I had to put spoiler around the lies that I didn't want to read.
Global warming
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
- Status
I had to put spoiler around the lies that I didn't want to read.
Heh. Going for the Ostrich look?
Mintmaster
Veteran
Again, this is great for proving the existence of AGW and the effect of GHGs, but it doesn't really do anything to quantify its degree. There are quite a few feedback uncertainties in determining the temperature rise per ppm CO2.
Then you have all the highly debatable cost projections for each degree of warming.
Then you have a question of priorities. I still think even with exaggerated costs AGW is at least one order of magnitude less effective in using developed world goodwill than sustainable development in improving life for humanity, if not two.
Finally, you have cost reduction projects for green energy, suggesting that simply putting money into an account on paper (much like social security) as a future obligation will be more effective than taking drastic action now.
IMO, there's a colossal gulf between the science and the policies being pushed by the environmental movement.
Yes, there is quite a bit of uncertainty as to the exact nature and results of the warming to come. But there is little question that it will come, and the trend, so far, has been for things to be much worse than we have expected.
This uncertainty, then, is a huge reason to act strongly and quickly. It is not an argument that favors complacency.
Putting money aside to spend on reducing GHG emissions is almost the same as spending said money immediately except for the fact that the payoff in dollar terms for future expenditure 5-10 years down the road may be more effective than spending the money now on less efficient technology. It is a fair economic question to consider.
Three points:
1) This will always be the case, thus by this argument, we should never get started on seriously tackling global warming.
2) Cost reductions will come naturally as investment for clean technologies increases, but will come much more slowly if we fail to invest now.
3) Emissions of CO2 are cumulative, such that a reduction of emissions by X amount today is more important for reducing global warming than a reduction of emissions by X amount in 5-10 years.
Everything we think and know is shaped by the stories we were taught and heard, and the things we encountered. Our whole society is shaped like that.
It's like a company; when first created, it's like a blank slate. But then, something bad happens, and all managers jump on it and make rules to show they care and that it won't happen again.
It's called organic growth. There's nothing scientific to it.
Only if you accept everything you are told sheepishly and don't ask questions of your own.
Agree with you on what, precisely?Btw, Chalnot, I'm pretty sure you'll agree with me in about 20 years.
1. Not really. It depends on what the action to prevent global warming is. There are many unexplored avenues which net a high ROI exceeding cost which are smarter to undertake before addressing things like vehicles and cars and air travel as well as electricity production which has a low or negative ROI. Something like house insulation and appliance efficiency fits this criteria.
2. I don't think so either. The expectation is that massive quantities of green technology would be needed and therefore the level of private investment without government intervention is significant by itself. Besides this governments haven't proved effective as of yet at picking the best green technologies to pursue.
3. See 1.
And even that won't move without some kind of tax (or other) incentive
And the market won't pursue the development of those green technologies unless some kind of strong government mandate.
Considering that it for the market and not the government to decide which green tech to pursue, it is not hardly surprising.
Well, obviously it is worth having the discussion as to what, precisely, we should do. But the fact remains that there is a heck of a lot that we can do right now that will, as you mention, actually be cheaper than doing nothing, such as pursuing efficiency gains.
But to me, it makes no sense whatsoever to court disaster just because you don't want prices on goods to rise a percent or two. So it makes a lot of sense to go after the negative ROI things as well, especially in an economic downturn where fiscal stimulus is so sorely needed.
Think about that for a moment: we are currently in an extremely rare economic situation where it is actually economically beneficial for everybody if the government spends a bunch of extra money, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars per year for a few years. This means that the government could actually pursue a wide variety of GHG emission reduction initiatives that have low or negative ROI, and the rest of the economy could still benefit from the investment. This sort of economic situation hasn't happened since the Great Depression in the US, and we sure as hell should take advantage of it.
Expectation is a great driver of technological development. People expect that the chips will get smaller/faster every 18 months. People expect fuel prices to go up so the development of things like the Volt were started significantly earlier than any government mandate dictated. If people expect that there will be serious shifts towards a green / low carbon economy then logically they will rationally develop technologies to cater for it so long as the governmental signals are clear.
It makes more sense to go for the positive ROI things with a fiscal stimulus because they are for the most part local to the same country. Just because they need to spend money to help the economy doesn't mean that it shouldn't be spent in a fiscally and economically prudent way.
I totally understand. However it makes a lot more sense to spend $5B or whatever on improving house insulation than it is to spend the same on questionable technology. It is better to use less than it is to pay more. Once you've got peoples utility bills on the way down they will be a lot more willing to support more expensive forms of electricity generation and by that time the ROI with that technology would have significantly improved.
I disagree.
If people free up some money from their energy-expenditures, they'll immidiately spend it on something else, - ie. spend more money for a house.
The way to get people to invest in enery saving measures, as well as energy alternatives, is to create the economic incentives for people to do so. Yes, that more or less implies taxing fossil fuels.
Cheers
With that attitude, expect no development - on the scale that we need - unless oil begins to run out. Good luck with that much of a time lag.
Sure, but I just doubt there are enough reasonable positive ROI initiatives to fill out a full $600b/year or so plan, even counting that we would want a significant fraction of the plan to pay for non-global-warming initiatives.
Sadly, this whole thing is a pipe dream anyway. No economic stimulus is coming anytime soon, not with Republicans controlling the House. They are intent on setting fire to the economy, and they'll probably succeed.
No reason not to do both.
Well, the oil is currently running out. We have reached peak oil, and it's going to be harder and harder to squeeze out every additional drop.
Bear in mind that the oil won't run out immediately. It's just that it's now gotten to the point that it's enough harder to extract every additional drop of oil that it's nigh impossible to actually increase oil production. Soon oil production will decrease.
- Status
Similar threads
