heat transfer by convection.
The site is a bogus shill.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
There is a rough concensus in the scientific community that "global warming" is happening, but it has nowhere near the status of the greenhouse effect.
You are so utterly confused. How do you think that our CO2 emissions increase temperature, if not through the greenhouse effect? By magic?
Well actually no, it's not magic. Man-made gasses just add to the overall process of global warming, and you can't separate them out as if it were a linear system. It isn't, it's full of feedbacks, and many parts are very non-linear.
Read up on the subject, instead of just watching the dumbed down versions on the telly. You'll find that CO2 would have an insignificant effect if it weren't being amplified by water vapour through a process of temperature-based feedback. At the coldest time in the history of the planet, our CO2 levels were in excess of 4,000 ppm, which is way over 10 times our current CO2 level, so where's your massive global warming? It just shows that you cannot look at only the effect of CO2 alone if you want to remain scientifically honest.
What's more, the water vapour that is the primary factor that keeps the planet from freezing over is also the same water vapour that creates clouds, the formation of which is very poorly understood and modelled even more poorly. Yet, this hard-to-model cloud cover has a *huge* effect on temperature, which says a lot about the gulf between public perception and the scientific reality, which is full of uncertainties.
You cannot decouple these things and look at just one part in isolation. It's a fully coupled system.
Everyone agrees that unchecked CO2 emissions are A Very Bad Thing, because all polution is bad for the planet and therefore for us. But keep it scientific.
Silly question, but rather than tackle a problem we don't really know if it exists or not, maybe it might be cheaper to actally prove or disprove it? Since the science seems to be out on this one, maybe we should actually prove it's true before spending time and money "fixing" this "problem"? It's akin to solving the problem of the monsters under the bed before knowing if there actually are monsters under the bed.
If solar flares and/or volcanoes are largely responsible for global warming, what could we do to fix it?
Here is another example of government funded "research" that is self justifying just to maintain the government funding.
The expression FUD comes to mind.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
You've provided one new datum from Wikipedia, and it's a good one, but it agrees very nicely with the graphs cited in the parent.
Plus, you link a number of entries from the realclimate blog, which despite its owner's scientific credentials is largely a constant stream of invective against people who dare to publish anything different to him.
And finally, you link grida.no twice, and both links are broken.
All in all, I think that you don't actually disagree with anything significant in the parent post, except possibly its attempt at providing a balanced view.
Lets say we in the US stop "wasting energy" and cut CO2 emissions 20%. What am I buying for the sacrifice? I have read that full enactment of Kyoto would lower global average temperature by 0.05 deg C at an annual cost of $100 Billion. It is natural to question: Who is asking for my money? What will they do with it? Why should I trust them.
an ill wind that blows no good
1.) No non-HGV which operates at less than 20 km/L will be allowed to be sold. Milage to increase by 1 km/L per year until further notice for a period of not less than 10 years.
First off, I am not sure what you mean by HGV (please, document your abbreviations before usage), but I can probably safely assume "Human Guided Vehicle", or something really close (why you just didn't say "automobiles" is beyond me - I don't know of any non-human guided vehicles in general use, outside of some factories, and maybe a few subways - in fact, most subway trains, freight trains, and other large vehicles are all human guided).
Anyhow, yes, more fuel efficient vehicles should be manufactured, but I think there is likely an upper limit to what we can expect as far as mileage, while still keeping the vehicle safe to use (there are certain minimum weight needs). What we really need is some kind of social engineering or something, which makes owning large SUVs for tasks where a 2-4 seat sedan would work fine a social faux-pas. Mind you, I don't want to outlaw the ownership of larger 4x4s - I enjoy owning a vehicle for this purpose, and I know there are others out there who need such vehicles for work purposes. However, there are a lot of people who own these larger vehicles (many not even suitable for off-road use - but large all the same requiring large engines to move them, or smaller engines struggling and wasting fuel doing the same) who don't really need them - most could get by with a small truck, or a sedan and maybe a trailer.
Outlawing them is not a good answer, something better needs to be done...
2.) No device shall be allowed to have a 'stand-by' mode. Either the item is in use, or it is consuming no power. Wherever reasonable a device must have an auto-off mode. (example: a television or lamp must be explicitely 'programmed' to not turn itself off after two hours.)
I can actually agree with this, just don't expect to have a TV that is "instant on" any more (although as LCDs replace CRTs, this will become less and less of an issue). The reason there is standby power in a CRT is to keep the tube "warmed up". This is just how tube electronics work, unfortunately. I see your reasoning here, otherwise.
3.) The use of fossil fuels for the raw, or derived, material for packaging is forbidden.
Then expect there to be a lot of spoiled food, and for humans to be travelling more often to the market (generally miles away) to get fresh food. The waste will be shifted to fuel, food, and time - instead of resources. However, I can see the use of plastics derived from renewable resources (plant cellulose-based plastics) working for some things - but costs for such plastics will be much greater than petroleum derived plastics. You and I may be willing to pay for the increase (provided our salaries increase as well!), but a lot of people wouldn't - or can't. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be investigated.
4.) Individually wrapped items of fruit or vegetable is not legal. Use of plastic carrier bags not allowed.
Yes and no here - basically the same argument as number 3, above. Some fruits and vegetables are fresher when wrapped individually. Of course, some of this may just be me remembering the way fruits and vegetables use to be like (what they tasted and smelled like) back not-too-many-years-ago, when you could actually get a tomato that smelled and tasted like a tomato, instead of blandness. Today, in many cases, you can only get this kind of food if you a) grow it yourself, or b) buy it (at an increased price) individually wrapped. I am not saying I like it this way, it is just that in our "race to the bottom",
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Per vehicle emissions and per manufacturing plant emissions would be equalized first (i.e., they need to match West Europe's pollution standards for cars, trucks and manufacturing plants) and then water pollution would be equalized next. Secondly, whom will get to measure the output levels given the credibility issues with China, India and Indonesia's official numbers.
we are nowhere near putting the money into fighting AIDS or malaria (or basic sanitation, water and food problems for the world's poor, which also offer returns of 30x plus) as we could.
"Apres moi, les deluge"
Dividing by population is biased. Dividing by domestic output shows the true efficiency of a country's economic engine.
Using Wikipedia, so if the GDP numbers are wrong, that's why, we can divide the emissions by country GDP to find out how efficiently (in terms of emissions) the country is making it's economy work.
Taking the top 15 polluters and ordering by Emissions/GDP, we get:
Rank Country Emissions GDP ($M) Emissions/GDP
So how about the top three least efficient countries (Ukraine, Russia, and China) focus on fixing themselves before people start landing on the US (btw those three added together have the same emissions level as the US).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each
This is ridiculous. The central problem with global warming is the the results of an increased temperature -
Grand parent was right, you have to fight THE CAUSES not the CONSEQUENCES. But of course americans can not do better, it is exactly what you are doing to fight your "terrorism", instead of looking at what are the issues that cause people to go crash at your buildings you preffer to go and kill all those people without understanding that as long as THE CAUSE (hint, mind your own business) is there the problem will return.
Similarly in order to stabilise the earth's temperature we must attack the issues that are CAUSING it, as grand parent said, we do not need half baked ideas that will only make the problem go for 10 years when it will return worse.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
we have models that can reproduce global climates surprisingly accurately
If only that were the case.
Not one of the GCMs models the cycles of glaciation even ballpark-close.
The entire global warming "movement" (as opposed to the actual science) rests on climate sensitivity, since without it the effect of increasing CO2 would be pretty minor. Yet, the sensitivity encoded in the GCMs doesn't give us the dramatic 100kyear cycles of glaciation that are an undeniable fact of the planet's current climate.
This cycle of glaciations is also entirely dependent on climate sensitivity, because simple orbital insolation changes are not sufficient to explain it. And yet, our sensitivity model doesn't explain it (not even close), so our sensitivity model is highly flawed. And yet, that same sensitivity model is the basis of increased global warming predictions.
So you see, the basis of the popular movement is very broken indeed. There is excellent science being done in the area, but the modelling is not part of it.
This doesn't mean that temperatures won't rise, at least in the short term. What it does mean though is that the modelling should not be used as authoritative in the discussion, because the modelling isn't consistent with observation. And that's the basis of science, matching the predictions of models with the reality of nature; when the match fails, you can't continue to believe the models just because it's convenient.
Not if you're an honest scientist, anyway.
Clearly, you don't understand what's being discussed - and also, you seem to expect that they ought to be answerable to your concerns, when all those countries are doing more to combat global warming than you are. I don't see any indians, chinese or indonesians here bitching and whining. Just you. I'll repeat what I said - the US has a higher total output of greenhouse inducing gases, higher than china, higher than india, higher than indonesia. Per capita, the average american contributes 20 times as much as the average indian.
Secondly, whom will get to measure the output levels given the credibility issues with China, India and Indonesia's official numbers.
Why would Chinese, Indian or Indonesian official numbers be less credible than those of the US? Care to elaborate on why the worlds largest democracy, and the worlds second largest democracy (being India and Indonesia respectively) should be less believable than a country that refuses even to accept responsibility for it's actions?
Why is a CO2 molecule from India OK and one from the US evil? Come back with a set of Kyoto Accords that bans the CO2 emissions no matter what country they come from. Until they, it's all politics and not even worth consideration.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Myth debunked.
Why is ONE CO2 molecule from India evil, yet 20 from the US OK? Industrialised countries (including my own) are to blame for global warming, because we contributed the vast bulk of the extra C02 present in the atmosphere. It's absurd to suggest that yet again developing countries should pay for our lifestyle.
India has ratified the Kyoto protocol - the US has not. China has ratified the protocol.The only standouts not intending to ratify are the US and Australia. And, despite the reticence of our government 80% of Australians want to ratify the protocol. Why? Because it is in our interests to do so. It is in our interest to act now, rather than paying later.
Come back with a set of Kyoto Accords that bans the CO2 emissions no matter what country they come from. Until they, it's all politics and not even worth consideration.
Why don't you come back when you have an argument to present to us that is worth our consideration? These tired, anachronistic, factually incorrect spiels about the evils of other countries are boring and hint at racism.