The Real Cost of Limiting CO2

[Riverwind]

Many anti-CO2 advocates seem to think society's use of fossil fuels is evidence of gluttony and that all we need to do is reduce our expectations and stop consuming so much. I think this is a very naive view that does not take into account that our energy consumption is directly connected to our health and well being and that artifically increasing energy prices will increase poverty, suffering and death.

Here is a thoughtful blog entry that makes that point: http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/...cane-gusta.html

Now suppose that we lived in an economy that forswore fossil fuels and extracted all of its energy from much more expensive sources. In that counterfactual world (only ten years in the future, if Al Gore has his way), helicopters are a rarity, small political units do not maintain flotillas of motorized boats, and the State of California would find it hard to pay for dispatching men and equipment halfway across the continent. The post-Katina rescue is, in short, impossible for want of ships and planes and money. A hundred thousand emergency workers could no more have reached Louisiana in three days than they could have flown to Mars.

On Planet Gore, the pre-Gustav evacuation is just as problematic. Private automobiles are rare. Buses can hold only a small fraction of New Orleans’ population. To move several hundred thousand people northward requires requisitioning all of the vehicles within several hundred miles and driving them into the threatened area. Leaving aside the immense cost, shortage of time would make the effort a guaranteed fiasco.

Climate change alarmists warn that, if we do not alter our carbon-grubbing ways, natural disasters will punish us for our sins. But disasters we have with us always, whatever our ecological virtue. If we do give up the carbon-based economy, we leave ourselves helpless before them.

This is why I think that given our current knowledge of the risks we would be much better off keeping our fossil fuels and spending money adapting to climate as required.

Edited September 1, 2008 by Riverwind

[WIP]

Many anti-CO2 advocates seem to think society's use of fossil fuels is evidence of gluttony and that all we need to do is reduce our expectations and stop consuming so much. I think this is a very naive view that does not take into account that our energy consumption is directly connected to our health and well being and that artifically increasing energy prices will increase poverty, suffering and death.

Here is a thoughtful blog entry that makes that point: http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/...cane-gusta.html

You really should stop hanging around with these people! According to this loon, we either have to go hog wild with fossil fuels or go back to living in the stone age. And if we consider that global warming is providing more available energy for storms to draw upon, it seems that all of those gas-powered vehicles being used to rescue people from the hurricanes may not have been needed if a worldwide conservation effort could be developed that would put the brakes on man-made contributions to global warming.

This is why I think that given our current knowledge of the risks we would be much better off keeping our fossil fuels and spending money adapting to climate as required.

This summer, we have reached an historic milestone. In a report released today, the ice along the Arctic Ocean shore line is completely melted, making the North Pole an island. Since the Arctic Ice Cap is melting faster than projections made, even 10 years ago, how are we going to adapt when the ice caps have completely melted and the ocean current have slowed enough to make the oceans stagnant, as apparently happened during some previous mass extinctions such as the Permian-Triassic. All we will be adapting to is our own extinction, along with many of the other plants and animals.

[Riverwind]

You really should stop hanging around with these people!

The blog entry I linked to is an interesting opinion that I happen to agree with. That does not mean I agree with everything he says.

ice along the Arctic Ocean shore line is completely melted, making the North Pole an island.

Since when? 1940? There is no reliable data prior to 1979 so any claims of "historic milestones" are pure speculation. The ice has only recently melted back to where it was in 1922 according to this news report: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Since the Arctic Ice Cap is melting faster than projections made, even 10 years ago, how are we going to adapt when the ice caps have completely melted and the ocean current have slowed enough to make the oceans stagnant, as apparently happened during some previous mass extinctions such as the Permian-Triassic. All we will be adapting to is our own extinction, along with many of the other plants and animals.

Sigh. The planet was warmer 10,000 years ago that it was today. What is happening today has happened before. In fact, the ward hunt ice shelf off ellemere island is only 3000 years old. If you look at the greenland temperature records you can see why it melted 4000 years ago: http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm

No matter what happens humans are not going to go extinct - climate change is only a short term economic problem for humans because humans are not as mobile as they used to be. We can and must adapt to whatever changes come. We will be in a better position to do that if we don't deny ourselves access to cheap and reliable energy sources.

[margrace]

.htm"]http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm[/url]

No matter what happens humans are not going to go extinct - climate change is only a short term economic problem for humans because humans are not as mobile as they used to be. We can and must adapt to whatever changes come. We will be in a better position to do that if we don't deny ourselves access to cheap and reliable energy sources.

The dinasours went extint so what makes you think humans are any different since apparently we are speeding up the change?

[Wild Bill]

.htm"]http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm[/url]

No matter what happens humans are not going to go extinct - climate change is only a short term economic problem for humans because humans are not as mobile as they used to be. We can and must adapt to whatever changes come. We will be in a better position to do that if we don't deny ourselves access to cheap and reliable energy sources.

The dinasours went extint so what makes you think humans are any different since apparently we are speeding up the change?

Dinosaurs never learned how to IMPORT their food from greener areas if it didn't grow well at home!

I will agree that many GC supporters might become extinct. I've seen many that couldn't put a new plug on a lamp! The type that thinks that wood comes from Home Depot and bread from variety stores. The type that would think to switch all our cars and transport trucks over to electricity and then be totally surprised that we didn't have enough supply.

I wish someone could commission a poll to find out how many GC supporters have a good understanding of practical sciences based on cause and effect.

The biggest "green" advocate I ever knew became a vegetarian and six months later was in the hospital, after subsisting on a diet of nothing but french fries and granola.

From what I've seen over the years, he's a typical example.

Edited September 1, 2008 by Wild Bill

[eyeball]

Climate change alarmists warn that, if we do not alter our carbon-grubbing ways, natural disasters will punish us for our sins. But disasters we have with us always, whatever our ecological virtue. If we do give up the carbon-based economy, we leave ourselves helpless before them.

The same thing will happen when we eventually use up the carbon the economy is based on. This is an overpopulation issue as much as anything, there's just more of us to exhaust everything and be killed than before is all. When is really the only mystery here but we are all gonna die, its a fact of life. And yes, humans will likely go extinct one day too, its just a matter of when.

[WIP]

Since when? 1940? There is no reliable data prior to 1979 so any claims of "historic milestones" are pure speculation. The ice has only recently melted back to where it was in 1922 according to this news report: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

So, you're questioning whether this is an accurate report that the Arctic Ocean coastline was never ice free during human history(5000 to 10,000 years), but you're telling me that the coastline around the entire Arctic Ocean was ice free in 1922 because of your link to a 1922 report about unusual warming around Norway and Spitzbergen Island! There were no satellites or other means to monitor ice conditions worldwide in 1922, so the warming in Norway doesn't tell us what was going on in the Canadian Arctic or Siberia. We do know that it probably was not ice free ever since white Europeans arrived here, because explorers such as Franklin came here for the purpose of finding a Northwest Passage, and this is only becoming a reality in our time; so the anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that this is an historic anomaly providing economic potential that was not available during past warm interludes.

Sigh. The planet was warmer 10,000 years ago that it was today. What is happening today has happened before. In fact, the ward hunt ice shelf off ellemere island is only 3000 years old. If you look at the greenland temperature records you can see why it melted 4000 years ago: http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm

Well, the present rate of melt indicates that the entire Arctic Ice Cap will melt during a summer sometime between 2030 and the 21st Century. When it does( there doesn't look like anything is being done to stop if from happening), there will be mass extinction of the flora and fauna that have specifically adapted to living in an ice bound world. They've been there for at least 3 million years, so that means it will be the first time the entire Arctic Ocean melts in the last 3 million, and it will likely only be the beginning of a mass extinction cycle, but this time not caused by an asteroid or volcanic flood plains -- this time it will happen because the most advanced species of life on the planet grew too numerous, depleted biological resources and pumped enough greenhouse gases into the air to have the same effect as a volcanic flood basalt such as the ones that created the Siberian Traps 250 million years ago when 95 to 99 % of the plant and animal species on Earth became extinct -- its not a good omen for our future!

[Riverwind]

So, you're questioning whether this is an accurate report that the Arctic Ocean coastline was never ice free during human history(5000 to 10,000 years), but you're telling me that the coastline around the entire Arctic Ocean was ice free in 1922 because of your link to a 1922 report about unusual warming around Norway and Spitzbergen Island!

What I am saying is the author of the article is making claims that unsupported by any data. He cannot possibly know whether those channels were open in 1940 or at any other time in human history. His claim is nothing but alarmist propaganda.

There were no satellites or other means to monitor ice conditions worldwide in 1922, so the warming in Norway doesn't tell us what was going on in the Canadian Arctic or Siberia.

Exactly. Which is why the claim that the artic is an island for the "first time in history" is unsupported BS.

They've been there for at least 3 million years, so that means it will be the first time the entire Arctic Ocean melts in the last 3 million, and it will likely only be the beginning of a mass extinction cycle.

The arctic was much warmer than it is today 3000 years ago. It was even warmer 10000 years ago. The ice shelves off Ellesmere island melted completely 4000 years ago and they are still around today so we have ways to go before we even reach the previous melt backs. So you are going to need a lot more evidence before anyone can take the claim of a imminent mass extinction seriously.

[WIP]

What I am saying is the author of the article is making claims that unsupported by any data. He cannot possibly know whether those channels were open in 1940 or at any other time in human history. His claim is nothing but alarmist propaganda.

Exactly. Which is why the claim that the artic is an island for the "first time in history" is unsupported BS.

The arctic was much warmer than it is today 3000 years ago. It was even warmer 10000 years ago. The ice shelves off Ellesmere island melted completely 4000 years ago and they are still around today so we have ways to go before we even reach the previous melt backs. So you are going to need a lot more evidence before anyone can take the claim of a imminent mass extinction seriously.

We're all going to be dead before you have enough evidence! Advocating a policy of adjusting to increasing CO2 levels and melting polar caps is a recipe for extinction. We are speeding along, raising CO2 levels and what will happen when they reach levels of the P/T extinction, when they were over 700 ppm? Or if there is a prolonged period of greenhouse effect like existed during most of the Age Of Reptiles when dinosaurs roam the Earth. There may be a fortunate few with money and resources to survive and fight off intruders in the far north -- the only areas that will be possible to live, but the vast majority of the human race will die off along with many other plants and animals.

A clue to just how unpleasant things can get is contained within a narrow layer of strata recently exposed at a rock quarry in China, dating from the end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago. For reasons that are still not properly understood, temperatures rose by 6°C over just a few thousand years, wiping out up to 95 percent of species alive at the time. Only one large land animal survived the bottleneck: the pig-like Lystrosaurus.

Clues as to how the world looks in a long-term extreme greenhouse state also come from the Cretaceous period, 144 to 65 million years ago, when there was no ice on either Pole and much of Europe and North America was flooded by the higher seas. Tropical crocodiles swam in the Canadian high Arctic, while breadfruit trees grew in Greenland.

The oceans were incredibly hot: in the tropical Atlantic they may have reached 42°C, while at the North Pole itself, the oceans were as warm as the Mediterranean is today. The tropics and subtropics were so hot that no forests grew, and desert belts probably extended into the heart of modern-day Europe.

[eyeball]

We're all going to be dead before you have enough evidence! Advocating a policy of adjusting to increasing CO2 levels and melting polar caps is a recipe for extinction. We are speeding along, raising CO2 levels and what will happen when they reach levels of the P/T extinction, when they were over 700 ppm? Or if there is a prolonged period of greenhouse effect like existed during most of the Age Of Reptiles when dinosaurs roam the Earth. There may be a fortunate few with money and resources to survive and fight off intruders in the far north -- the only areas that will be possible to live, but the vast majority of the human race will die off along with many other plants and animals.

A clue to just how unpleasant things can get is contained within a narrow layer of strata recently exposed at a rock quarry in China, dating from the end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago. For reasons that are still not properly understood, temperatures rose by 6°C over just a few thousand years, wiping out up to 95 percent of species alive at the time. Only one large land animal survived the bottleneck: the pig-like Lystrosaurus.

Clues as to how the world looks in a long-term extreme greenhouse state also come from the Cretaceous period, 144 to 65 million years ago, when there was no ice on either Pole and much of Europe and North America was flooded by the higher seas. Tropical crocodiles swam in the Canadian high Arctic, while breadfruit trees grew in Greenland.

The oceans were incredibly hot: in the tropical Atlantic they may have reached 42°C, while at the North Pole itself, the oceans were as warm as the Mediterranean is today. The tropics and subtropics were so hot that no forests grew, and desert belts probably extended into the heart of modern-day Europe.

I wonder what will happen to the economy?

Edited September 2, 2008 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

We're all going to be dead before you have enough evidence!

There is NO evidence that the planet has moved outside of the range of natural variability. The planet was warmer many times over the last 1 million years. In fact the arctic was warmer only 1000 years ago. On top of that the Antarctic is cooling and gaining ice outside of northern peninsula which is a small part of the continent.

IOW, Your scary stories are nothing but bad science fiction and no reasonable person can consider them to be probable outcomes given the current evidence. More importantly, if there is actual merit to your claims then there is probably nothing we can do about it anyways because the technology required to eliminate CO2 emissions simply does not exist at this time.

Edited September 2, 2008 by Riverwind

[gc1765]

In that counterfactual world (only ten years in the future, if Al Gore has his way), helicopters are a rarity, small political units do not maintain flotillas of motorized boats, and the State of California would find it hard to pay for dispatching men and equipment halfway across the continent. The post-Katina rescue is, in short, impossible for want of ships and planes and money. A hundred thousand emergency workers could no more have reached Louisiana in three days than they could have flown to Mars.

Exactly. Oil is extremely important for certain things, and since we seem to be running out of oil (at least, out of cheap oil), that's just one more reason to keep some in the ground for future generations.

[Riverwind]

Exactly. Oil is extremely important for certain things, and since we seem to be running out of oil (at least, out of cheap oil), that's just one more reason to keep some in the ground for future generations.

And one more reason to forget about this obsession with CO2 and promote the use of electricity as much as possible - even if that means building a lot of coal plants. Edited September 3, 2008 by Riverwind

[gc1765]

And one more reason to forget about this obsession with CO2 and promote the use of electricity as much as possible - even if that means building a lot of coal plants.

Coal is also a limited resource, like oil or uranium. I think we should focus on trying to reduce our overall energy use, and use more renewable energy sources (regardless of whether AGW is occurring or not).

[Riverwind]

Coal is also a limited resource, like oil or uranium. I think we should focus on trying to reduce our overall energy use, and use more renewable energy sources (regardless of whether AGW is occurring or not).

Easier said than done:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...energy-gap-4539

A few weeks ago Nature provided an analysis of the prospects for generating carbon-free energy from a range of technologies. Here is a brief summary of their verdicts for each technology for “coming decades” (and where they did not provide numbers I erred on the high side):

Hydropower = 1 TW

Nuclear = 1 TW

Biomass = 0 - ??

Wind = 1.5 TW

Geothermal = 1 TW

Solar = Lots

Ocean = 0

Total = ~4.5 TW + solar

So if the world will need between 11-22 TW of carbon free energy by 2025 to be consistent with a 550 stabilization path, where will that energy come from?

Note that 11-22 TW figure assumes that a large chunk of the world's energy needs will still come from fossil fuels.

Bottom line: believing that we can have a economy that runs on renewables is as rational as believing in the tooth fairy.

[gc1765]

Bottom line: believing that we can have a economy that runs on renewables is as rational as believing in the tooth fairy.

Haha, and thinking that we can burn through fossil fuels at the rate we currently do (or even faster as the population/economy increases) is as rational as believing in the tooth fairy. If you don't think it's possible to have an economy that runs on renewables, then where do you think we will be in 1,000 years? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? Still using fossil fuels as we do today?

I'm not saying that we will wake up tomorrow and be free of our dependence on fossil fuels, but it should be what we are striving for.

[Riverwind]

I'm not saying that we will wake up tomorrow and be free of our dependence on fossil fuels, but it should be what we are striving for.

Too many people seem to think that government can wave a magic wand and make fossil fuels dissappear in the next 50 years. It is not going to happen and governments that try to make it happen will fail and waste a lot of money trying. That said, 50 years from now the world population should have stabilized and we will have another 50 years of technological developments to work with. For that reason, we will probably be in a good position to eliminate our dependency on fossil fuels over the next 100-150 years. If we want to start moving down the road in the short term then finding alternatives to oil should be the highest priority - limiting our ability to produce electricity in the short term is a dumb move. Edited September 3, 2008 by Riverwind

[noahbody]

The dinasours went extint so what makes you think humans are any different since apparently we are speeding up the change?

Dinosaurs didn't become extinct due to global warming. But you are right, if the sky really falls and Earth is hit with another large asteroid, we could easily become extinct. Are you open to an asteroid tax to pay for R&D into a defense shield?

[gc1765]

Too many people seem to think that government can wave a magic wand and make fossil fuels dissappear in the next 50 years. It is not going to happen and governments that try to make it happen will fail and waste a lot of money trying.

Like I said, I'm not expecting fossil fuel usage to disappear anytime soon, but putting a price on carbon (or non-renewables) will encourage the use of renewables.

That said, 50 years from now the world population should have stabilized and we will have another 50 years of technological developments to work with. For that reason, we will probably be in a good position to eliminate our dependency on fossil fuels over the next 100-150 years.

Eliminating our dependency on fossil fuels went from being as rational as believing in the tooth fairy to an inevitability in 100-150 years? I believe you are the one who said that we shouldn't make assumptions about technological advancements. What happens if we run out of (cheap) oil before we completely eliminate our dependency on it?

If we want to start moving down the road in the short term then finding alternatives to oil should be the highest priority - limiting our ability to produce electricity in the short term is a dumb move.

Putting a price on carbon (and I would argue that we should also put a price on nuclear fuels) creates the incentive to find alternatives, and to reduce our overall energy use.

[jdobbin]

Putting a price on carbon (and I would argue that we should also put a price on nuclear fuels) creates the incentive to find alternatives, and to reduce our overall energy use.

Unfortunately, those that deny global warming is happening see no need to find alternatives or say there are no alternatives. Status quo.

[gc1765]

Unfortunately, those that deny global warming is happening see no need to find alternatives or say there are no alternatives. Status quo.

Even many people who deny global warming still want us to reduce our use of fossil fuels. Whether it is because they don't want to buy it from the middle east (usually Americans, but with the global economy it could equally apply to Canadians as well), because of asthma & cancer from breathing exhaust fumes, reducing traffic, or to leave some for future generations, most of us can agree that we should try to reduce our use of fossil fuels. Putting a price on them gives an incentive to do just that.

[blueblood]

Even many people who deny global warming still want us to reduce our use of fossil fuels. Whether it is because they don't want to buy it from the middle east (usually Americans, but with the global economy it could equally apply to Canadians as well), because of asthma & cancer from breathing exhaust fumes, reducing traffic, or to leave some for future generations, most of us can agree that we should try to reduce our use of fossil fuels. Putting a price on them gives an incentive to do just that.

Yes that price is 4 dollars a gallon for gasoline, no tax necessary, ever watch CNN during july???

[Riverwind]

Putting a price on them gives an incentive to do just that.

No it does not because the a politically palatable price will always be too low to force people to change behavoir. If you want to reduce use of fossil fuels you have to tackle the problem directly through regulations. And you keep evading the real issue which is electricity - if one makes electricity more expensive as well then you will delay any move away from oil.

IOW - you cannot justify llimits on CO2 by claiming that we need to reduce our dependency on oil. Those objectives are contradict each other. If oil dependency and smog is a problem then you address the problem directly. You do not use it to justify an unrelated policy.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

No it does not because the a politically palatable price will always be too low to force people to change behavoir. If you want to reduce use of fossil fuels you have to tackle the problem directly through regulations. And you keep evading the real issue which is electricity - if one makes electricity more expensive as well then you will delay any move away from oil.

IOW - you cannot justify llimits on CO2 by claiming that we need to reduce our dependency on oil. Those objectives are contradict each other. If oil dependency and smog is a problem then you address the problem directly. You do not use it to justify an unrelated policy.

Money is basically immoral and debases us all - to mix an attitude of that is finacial simply won't work in cleaning things up - it's like washing the floor with a dirty bucket of water. A silver bucket but still a dirty one...to clean up the environ and stablize it must be morally driven - money breeds deception...as we know greed is a mental illness - and to give someone money for not polluting is bizarre...to make money you must pollute...and to give money causes more pollution...so - what the hell are we talking about here? As far as being dependant on oil - well to hell with it - I am dependant on the sun and the rain - cos' I am evolved in a primative creative manner and those that demand more stuff are cavemen.

[Riverwind]

Eliminating our dependency on fossil fuels went from being as rational as believing in the tooth fairy to an inevitability in 100-150 years? I believe you are the one who said that we shouldn't make assumptions about technological advancements. What happens if we run out of (cheap) oil before we completely eliminate our dependency on it?

I forgot to put a caveat about a timeframe in my intial statement. I am responding to the various politicians making promises to reduce emissions by 60-80% over the next 40 years. That is not going to happen.

Putting a price on carbon (and I would argue that we should also put a price on nuclear fuels) creates the incentive to find alternatives, and to reduce our overall energy use.

You got to be kidding. Do you understand anything about how electricity gets to your house? Nuclear is they ONLY viable alternative to fossil fuels for electricity generation and you want to tax it too?!? If you hate carbon then you better learn to love nuclear.