Slim

Wait, what position am I arguing? Don't you pigeon-hole me, now. Whoa, okay. Nobody is saying scientists make policy. Nobody is assuming that everyone will 'roll over'. That's why I'm trying to have a discussion. And I'm not a zealot, if that's what you're inferring.

Mkay, just making sure you weren't using one principle to negate the rest of the argument for AGW solutions. Incidentally, I don't disagree, nobody rational would. So, um, yeah. But they sure as hell help to back up policy decisions, especially on things like AGW. It's absurd to say that the scientific community's findings are irrelevant in the discussion of the economy vs. AGW

Okay, I agree this is definitely a legit concern. But I disagree with your assumption that action on both issues cancel each other out. Phasing out coal in favor of natural gas (I know I've been mentioning this a lot lately, but I think it bears repeating) is a great way to both combat peak oil and AGW at the same time. Right now, NG is plentiful and cheap. For the short to mid-term, it should be exploited! You assume it's okay for existing industry to have a monopoly over power generation. And monopoly usually means actively preventing the progress of competing tech. Which is happening. I agree about the nuclear, absolutely. It's an established technology, proven and in use around the globe. It has some problems, but the benefits far outweigh the costs from what I've seen. But I don't think the same 'enviros' arguing for real solutions to AGW are the same people that protest against nuclear power. Different folks, I reckon. Don't lump 'em all together, cause there are extreme views that simply aren't useful to the dialogue.

Ah, that's a bit better! Although a little roundabout in appearing. Just be careful you aren't dismissing the entire AGW problem because of that one principal, which could easily be used to argue against ANY economic action: "Why should we have any military research or spending to possibly prevent human suffering when people are dying right now?" or "Why should we set standards and regulations on food on the possibility of people getting sick and dying when people are dying right now?" See where I'm going with that? That's why I don't reckon it's a legitimate argument to make. Yeah, but that's really not a strong argument to make, when the 'do-nothing' approach doesn't have a lot of support from the scientific community.

Ugh, I had already typed up a post in response to this one, Tim, but I think it got lost in the interwebs. So if another SIMILAR post pops up from me, disregard it. Unless it's more coherent than this one. I'm not sure I follow you here. The status quo? Do you mean flogging the AGW horse and the peak oil one could, in fact, prevent any progress on either? I'm not trying to be flip, just need some clarification. I disagree about your statement on wind/solar. They have their place, and in certain regions could be expected to provide sizeable chunk of energy (technical term). Especially once next-gen photovoltaics (sp?) come out. Anyway, if wind/solar were deadweight industries, why is China spending so much time on developing solar? The industries are too large to seem as insignificant as you portray them to be. And political will to face down enviros? I'm not sure what you mean there... care to elaborate?

Ohhh okay, you're saying we shouldn't do anything about AGW because of the economics. And then you're referring to people dying because of lack of potable water? I'm not sure how that relates to your previous statements. Or the conversation at hand. But okay! Anyway, Tim and I are actually discussing the economics of the issue. I'm still not sure what point you're trying to get across, but I assume its the economic one. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are painting with a really broad brush, Tim. And you are incorrect; I merely have to draw upon personal experience. I work in a chemical industrial plant. We have had to install many new abatement programs for pollutants (not CO2), due to government restrictions. These projects do NOT increase our efficiency or improve the process (other than reduce pollution and, inadvertantly, GHG emissions) but the company still went through with it, and did not relocate or shut down or anything else extreme. In fact, there are plans to expand our production. Simply because CO2 is a necessary by-product (so are other pollutants for a lot of industries) doesn't mean it cannot be reduced effectively and economically. Here is the crux of the debate. Too many assume that any kind of regulation will be the death of the economy. The same has been said of other regulations in the past, yet businesses survived. As long as this is approached intelligently, how is this example different than any others? Fair enough. This is another reason for a proper discussion. Also, you need to consider that even if the costs of reducing CO2 emissions are too high for us (of which that is up for considerable debate) you have to consider the rest of the world. The predictions all seem to say that the developed world will fare a lot better at first than the poorer countries. Good for us. But we are going to feel the impact when other nations start to starve, or drown. What happens when Pakistan cannot irrigate its crops because the river water has all been used by India? What happens when China is hit so hard by CC that it decides to unilaterally start geo-engineering solutions? This isn't science-fiction stuff, it's entirely plausible. Never more than bit players? You're speaking about Canada, I assume. Because quite a few other countries seem to be making alternative energy a heavy-weight player, even during a reccession atmosphere (i.e. Germany). Perhaps we should be looking at how they have accomplished a move to cleaner economies? I didn't explain myself properly, apologies. I don't suggest just throwing up caps arbitrarily. That wouldn't work. Like you say, we should know the technology to use and its costs first. That is absolutely a good idea, and the discussion needs to take place on a serious level. For example, let's see what the cost would be to use natural gas to take over a good chunk coal's previous energy generation. What are the costs? Can the plants be retrofitted easily (I think I read somewhere that it's not too hard)? Stuff like that.

What I gathered from your statement was that we should do nothing about CC, and just deal with it as it comes, regardless. If some people die, who cares? Happens all the time. Am I wrong? Coal already provides the lion's share of the world's electricity generation. If CO2 emissions (and pollution) were not concerns we could happily go along using coal as our power sources for many generations. But that is not the case. Coal is a terrible emitter of CO2, and even though you believe CO2 is a non-issue, doesn't mean that it isn't important to everyone else. That's why we want off coal. So coal is out. Can't rely on it in the long term, especially not in developed countries where it's easier to use other technologies. Short term possibilities for power generation? Established technologies that are cleaner: Hydro, wind, solar, natural gas. A logical combination of all of these are the best bet, I think. And gradually move to longer-term solutions like nuclear, geothermal, etc.

That's kind of... heartless; borderline sociopathic actually. Or just laziness?

You are going too extreme. I'm not talking about booting out industry that isn't carbon-nuetral, I'm talking about working to encourage emission improvements. This is entirely possible, as we already have pollution limits in place, which are similar to CO2 emission caps. And when pollution caps are in place, we haven't suddnely seen every business move to China or India, as you claim. You are equating minor emission caps with EXTREME cutbacks, and how that would affect business. Now then: Gotta learn to walk before you run, man. The idea is to get the process started. Get companies' heads around this concept (plenty are already on board) and force the luddites to accept the fact that CO2 emissions MUST BE CUT. We can't expect major changes initially, especially in the energy industry (largest emitter). But we have to encourage them to start changing. Start placing additional taxes on coal-fired energy plants, and subsidies on natural-gas fired plants. Things like that (I'm just brainstorming). Unless we have a source of carbon-nuetral unlimited energy RIGHT NOW, there's no point in introducing emission caps? By that logic, we're doomed. But I don't believe that. Alternative technologies exist, some more practical, some less. Not just the widely known (solar, wind) but others like nuclear that are definitely established around the world. Geothermal is certainly a possibility for energy production (a personal favorite of mine!) as well as all the longer-term possibilities with 2nd generation bio-fuels.

I liked the idea someone mentioned of a slowly scaling-up plan to reduce GHG emissions. I think it's entirely important, however, that the short and long term plan should be decided and made public so businesses can plan ahead. It's not feasible, of course, to spring a huge tax or carbon cap on companies immediately. No one is seriously considering that, or suggesting that. What is feasible is a step-by-step plan to reduce emissions gradually, in many different areas. Ideally, I'd like the government to sit down with business leaders, and say (for example): 'Our goal is to cut CO2 emissions by 5% in 5 years, 15% in 10 years, etc. This fact is non-negotiable, but we ARE willing to talk about how we can help you accomplish this with us.' The 'Us vs. Them' mentality has to be left behind if we are going to have a useful discussion about this problem.

I've skimmed the Stern report a bit (as well as another study by Arnell cited by your link's author) and I haven't found where these numbers are coming from that he claims. But its a big document, so maybe I'll find it at some point. The Arnell study is actually a study on water resources and how they will be affected due to climate change, and I'm not sure what he uses from that study to help build his tables (or his conclusions). Anyway, arguing that it's better to NOT do anything about CO2 emissions now and leave it for future generations seems absurd, unless you don't believe CO2 has an effect on CC. 30%???? Where does that number come from? I really, REALLY doubt that someone is seriously calling for such drastic measures that amount to essentially killing the economy. And regardless, that will never happen. No one is going to knowingly reduce the GDP that much.

So that linked article assumes that no matter what we do, everyone is going to be better off in 100 years everywhere, regardless? That's... an optimistic view, at the very least. Although I have a tough time believing that the damage to food production and rising sea levels (on top of all the other bad stuff) due to AGW will be unable to hinder global growth. Is that a widely held belief amongst economists, then?

Scribblet: I would argue that when it comes to public safety, Aboriginal rights may have to be trumped, especially when the gun registry is hardly a huge barrier to gun ownership. This whole gun registry debate kind of got me worked up: all this furor and media frenzy over what SHOULD be a straight-forward vote. All the MPs should have been allowed to vote as their constituents would want, regardless of the party line. I'm all for scrapping the registry (as gun owner, I would like to see other solutions instead) but I would rather keep it or toss it based upon what Canada wants, not on the whim of politicians' power struggles. But of course, then it wouldn't be Canadian politics, would it?