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."
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...
James Lovelock in his 2006 book, the Revenge of Gaia (i found it fascinating) mentions that there are at least 6 forms of positive feedback known to science. Ice melting exposing dark soils beneath, ice melting releasing ancient methane, algae and tropical forests dieing, less cloud cover, expanding arctic dark forests -> absorb more heat, as well as others that haven't been identified by scientists.
It was even proposed that cleaning up particulate pollution over Europe could reveal a truer extent of regional warming, by 1-2 degrees. It is thought that pollution across Europe actually causes regional cooling.
Along these lines stop gap measures have been proposed, including adding 0.5-1% sulphur to jet fuel, in the hope the pollution caused would actually cool the planet. Or artificially seeding clouds over the Pacific, or even launching a giant shield into space blocking something like 2% of the suns heat(?). These are serious proposals as far as i could tell from the book.
But the problem with these solutions is that we are undertaking the problem of managing the earths climate, something Gaia has happily managed for the past billions of years.
"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.
I didn't see it mentioned in that article, but what Stern is actually proposing is a shift in taxes rather than a tax increase. Taxes would be increased on polluters, but that would be offset by tax breaks on low emission or energy efficient technology. It's a pretty common idea among the world's Green parties, so it's interesting to see it moving mainstream.
Not true.
The majority of the energy that the world consumes today is from non-renewable sources - coal, oil, uranium and so on. These sources of energy will be depleted eventually. In 100 years oil will be scarce, easily-extractable uranium may be in short supply and coal, although still plentiful, may not be used as widely for energy as it is now.
Even if one believes the most optimistic view (against all available evidence) that increasing the CO2 concentration from the preindustrial level of 280 ppm to a much higher level has no effect on the planet's climate and the ecology, one cannot deny that we will need new sources of renewable energy. If global warming provides us with an opportunity to implement renewable energy, it would provide economic stability for future generations.
Thus, the money would not be wasted. Instead, it should be considered as an insurance policy.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
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.
``Oil replacement first, then reduction.''
I wonder if that reduction is even necessary (though I would say it's a good idea anyway). According to the CIA world factbook, the USA consumes about 4 trillion kWh of electricity each year. According to Wikipedia the energy content of biodiesel is about 35 MJ per liter. For 4 trillion kWh, this works out to about 15 quads (the unit used by the UNH study). To produce that much Biodiesel, according to the UNH study, we would need about 12000 square miles of desert land. This is a very rough approximation; converting Biodiesel to electricity is not 100% efficient, energy consumption has changed since the CIA world factbook was updated, we don't need to go all the way to Biodiesel to generate electricity (just using the oil extracted from the algae, or even the algae themselves, should work), etc. etc.
So, give or take, for transportation and electricity combined, we need about 30000 square miles of desert land. We have that much. And this is for the USA, which, to my knowledge, has the highest energy consumption per capita.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
For convenience (and posterity) I've copied the article below. The emphasis is mine, but please read the whole thing.