Tories new attack ads on carbon tax

[Riverwind]

I.e. to start making the change, we have to see the result of it first? Haven't we already discussed this pearl of logic? Even in the new and improved form, ie. the only way to prove that we had to act in 2000 would be to observe catastrophic results in 2050?

Actually, repeatable experimentation is the foundation of the scientific method. Scientists can come up with any number of mathematical models that explain past observations but those models don't mean much unless they can use those models to successfully predict the future yet the climate models have a rotten track record. For example, the IPCC report predicted that the temperature would rise with a trend of 2.0 degC/century but that has not happened even if we take into account random variations in the weather. The cooling trend may reverse and the models may yet be vindicated but until then there are serious doubts about the theory used to create them.

Of course, you understand that just your saying it, does not yet make it true, in any way. We already addressed that topic here (i.e the appropriate channels of making, and establishing merits, of expert opinions).

Dismissing reasonable arguments because they don't come through the official channels is simple an excuse to wallow in ignorance. Arguments stand or fall on their merits - not the forum in which they are presented.

Another leap of logic. How exactly would adaptation "deal with the problem"? If by "the problem" we mean accelerating uncontrollable climate change due to raising greenhouse gas emissions? Will adaptation by itself stabilize the climate? Slow down glacier melt?

Yes. Whatever climate change may come we will always be better off dealing with the consequences rather than trying to stop it because the cost of trying to stop it is huge and it is may not be enough even if we did make the investments. The reason is simple: wealthy societies cope better with disasters than poor societies. Just look at the different effects of a cyclone that hits the southern US vs. places like Burma.

. If we accept the opinion of experts, nothing good will happen.

Different experts have different opinions. Science is not a democracy and is supposed to governed by the data. The data available right now tells us we don't have any idea whether the climate models are accurate reflections of reality. Edited June 23, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

OK, filtering out random pseudo scientific random noise, which I'm going to ignore from now on due to time constraints, this seems to be the statement you're making:

Yes. Whatever climate change may come we will always be better off dealing with the consequences rather than trying to stop it because the cost of trying to stop it is huge and it is may not be enough even if we did make the investments.

At least it's a meaningful position, and I'd only wish that those advocating it on the political level, made it clear to everybody.

[peter_puck]

I am really think logic is lost on you. You complain about the AGW movement being based on "lies and half truths". You then fill this forum with exactly that. Then you respond to my post about your half truth and lies by posting more lies and half truths.

Mr. Hansen has received numerous grants from political activists interested in promoting the cause:

He has received prizes for his work. (Heinz award and the Dan David Prize) These are similar along the lines of the Nobel prize and have gone to all sorts of different people. Thats because he has been a decorated scientist for years. He is recognized by other scientists. He was asked to brief Cheney and the Bush cabinet on (until he turned on them) These types of prizes are all over the place, there is a big difference between that and getting a secret "consulting fee" under the table.

I might also point out that these prizes are public record. The junk science guy you quoted in the other post connections were only reveled when secret documents were exposed. Ball's funding was revealed only by an investigation by the U of Calgary.

While I am at it, I might also point out that I have not brought up Dr Hansan - you did. AGW theory is about the work of 1000's of scientists. Anti-AGW is composed of a handful of scientists, and as I pointed out, many of their motives are questionable.

Including $750K from Soros: http://www.topix.com/news/global-warming/2...rge-soros-money

This is a lie. Show me a REAL source that states Hansen got $750 000 from Soros. Not a blogger who quotes another blogger who quotes another blogger. Not someone who says "he could have got up to $750 000. A charity funded by Soros has a program that helps protect whisteblowers. Hansen states the he got free legal advice from them - do you any evidence to prove him wrong?

Lets not forget what started this either. An effort by Bush political appointees to censor science at NASA. NPR was denied interviews because it was "liberal". One Bush appointee demanded that the word "theory" be placed before every occurance of the word big bang.

The NASA inspector general found compaints of political interferance to be waranted:

http://oig.nasa.gov/investigations/OI_STI_Summary.pdf

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5798

It is not clear to me why a person who makes such statements should be considered to be able to objectively evaluate the scientific evidence.

What exactly are you objecting too ? The "high crimes" comment ? It is a bit over the top, but think of it this way. Tobacco executives stated that cigarettes were good for you even when they knew they would kill you. The objective of these statements was to encourage people to smoke. Many of the people who followed that advice died because of the lies of the tobacco industry. Many people have also likely died because of Milroy's denial of the effects of second hand smoke. Now, on some moral level, lying to make a profit that results in someone dying is immoral. The same applies to global warming. If Exxon knows that current policies will result in the death of a million people in Bangledesh but pay people to lie in order to hide the fact, you could argue that is a crime.

[Riverwind]

He has received prizes for his work. (Heinz award and the Dan David Prize) These are similar along the lines of the Nobel prize and have gone to all sorts of different people.

So you woudl be OK if a oil company started handing out "prizes" to scientists who do research that it likes?

This is a lie. Show me a REAL source that states Hansen got $750 000 from Soros. Not a blogger who quotes another blogger who quotes another blogger. Not someone who says "he could have got up to $750 000. A charity funded by Soros has a program that helps protect whisteblowers. Hansen states the he got free legal advice from them - do you any evidence to prove him wrong?

Gee. That got you upset. Any chance that you have enough self-awareness to realize that the accusations of 'oil-money' given to skeptics are of similar nature but repeated endlessly through the internet until people like you assume they are true? The scientists who speak out against AGW alarmism do so because they believe the "consensus" is wrong and that anti-CO2 policies will cause more harm than good. It is not because of any "oil money".

In any case, here is a link that provides the original source (the annual report from the Soros foundation): http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...s-annual-report

Lets not forget what started this either. An effort by Bush political appointees to censor science at NASA. NPR was denied interviews because it was "liberal". One Bush appointee demanded that the word "theory" be placed before every occurrence of the word big bang.

Same thing happened to Roy Spencer when Clinton/Gore was in charge. Spencer was specifically prohibited from expressing his views on climate change when he appeared at a congressional committee. Spencer resigned from NASA because of the interference. Why didn't the media jump to his defense then? Where was Soros with his $720K to defend "whistleblowers"?

same applies to global warming. If Exxon knows that current policies will result in the death of a million people in Bangledesh but pay people to lie in order to hide the fact, you could argue that is a crime.

It is a two way street. Let's say the skeptics are right and the CO2 effect is overrated and the planet starts to cool over the new 20-30 years. Should Hansen and Gore be charged with "high crimes" for misrepresenting the science and pressuring governments to waste billions? If not then you should be condemning Hansen's comments instead of trying to rationalize them.

It is worth noting that I became a skeptic because of rhetoric like Hansen's - The rhetoric made me suspicious because scientists that talk and act like religious zealots cannot be trusted to look at the science objectively.

Scientific American's unwarrented and unprofessional attack on Bjorn Lomborg was another incident that demonstrated that something was seriously wrong in the scientific establishment.

The rediculous defence of the hockey stick study was the final piece of evidence that the scientific establishment was not deserving of trust and that we needed to demand a lot more in terms of proof before we could embark on a massive social experiment.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Riverwind

[peter_puck]

So you woudl be OK if a oil company started handing out "prizes" to scientists who do research that it likes?

Gee. That got you upset. Any chance that you have enough self-awareness to realize that the accusations of 'oil-money' given to skeptics are of similar nature but repeated endlessly through the internet until people like you assume they are true? The scientists who speak out against AGW alarmism do so because they believe the "consensus" is wrong and that anti-CO2 policies will cause more harm than good. It is not because of any "oil money".

In any case, here is a link that provides the original source (the annual report from the Soros foundation): http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...s-annual-report

Same thing happened to Roy Spencer when Clinton/Gore was in charge. Spencer was specifically prohibited from expressing his views on climate change when he appeared at a congressional committee. Spencer resigned from NASA because of the interference. Why didn't the media jump to his defense then? Where was Soros with his $720K to defend "whistleblowers"?

It is a two way street. Let's say the skeptics are right and the CO2 effect is overrated and the planet starts to cool over the new 20-30 years. Should Hansen and Gore be charged with "high crimes" for misrepresenting the science and pressuring governments to waste billions? If not then you should be condemning Hansen's comments instead of trying to rationalize them.

It is worth noting that I became a skeptic because of rhetoric like Hansen's - The rhetoric made me suspicious because scientists that talk and act like religious zealots cannot be trusted to look at the science objectively.

Scientific American's unwarrented and unprofessional attack on Bjorn Lomborg was another incident that demonstrated that something was seriously wrong in the scientific establishment.

The rediculous defence of the hockey stick study was the final piece of evidence that the scientific establishment was not deserving of trust and that we needed to demand a lot more in terms of proof before we could embark on a massive social experiment.

[peter_puck]

So you woudl be OK if a oil company started handing out "prizes" to scientists who do research that it likes?

Gee. That got you upset. Any chance that you have enough self-awareness to realize that the accusations of 'oil-money' given to skeptics are of similar nature but repeated endlessly through the internet until people like you assume they are true?

The Milroy link was in the tobacco papers. Ball's funding was rooted out by a investigation by the U of Calgary.

The links between these people are well documented.

You on the other hand parrot right wing talk show hosts talking points. You should no that those things are not meant for the rest of the world, only the true believers.

In any case, here is a link that provides the original source (the annual report from the Soros foundation): http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...s-annual-report

I have read the Soros foundation report. I ask you again, where is the evidence of Hansan being paid $750 000 by Soros ? I think what you are getting at is that some conservative talk show host took the entire budget of one program and said Hansan COULD have gotten that much because thats how much was in the entire budget.

BTW how can you accuse me of looking at some blogs that you mentioned (Exxon secrets and smogblog) when you get you news from "newsbusters". A site that exists to counter "liberal bias in the media).

Same thing happened to Roy Spencer when Clinton/Gore was in charge. Spencer was specifically prohibited from expressing his views on climate change when he appeared at a congressional committee. Spencer resigned from NASA because of the interference. Why didn't the media jump to his defense then? Where was Soros with his $720K to defend "whistleblowers"?

First of all, what evidence do you have that Spencer was censored besides some things he said to right wing talk show hosts long after the fact ? The NASA report has emails, memos, morons trying to defend themselves. What do you have ? Besides, the NASA scandal was not just about climate.

It is a two way street. Let's say the skeptics are right and the CO2 effect is overrated and the planet starts to cool over the new 20-30 years. Should Hansen and Gore be charged with "high crimes" for misrepresenting the science and pressuring governments to waste billions? If not then you should be condemning Hansen's comments instead of trying to rationalize them.

If Hansen misrepresented the science for financial gain and was aware that his actions would cause a great number of deaths, then yes he should be. Same with Gore. The problem is you have no real evidence that Gore and Hansen have done that.

It is worth noting that I became a skeptic because of rhetoric like Hansen's - The rhetoric made me suspicious because scientists that talk and act like religious zealots cannot be trusted to look at the science objectively.

I find it odd, because many of the people on the other side don't act like religious zealots - they are religious zealots. (many happen to be supporters of intelligent design)

Scientific American's unwarrented and unprofessional attack on Bjorn Lomborg was another incident that demonstrated that something was seriously wrong in the scientific establishment.

I don't know about you, but REAL SCIENTISTS must get a little angry at POLITICAL SCIENTISTS like Bjorn Lomborg who misrepresent stuff. I guess it comes down to who you trust, Scientific American or a guy with a Phd in political science. Do you believe the AMA or Tom Cruise when it comes to medical decisions ?

"

Bjørn Lomborg spent a year as an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned a Master's degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a Ph.D. at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen in 1994.

"

[jbg]

OK, pretty much everybody must be already well versed on Harpers' approach to any policy challenge:

#1 throw dirt at anybody with a fresh idea or an alternative solution;

#2 pump out unrealistic ads about own would be achievements (usually to be realized in a few generations' timeframe)

#3 do nothing (of substance) here and now.

Need I say "Kinsella"? And did Chretien eliminate the GST and/or reduce global warming? Oh yes, his minister named his dog "Kyoto".

[Riverwind]

The links between these people are well documented.

Neither of those people were in the list of scientists that gave you yet you were the one who started ranting about oil industry funding and trying to smear all skeptics. BTW. Ball is on my list of skeptics that I don't bother with.

I have read the Soros foundation report. I ask you again, where is the evidence of Hansan being paid $750 000 by Soros ? I think what you are getting at is that some conservative talk show host took the entire budget of one program and said Hansan COULD have gotten that much because thats how much was in the entire budget.

I am inclined to agree with you on this one. But I believe I have made the point that I wanted to make: illustrate how AGW activists can take little slivers of truth and distort them beyond recognition in order to smear skeptical scientists.

First of all, what evidence do you have that Spencer was censored besides some things he said to right wing talk show hosts long after the fact ? The NASA report has emails, memos, morons trying to defend themselves. What do you have ? Besides, the NASA scandal was not just about climate.

Roy Spenser does not dispute the right of his employer to control what he said and did not say in public when he was acting in is role as a scientist for that employer. He simply found an employer that would let him speak his mind so it is unlikely that he would have kept documentation to prove what happened years later. IMO, NASA did nothing wrong when it tried to stop Hansen from abusing his credentials as a NASA scientist. Unfortunately, a compliant media egged on by AGW activists saw the actions as an opportunity for propoganda.

BTW, it is not just Spencer. The oregon state climatolgist was fired for expressing skeptical views and others have been allowed to keep their jobs but they are told they can never use their title when speaking out on GW.

If Hansen misrepresented the science for financial gain and was aware that his actions would cause a great number of deaths, then yes he should be. Same with Gore. The problem is you have no real evidence that Gore and Hansen have done that.

Gore collects 100K for each speech he gives on GW. He has an interest in numerous businesses that stand to make a lot of money governments start regulating CO2. There is no lack of evidence of financial conflicts of interest when it comes to Gore. Hansen is a little harder but I suspect his primary motivation is ego - he loves the spot light and wants a place in history.

I find it odd, because many of the people on the other side don't act like religious zealots - they are religious zealots. (many happen to be supporters of intelligent design)

Many? Try again. Maybe one. Roy Spencer is a religious man who has basically said that he cannot rule out the possibility of an intelligent creator controlling evolution - a nuaced view that is held by many scientists who are also religious. But that has not stopped AGW activists from trying to claim that he is a "the earth is 6000 years old style" creationist.

I don't know about you, but REAL SCIENTISTS must get a little angry at POLITICAL SCIENTISTS like Bjorn Lomborg who misrepresent stuff. I guess it comes down to who you trust, Scientific American or a guy with a Phd in political science.

Lomborg does not dispute the science - he only talks about what policy actions should be taken if one assumes that the science is correct. He is more than qualified for that kind of analysis - in fact, I would say he more qualified to hold an opinion than someone with a PhD in physics who is running around telling politicians to ban coal fired power plants. Edited June 24, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

I assume that everyone is biased and take that into account and discount things that I know are false.

Or, when you have been proven wrong (CO2 increases plant growth and decreases nutritional value) you don't post anything. This to me indicates a person who likes to appear open minded and able to take in new information, but, in reality, indicates a person who's mind is already made up and rejects information that goes against that assumption.

[Riverwind]

Or, when you have been proven wrong (CO2 increases plant growth and decreases nutritional value) you don't post anything. This to me indicates a person who likes to appear open minded and able to take in new information, but, in reality, indicates a person who's mind is already made up and rejects information that goes against that assumption.

You provided one link to one study on one particular aspect of plant growth. I have provided links to many other studies that suggest CO2 is generally good for plants (potatoes in particular). I cannot specifically refute the claims on nutrition but I am sceptical because there is a segment of the scientific community really wants to believe that CO2 is bad that they would go out of their way to find a way to show it to be true. The fact that studies that show that CO2 is bad have easier time getting funding and passing peer review as helps. In short, it is an interesting point but I am going to have to see it discussed in other contexts before I can form a solid opinion.

The studies on corals are an interesting comparison. The initial studies claimed that coral would disappear because the higher acidity would kill the bacteria symbionts that they depend on. Further studies confirmed that but established that the higher acidity would actually help other bacteria symbionts which the coral could also use. The transition from one symbiont to another would result in some die off but ultimately the coral would adapt. The latter result intuitively makes more sense since we know that all lifeforms on the planet evolved from ancestors who adpated to high CO2 atmospheres.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

You provided one link to one study on one particular aspect of plant growth. I have provided links to many other studies that suggest CO2 is generally good for plants (potatoes in particular). I cannot specifically refute the claims on nutrition but I am sceptical because there is a segment of the scientific community really wants to believe that CO2 is bad that they would go out of their way to find a way to show it to be true. The fact that studies that show that CO2 is bad have easier time getting funding and passing peer review as helps. In short, it is an interesting point but I am going to have to see it discussed in other contexts before I can form a solid opinion.

It's not a theory or a hypothesis, its fact. Potatoes and other crops, such as cereals, experience a decrease in Nitrogen content, and hence protein content when exposed to increased CO2.

This was known long before the current global warming issues, I found research as far back as 1935 indicating the relationship between CO2 and protein content. Here is information from a study in 1985, before global warming politics would have had an opportunity to bias funding:

Georgia-Jet’ sweet potatoes were grown at CO2 concentrations of 354, 431, 506, and 659 ppm for 90 days. Elevated CO2 concentrations decreased protein, total carotenoids and insoluble dietary fiber. An increase in dry matter and a reddish-orange color was observed at 506 and 659 ppm CO2 concentrations. Sensory evaluation scores for flavor and moistness indicated that sweet potatoes grown under high CO2 concentrations were acceptable and not different from the control.

Unlike climate models or other hypothesis, its easy to perform this experiment and have reliable repeatable emperical results. Not accepting this science as fact proves that your bias is outweighing your ability to arrive at a logical conclusion.

[Riverwind]

Unlike climate models or other hypothesis, its easy to perform this experiment and have reliable repeatable empirical results.

Fair enough. Repeatable verifiable experimental results are golden. I acknowledged that your point is valid and a potential concern but I needed more information. Any comment on this study:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...5fe30ee78d45111

Atmospheric CO2 enrichment is known to significantly enhance the growth and development of nearly all plants, implying a potential for elevated levels of CO2 to alter the concentrations of plant constituents related to animal and human health. Our review of this subject indicates that increases in the air's CO2 content typically lead to reductions in the nitrogen and protein concentrations of animal-sustaining forage and human-sustaining cereal grains when soil nitrogen levels are sub-optimal. When plants are supplied with all the nitrogen they can use, however, no such reductions are observed. CO2-enriched plants growing in the natural environment also tend to overcome initial reductions in plant mineral concentrations as time progresses, possibly due to development of larger root systems and consequent enhanced abilities to locate and absorb mineral nutrients. Atmospheric CO2 enrichment additionally appears to reduce oxidative stresses in plants; and it has been shown to increase the concentration of vitamin C in certain fruits and vegetables. Elevated CO2 has also been demonstrated to increase the biomass of plants grown for medicinal purposes while simultaneously increasing the concentrations of the disease-fighting substances produced within them. It is likely, therefore, that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content will continue to increase food production around the world, while maintaining the nutritive quality of that food and enhancing the production of certain disease-inhibiting plant compounds.

It appears the studies you quote made the mistake of assuming that plants do not adapt their environment - a completely unrealistic assumption for plants growing the wild but a reasonable assumption for greenhouse plants.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

---

Edited June 24, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

Fair enough. Repeatable verifiable experimental results are golden. I acknowledged that your point is valid and a potential concern but I needed more information. Any comment on this study:

It appears the studies you quote made the mistake of assuming that plants do not adapt their environment - a completely unrealistic assumption for plants growing the wild but a reasonable assumption for greenhouse plants.

The modification in plant protein concentration IS an adaptation to the environment. The plants typically flourish with CO2 increases, the photosynthetic process is actually more efficient. its the effect on the organisms that rely on the plant that are the real issue.

I would love to read the information (beyond the abstract) from the link you provided, but it appears to want 32 bucks for the honor! Do you have access to the article contents? Lots of information I would love to read about the effects of plant forage quality for animals with increasing CO2. Can you provide that information?

[Riverwind]

I would love to read the information (beyond the abstract) from the link you provided, but it appears to want 32 bucks for the honor! Do you have access to the article contents? Lots of information I would love to read about the effects of plant forage quality for animals with increasing CO2. Can you provide that information?

Sometimes searching for the article title will turn up a free copy somewhere on the net but not in this case.

[gc1765]

I would love to read the information (beyond the abstract) from the link you provided, but it appears to want 32 bucks for the honor! Do you have access to the article contents? Lots of information I would love to read about the effects of plant forage quality for animals with increasing CO2. Can you provide that information?

I'm not sure where you live, but if you happen to live near a University what you can do is use a computer in the University library. They should have access to most journals. The libraries usually have guest computers if you're not a student. Of course, not everyone lives near a University.

[stevoh]

Sometimes searching for the article title will turn up a free copy somewhere on the net but not in this case.

Looking for information on how CO2 effects plants brings up lots of interesting results. While I couldn't find a direct link to the article mentioned, I have found other articles from science direct.

There is a definite trend in the results for the direct effects on plant growth of CO2, that trend is, if conditions are right, light, nitrogen, water, and higher CO2, we see an explosion in plant growth. While it might seem that this effect is desired and beneficial, its effect on OTHER organisms, and indeed other plants, might not be so positive.

One bad side effect already discussed here is the reduction of specific nutients in plant matter (See potatoes, cereal crops, and oak trees from this thread). In cultivated plants, this reduction can be compensated somewhat by increasing nitrogen, but in nature, the current science is pointing to an overall decrease in plant nutrient quality. This effects everything from leaf miners, fungus that typically eat those plants, all the way to the animals that rely on those plants for food. Also, as organisms that feed off of plants now have to eat more to get the same nutrition, they are potentially more open to predation, as was shown in the leaf miners in florida oak trees, reducing the overall organism population. This will have profound effects on native animal concentrations around the earth.

In human terms, those of us lucky enough to eat food from highly cultivated environments will not see much effect on our own food (same with our livestock). However, those in third world countries will definitely feel a detrimental effect.

Another side effect is discussed here (from science direct):

http://aspenface.mtu.edu/Clover%20paper.pdf

Nine red clover genotypes exhibited similar, but counterintuitive, decreases in shoot and root biomass, and increases in foliar nitrogen concentrations and root nodule numbers, under elevated CO2. We suggest that in enriched CO2 habitats, increased shading from rapidly growing trees offsets the positive benefits of CO2 for understory plant performance. Enriched CO2 and O3 atmospheres may have large direct and indirect effects on colonization, establishment, and performance of common understory plants. Such changes may in turn alter forest community and ecosystem dynamics.

Increased shade is almost an intuitive side effect if you think about it. Increased CO2 leads to increased growth in trees. This means the forest canopy is now thicker, and less light reaches the forest floor. This results in less growth over time of those plants that grow in the understory. As stated above, "Such changes may in turn alter forest community and ecosystem dynamics".

A final effect is discussed in science funded by monsato, the makers of round up and other farm herbicides and chemicals. Right now, a non-organic farmer typically tills the field and then sprays with roundup (or similar) to control weeds. A couple of weeks later, the weeds now dead, he plants the crop he wished to grow (roundup has no effect on crop growth after 2 weeks). Monsato has discoved that increased CO2 increases the vigour of the weeds that grow before the crop, meaning that the concentration of herbicide has to increase correspondingly. In other words, the strength of herbicides used to control weeds is going to have to increase to keep up with the increased growth.

So, in summary, "increased growth" may not be as positive as it appears to be. Reduced nutritional content, reduced organism populations that rely on plants, reduction in forest understory growth, and ever increasingly concentrated herbicides, all negative side effects.

[myata]

Fair enough. Repeatable verifiable experimental results are golden. I acknowledged that your point is valid and a potential concern but I needed more information. Any comment on this study:

It's just too bad we don't have a bunch of planets for them 'repeatable' expertiments; nor a chance to eraze the effects of one gone wrong, on a wish. We'd just wait till 2050, to see how bad it'd actually turn out, when come back in time and fix what's needed (or, save all the dough, if indeed the future proves that today's science is wrong and you had (have) the power of that timeless sight). So many problems would be solved if only we had that wonderful time machine. Let's pipe dream! And make it our plan, our contribution to the solution.

[Riverwind]

In human terms, those of us lucky enough to eat food from highly cultivated environments will not see much effect on our own food (same with our livestock). However, those in third world countries will definitely feel a detrimental effect.

Let's assume this is a real concern. Which strategy would give those people in the third world the best chance:

1) Aggressive CO2 emission reductions schemes that increase third world poverty by denying them access to low cost energy sources like coal.

2) Focus on economic development which will give third world people access to the agricultural technologies that they will need to adapt.

For me 2) is clearly the better bet since 1) would not only increase suffering due to greater poverty it will likely not be enough to stop CO2 levels from increasing.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

Let's assume this is a real concern. Which strategy would give those people in the third world the best chance:

1) Aggressive CO2 emission reductions schemes that increase third world poverty by denying them access to low cost energy sources like coal.

2) Focus on economic development which will give third world people access to the agricultural technologies that they will need to adapt.

For me 2) is clearly the better bet since 1) would not only increase suffering due to greater poverty it will likely not be enough to stop CO2 levels from increasing.

I don't feel the 2 choices are mutually exclusive.

[Riverwind]

I don't feel the 2 choices are mutually exclusive.

I have seen no compelling evidence that the existing CO2 emitting energy sources can be replaced with non-CO2 emitting sources without significantly increasing the cost of energy. Paying a premium for non-CO2 emitting sources is something the poor cannot afford to do.

[stevoh]

I have seen no compelling evidence that the existing CO2 emitting energy sources can be replaced with non-CO2 emitting sources without significantly increasing the cost of energy. Paying a premium for non-CO2 emitting sources is something the poor cannot afford to do.

Yes, and we all know how poverty stricken individuals in the third world stress about how they are going to pay for their next electricty bill.

[Riverwind]

Yes, and we all know how poverty stricken individuals in the third world stress about how they are going to pay for their next electricty bill.

How exactly will third world countries develop unless they have access to electricity at an affordable price?

[gc1765]

1) Aggressive CO2 emission reductions schemes that increase third world poverty by denying them access to low cost energy sources like coal.

How does a carbon tax in first world countries increase the cost of energy in third world countries? If anything, it seems it would reduce prices by reducing demand.

[Riverwind]

How does a carbon tax in first world countries increase the cost of energy in third world countries? If anything, it seems it would reduce prices by reducing demand.

Canada produces an insignificant fraction of the world's CO2. The only way we can justify CO2 reductions in Canada is if they are followed by similar efforts in the developing countries which are the biggest source of emissions growth. If developing countries are going to emit with impunity then I don't see the point of reducing emissions in Canada and any money spent would be better directed towards adaptation and other environmental issues. Edited June 26, 2008 by Riverwind