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 - )
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.
Ignoring problems is the new American Way. We're doing the same thing with [...] solving the root cause of global terrorism.
Nonsense. George Bush was very clear after 9/11 in saying that "terrorists hate the USA because it is a land of freedom".
Assuming that George Bush was correct in this assessment, he has done far more to combat terrorism than any other US President in recent history.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I remember Stephen Hawking saying something about global warming [...] can somebody find the direct quote for me?
It was probably something along the lines of "Why are you asking me about global warming? I'm a physicist. If you have questions about global warming, go ask an atmospheric scientist."
Note: "smart guy" != "expert in everything".
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
So what's the solution? Big artificial carbon converters. It would be terribly inefficient to plant another billion trees, and that's what the planet needs to handle all the carbon that modern human activity spews into the air. So let's make our own carbon converters. 2CO2 + energy -> C2 + 2O2.. it's really not complicated. Even if we were to get all the energy for that equation by burning coal or oil, we'd still be able to keep the carbon in the atmosphere at acceptable levels.. but using nuclear or solar or wind power is a better idea.
Thing is though, who is going to pay for all these carbon converters? Who's going to pay for the power to run then when they are built? Well, we are; that is to say, the government will. To make that happen we need three things:
Getting the first two is what us scientist and engineer types are for.. getting the last one is the kind of thing Gore is trying to do.. unfortunately, he's trying to do it without the first two. The typical human response to a crisis with no solution is to ignore it. People can't call for "action" if they can't even imagine what that action would be.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
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.
That's an interesting assertion. The point of the report is that this precise question was studied in great depth by a well respected economist (Stern was a former chief economist for the World Bank), and that the results of all that detailed anaylsis is that, in fact, it is far more expensive to learn to cope with a warmer planet. I fail to see how you dismiss that result quite so easily - especially given that you have not read the report (it is not officially released till tomorrow).
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
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.
In what way is it so terribly inefficient?
Startup costs? Well, all one does is dig a hole and drop the seedling tree in. It's possible for one person to plant more than 300 trees an hour with the right equipment. How much does that cost, maybe 20 cents per tree? The land needs to be acquired as well. There's plenty of waste land that can be used, like the land near freeways. It will require a lot of land, but that's the only major resource that would be required. When compared to the billions of dollars of farm subsidies that the US already pays to agriculture producers, a subsidy for growing trees would be small by comparison.
There won't be maintenance costs, except for possible subsidies to private growers. The costs when the tree needs to be replaced won't be great either.
Such conversion is what trees are good at. Why invent useless technology when natural means are already available that can do what is required for less cost? The big cost in the conversion will be the energy. The energy input in your equation has to come from somewhere, and when noncarbon energy is in short supply that is an important consideration. Trees capture the energy for free.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
...and make the problem much, much worse. Increased albedo is a huge problem, from the light-gray scars that mark the existence of cities to the reduced dark green of the world's forests due to logging. Increasing the Earth's albedo leads to increased desertification--and the worst part is, this is a positive feedback cycle because increased desertification leads to increased albedo.
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.
The central problem with global warming is not the temperature in itself; it's the mechanism that is raising the temperature, which is primarily an increase in certain atmospheric gases. We don't need half-baked ideas involving producing millions of gallons of toxic paint, which will worsen the problem at every stage from the production of the paint, to its effect on albedo, to the contamination that will inevitably result from improper application and cleanup. We need to focus on reducing greenhouse gases. Period.
For the record, IANAEE (Environmental Engineer), but I will be in nine months.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Trees are not permanent carbon sinks. On timescales of several decades, they release the carbon they have stored right back into the atmosphere, as they decompose, or are burned in clear cutting or natural fires. At best they buy us 20-50 year to figure out how to deal with the problem, and at worst they accelerate global warming by reducing the albedo at crucial latitudes. There are many other good reasons to plant trees, but as a panacea to global warming, nothing can match simply not releasing the excess carbon in the first place.
...Plant more trees?
(I hope that's what you're really suggesting here, it seems that way)
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
>uncertain climate science
Actually, no. As An Inconvenient truth points out, out of 900+ reports on global warming, the number of scientists that disagree with the issue and the number of reports that find their are uncertainties is 0%. On the other hand, it goes on to show that the number of news articles in the media that claim doubt is well over 50% (63% from memory but don't quote me on that). It then moves on to a US govt official (now resigned) who had deliberately edited documents to add uncertainty to help confuse the public and help them continue to avoid the issue. It compares and contrasts with 1950's smoking adverts "most doctors smoke Camel brand' and the Tobacco industry leaked documents where they state they are deliberatly trying to add uncertainty to the mix to stop people giving up smoking. Basically, the politicos have no apatite for stopping people doing what they like to do i.e. waste energy, drive big cars etc. and they're trying to sow doubt to put off them having to force the issue during their tenure.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil