The Real Cost of Limiting CO2

[Riverwind]

Go ahead and show how the number of cars on the road directly leads to healthcare and food.

You don't really understand how the economy works do you? The economy works because individuals create wealth through their activities. This wealth can be used to pay for anything from tickle me elmo dolls to drugs to food. Access to convenient and inexpensive transportation is one of the key requirements for any society that wishes to generate enough wealth to pay for those things which you feel are good. Take away the cheap and convenient transportation and you will lower the amount of economic activity which will in turn lessen the ability of society to pay for "luxeries" like healthcare.

That said, if you want to elimate waste spent on "unnecessary" things like SUVs you must target them directly with regulations. A price on carbon is too broad and will end up raising the price of essentials anf will be too low to actually get rid of the SUVs.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Of some relevance to the discussion is that 1 way these emissions are being reduced is through the US air pollution trading scheme that limits sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from electricity generators. Looks like emissions trading schemes can and do work without destroying the economy.

No real comparison can be made. When the anti-sulpher regulations were brought into place there were already economically and technically feasible options available to power producers and all they needed was the economic incentive in invest in the replacement. There are no technically or economically feasible alternatives for the majority of CO2 emissions. This means any attempt to mandate hard CO2 limits will most likely result in reduced economic activity. A similar outcome would result from any carbon tax that is high enough to actually change behavoir.

[marksman]

You don't really understand how the economy works do you? The economy works because individuals create wealth through their activities. This wealth can be used to pay for anything from tickle me elmo dolls to drugs to food.

Thank you but The Simpsons already gave me an overly simplistic overview of how an economy works

Homer: Aw, twenty dollars! I wanted a peanut!

Homer's Brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts!

Homer: Explain how!

Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services!

Homer: Woo-hoo!

Access to convenient and inexpensive transportation is one of the key requirements for any society that wishes to generate enough wealth to pay for those things which you feel are good. Take away the cheap and convenient transportation and you will lower the amount of economic activity which will in turn lessen the ability of society to pay for "luxeries" like healthcare.

You're parroting the same arguments manufacturers used to use against proposals to control car emissions decades ago. You'll notice that we've still got lots of cars despite how those measures were impossible and would make cars too expensive to manufacture and buy.

Maybe you can explain how moving to renewable energy sources takes away cheap and convenient transportation. Or why it's only cars that can provide cheap and convenient transportation and not things like public transit.

And then maybe make another attempt to explain how things like life saving drug research depends on lots of SUVs on the roads. Just because 2 things are part of the economy doesn't mean they're related in the way you claim.

[marksman]

No real comparison can be made. When the anti-sulpher regulations were brought into place there were already economically and technically feasible options available to power producers and all they needed was the economic incentive in invest in the replacement. There are no technically or economically feasible alternatives for the majority of CO2 emissions. This means any attempt to mandate hard CO2 limits will most likely result in reduced economic activity. A similar outcome would result from any carbon tax that is high enough to actually change behavoir.

This is either wishful thinking or willful blindness. There're a number of economical and feasible options for beginning to move to renewable energy sources and less carbon emitting energy sources. No one's claiming that we go carbon free in 1 year and the technology exists to start moving.

I doubt all those power producers were just sitting around thinking about those economically and technically feasible options but decided not to implement them because they were just waiting for a trading scheme. But I'm sure many tried the same arguments you're trying now.

[Riverwind]

You're parroting the same arguments manufacturers used to use against proposals to control car emissions decades ago.

And you parrot the same nonsense about how CO2 is "just another pollutant" and that the magic technology fairy will save us all if the government would only pass the right laws. CO2 is an intrinsic output of the chemical reactions that produce energy. It cannot be eliminated by using fuel with fewer impurities or with filters that capture trace containminants. The only real option is a switch to alternate energy sources or by radically reducing consumption.

More importantly, regulations in the past have always limited themselves to what is technically feasible. Passing laws before the technology exists is simply irresponsible and will likely lead to many adverse consequences.

Maybe you can explain how moving to renewable energy sources takes away cheap and convenient transportation. Or why it's only cars that can provide cheap and convenient transportation and not things like public transit.

Public transit is useless to anyone living outside the major urban center and is pretty expensive as it is. It can never replace the personal vehicle. If you go to places with a lot of mass transit like Japan or Germany you will still see a lot of vehicles on the road. Their economies would be a lot poorer without them.

And then maybe make another attempt to explain how things like life saving drug research depends on lots of SUVs on the roads. Just because 2 things are part of the economy doesn't mean they're related in the way you claim.

I already told you but you seem to have a problem understanding basic economics. Low cost energy and transportation are the foundation for our economy. Take that away and you reduce economic activity which reduces our ability to pay for luxeries.

Obviously, the economy is not going to collapse if modest measures are put in place but the activists/scientists are not calling for "modest" measures. They are calling for "WW2" style sacrifices and investments. That is another reason why your attempt to compare CO2 reductions to other pollution control measures is quite absurd.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

This is either wishful thinking or willful blindness. There're a number of economical and feasible options for beginning to move to renewable energy sources and less carbon emitting energy sources.

Not a chance. Wind power and solar are niches that must be backed up by traditional power sources. Most exploitable hydropower has already been tapped and nuclear plants cannot be built fast enough to meet the demand (assuming they could get approval at all).

Renewables outside of areas with generous hydro-electric endowments will never provide a significant percentage of our energy needs given the technology that exists today or is likely to appear in the next few decades. That said, I am all for encouraging renewables provided the people developing policies have a realistic view on what can be accomplished. Politicians that promote renewables as part of a some plan to reduce CO2 emission by X% in 20-40 years don't have a realistic view and will likely spend billions on white elephants and most likely create electricity shortages in the future.

I doubt all those power producers were just sitting around thinking about those economically and technically feasible options but decided not to implement them because they were just waiting for a trading scheme. But I'm sure many tried the same arguments you're trying now.

The government developed the regulations after consulting with industry. The regulations that were brought were known to be technically and economically feasible before they were passed. Edited September 24, 2008 by Riverwind

[moderateamericain]

I've seen studies that said if we set up wind generators from texas to Canada North America could take care of about 25 percent of its power needs for Homes. Thus lowering the demand for Fossil Fuels or shifting them into other things like gas for your car, airplanes, etc. Less demand also means lower prices to push up the demand. Which means cheaper airline tickets, train tickets, less cost to maintan the military. etc etc Seeking alternative energy sources is a vialble and realistic option.

[White Doors]

I can partially answer your question anyway. The number of cars is only 1 factor affecting smog. The switch from leaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline made it possible to reliably use catalytic converters that helped remove nitrogen oxide from car exhaust. Stricter emissions standards for cars are now in place. Contributions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from other sources have been reduced.

All laudable goals and all reduced pollution and all were achieved without increasng taxes as far as I can see.

Two things that it doesn't share with the global warming crowd:

- CO2 is not a pollutant.

- Increased taxes is the solution being bandied about as a 'solution'. I find when a problem is poorly defined and understood and the consequences are poorly definced/understood the ony solution you usually get is anti-capitalistic and/or increased taxes.

Draw from that what you will.

[Riverwind]

I've seen studies that said if we set up wind generators from texas to Canada North America could take care of about 25 percent of its power needs for Homes.

These kinds of studies don't impress me because:

1) Wind is an unreliable power source and must be backed up with traditional power source. Without that backup power wind is useless. Denmark has enough windmills to technically produce 20% of its needs but only 6% of the power actually used by Danes comes from wind - the other 94% comes from coal and nuclear developments in neighboring countries. Its neighbors are able to absorb some of the bursts of wind power but only because they have hydro electric projects which can be adjusted to match the wind production. Coal, gas and nuclear power plants don't have that kind of flexibility and need to stay running at full capacity even if the wind is blowing.

2) Wind requires a massive investment in transmission lines - it is not enough to put a wind turbine up in every farmer's field - one needs a massive eletrical grid that would dwarf the size of any existing grid. To make matters worse this grid would be rediculously under utilized because it would have to large enough to carry the peak output of the wind turbines but would only typically carry 1/3 or less. The cost of deploying and managing this grid will likely be much higher than the cost of the turbines themselves.

As I said before, I am not against promoting renewable power and I would like to see some investments in large scale wind/solar projects in North America. However, these projects are not going to be a panecea and will take decades to develop and refine. In the meantime we need to be building coal and gas fired plants to ensure that we don't have electricty shortages in the next 10-20 years. Unfortunately, the current political hysteria over CO2 has made these kinds of projects difficult to plan. This is why the CO2 hysteria is perhaps the biggest threat to our economy at this time and there is a good chance that the negative effects of being scared of CO2 will be worse that the negative effects of global warming itself.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Riverwind

[marksman]

And you parrot the same nonsense about how CO2 is "just another pollutant" and that the magic technology fairy will save us all if the government would only pass the right laws.

I've never said either of those things.

CO2 is an intrinsic output of the chemical reactions that produce energy. It cannot be eliminated by using fuel with fewer impurities or with filters that capture trace containminants. The only real option is a switch to alternate energy sources or by radically reducing consumption.

Once more - I've never said we need to magically alter fuel so that burning oil no longer produces co2.

In terms of your "real option" this is exactly why people're trying to adopt alternate energy sources and improve things like energy efficiency and fuel efficiency. We've got the ability to start doing that right now.

More importantly, regulations in the past have always limited themselves to what is technically feasible. Passing laws before the technology exists is simply irresponsible and will likely lead to many adverse consequences.

Wind farms are technically feasible. I've read your post on that but nothing you've said contradicts the basic idea that windfarms can produce energy locally that'd help offset traditional fossil fuel generators.

Numerous solar facilities of different types have been or are currently being built. Again the technology exists for us to start moving in these directions.

Saying that technology doesn't exist is an act of imagination. It doesn't exist to replace all of our energy needs by next week but luckily no one's proposing that except people who like to create strawmen arguments to denounce all efforts to move to alternative energy sources.

I already told you but you seem to have a problem understanding basic economics. Low cost energy and transportation are the foundation for our economy. Take that away and you reduce economic activity which reduces our ability to pay for luxeries.

And you seem to have a problem understanding even medium level economics. You've claimed that reducing the number of cars on the road will lead to less research into life saving drugs. I'm still waiting for the evidence. Energy and transportation are important for an economy but there's nothing that says that transportation's got to be gas guzzling SUVs. Promoting stricter fuel efficiency standards won't destroy the economy. Nor will promoting public transit prevent drug research. And since you seem to have this all or nothing attitude to everything for the record I'm not saying that every Canadian should throw away their cars and only use public transit no matter where they are. Public transit in cities doesn't have to be expensive and can solve a number of problems.

Your simplistic view of the economy would also advocate making any good or service legal so that we can increase economic activity and pay for more luxuries.

Your theory of economics also assumes that any increase in electricity or fuel prices would automatically mean that its things like healthcare that get cut and not spending on actual luxury items like jewelry or expensive cars. This'd have an effect on the economy but it wouldn't prevent drug companies from developing new drugs.

Obviously, the economy is not going to collapse if modest measures are put in place but the activists/scientists are not calling for "modest" measures. They are calling for "WW2" style sacrifices and investments. That is another reason why your attempt to compare CO2 reductions to other pollution control measures is quite absurd.

Seeing that you and your favourite blog entry have already misinterpreted what activists/scientists are calling for then I'm not sure your claim is credible. Not to mention that many of these activists/scientists are calling for the economically reasonable and technically feasible plans being implemented in places like the EU. And the voluntary measures companies are getting involved with here in North America.

[marksman]

Renewables outside of areas with generous hydro-electric endowments will never provide a significant percentage of our energy needs given the technology that exists today or is likely to appear in the next few decades.

Now look who's waving their magical technology wand around predicting where technology'll be in the next few decades.

That said, I am all for encouraging renewables provided the people developing policies have a realistic view on what can be accomplished. Politicians that promote renewables as part of a some plan to reduce CO2 emission by X% in 20-40 years don't have a realistic view and will likely spend billions on white elephants and most likely create electricity shortages in the future.

So you don't want to set a target that would incentivize people to develop renewables or adopt renewables as they become available. It looks like you're "for" encouraging renewables so long as you're not actually encouraging renewables.

[marksman]

All laudable goals and all reduced pollution and all were achieved without increasng taxes as far as I can see.

Two things that it doesn't share with the global warming crowd:

- CO2 is not a pollutant.

- Increased taxes is the solution being bandied about as a 'solution'. I find when a problem is poorly defined and understood and the consequences are poorly definced/understood the ony solution you usually get is anti-capitalistic and/or increased taxes.

Draw from that what you will.

co2 isn't a pollutant in the sense of toxic waste oozing into the local water supply but massive amounts being emitted into the atmosphere can still be harmful.

Certain people'll try to convince you that any talk of addressing carbon emissions means a tax. That's not true. Effective plans combine research into alternate energy sources and research into improved energy efficiency and incentives to use energy efficient goods and services and subsidies to industry to offset any price on carbon and flexible plans to offset emissions in different ways etc. Many of these measures are very capitalistic by using the market to sort out the best way to do things once the true costs are internalized.

[White Doors]

The market is already addressing the issue. Have you seen the price of fossil fuels lately?

Billions upon billions have been sunk into research for alternative energy.

it's happening now. Something is already being done about it.

[Riverwind]

Wind farms are technically feasible. I've read your post on that but nothing you've said contradicts the basic idea that windfarms can produce energy locally that'd help offset traditional fossil fuel generators.

Technically feasible requires a lot more than demonstrating that, given enough money, someone can build something that produces power . To be technically feasible wind power has to be able to replace existing sources of fossil fuel and there is no evidence that it can since wind power is too unreliable to provide base load power. Demark has invested billions in wind power yet only meets 6% of the the power needs. The excess power that is produced in bursts has to be sold to their neighbors at a discount.

. It doesn't exist to replace all of our energy needs by next week but luckily no one's proposing that except people who like to create strawmen arguments to denounce all efforts to move to alternative energy sources.

You need to take your head out of the sand and start actually listening to what the activists are actually saying. Gore's recent call for an end to fossil fuels in 10 years is a perfect example of the absurd demands being made. James Hansen of NASA is has called for a complete ban on new coal power even if there are no pratical alternatives. Both Gore and Hansen are on the record supporting eco-vandalism in the name of stopping new coal power plant construction.

And you seem to have a problem understanding even medium level economics. You've claimed that reducing the number of cars on the road will lead to less research into life saving drugs.

For starters I did not say less research - I said there would be less money to pay for them (e.g. AIDS drugs don't mean much to Africans because they can't pay for them). Cheap transportation and energy is the basis for our economy and taking that away will reduce the amount of economic activity which will, in turn, leave us less able to pay for services like healthcare. This should be obvious but you seem to be determined to deny it.

BTW what I actually said was: "For every SUV that is taken off the road there will be a life saving drug therapy that won't get funding."

Any person that was not primarily focused on creating strawmen should have realized that I was talking about paying the cost of using a drug therapy and not about R&D costs required to develop it.

Seeing that you and your favourite blog entry have already misinterpreted what activists/scientists are calling for then I'm not sure your claim is credible.

You really need to do more reserach on what people are saying before expressing your opinion:

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/890

If the world wants to stabilise atmospheric greenhouse gases at 550 parts per million, massive changes are required, especially in the energy sector. This article discusses means and costs of drastically reducing carbon emissions.

...

To achieve a low carbon energy supply, power generation is one of the best options, because of the relative weight on global emissions and the availability of alternative technologies. However, to optimally achieve a 550 ppm concentration target, almost all electricity (around 90%) will have to be generated at low, almost zero, carbon rates by 2050.

The opinion expressed in that link is not much different from the opinion expressed by many activist economists and scientists.

You will probably note that link above lists carbon capture and sequestration as a necessary element, however, CCS actually reduces the energy effiency of coal plants and results in more coal being burnt in order to create the energy required to sequester carbon. In other words, your argument that CO2 targets promote energy efficiency falls completely apart once CCS is included in the mix of actions being promoted. That is why I think it is rediculous to use increased efficiency or renewables as a way to justify CO2 limits.

Not to mention that many of these activists/scientists are calling for the economically reasonable and technically feasible plans being implemented in places like the EU. And the voluntary measures companies are getting involved with here in North America.

The "success" of the EU when it comes to reducing emissions has largely been the result of one time events such as the collapse of communism which shut down many inefficient factories and the shift from coal to north sea gas in the UK. Outsourcing production from the EU states to China and Eastern Europe has also created the illusion of CO2 cuts inside the EU while global CO2 production continues to rise.

EU politicans are already starting to backtrack from the commitments now that they realize that real economic sacrifices will be required to reduce them any further from where they are now.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Riverwind

[Bryan]

I've seen studies that said if we set up wind generators from texas to Canada North America could take care of about 25 percent of its power needs for Homes. Thus lowering the demand for Fossil Fuels or shifting them into other things like gas for your car, airplanes, etc. Less demand also means lower prices to push up the demand. Which means cheaper airline tickets, train tickets, less cost to maintan the military. etc etc Seeking alternative energy sources is a vialble and realistic option.

How many birds a year would that many wind turbines kill?

[peter_puck]

How many birds a year would that many wind turbines kill?

That wind turbines kills birds things is a myth. It takes something like 30 turbines to kill one bird a year. My front window has killed two this year. The wild cat that roams around has killed a lot more.

Do you propose banning cats and windows for sake of the birds ?

[marksman]

Technically feasible requires a lot more than demonstrating that, given enough money, someone can build something that produces power . To be technically feasible wind power has to be able to replace existing sources of fossil fuel and there is no evidence that it can since wind power is too unreliable to provide base load power. Demark has invested billions in wind power yet only meets 6% of the the power needs. The excess power that is produced in bursts has to be sold to their neighbors at a discount.

With your argument coal isn't technically feasible because it's not possible to replace all existing sources of fossil fuel with only coal. Technically feasible means it's possible. And no one's trying to push 100% electricity from wind turbines. Your criteria for using alternative energy sources is so high that not even current energy sources would satisfy you.

Nice that you dropped the argument about how the technology doesn't exist. It's hard to sound reasonable when you're saying a non-existent technology is providing 6% of Denmark's power.

Gore's recent call for an end to fossil fuels in 10 years is a perfect example of the absurd demands being made.

Since that isn't what he said your statement is a perfect example of a strawman. Set up an argument of your choice then attribute it to your opponents then attack away.

For starters I did not say less research - I said there would be less money to pay for them (e.g. AIDS drugs don't mean much to Africans because they can't pay for them). Cheap transportation and energy is the basis for our economy and taking that away will reduce the amount of economic activity which will, in turn, leave us less able to pay for services like healthcare. This should be obvious but you seem to be determined to deny it.

BTW what I actually said was: "For every SUV that is taken off the road there will be a life saving drug therapy that won't get funding."

Any person that was not primarily focused on creating strawmen should have realized that I was talking about paying the cost of using a drug therapy and not about R&D costs required to develop it.

Any person that was interested in having an honest debate would've admitted they used misleading language then clarified their statement and moved on.

You claim that it's obvious you meant paying for drugs. The only question then is when you go to the grocery store do you pay for your groceries or do you fund your groceries? Maybe you want a drug question. Do you buy Tylenol or fund Tylenol? Funding implies something other than purchasing power.

Please continue to repeat that line. It's worth the laugh. Mr. Jones next door bought a Prius instead of an SUV and now little Timmy won't get his lifesaving medicine!

Obviously the economy needs transportation but that's not the same as saying we need SUVS or else the economy will selfdestruct. Switching to alternative fuels can save money in the long run when oil prices get even worse than they are now. Tighter fuel efficiency standards will probably save money for transportation.

Cheap anything is not the basis of our economy. Generally Canadians believe in more than just cheap. Otherwise we wouldn't have things like labour standards or pollution controls. Your current arguments use the same logic southern US states used in the 19th century when they said their economies would collapse if they had to give up their cheap labour.

You really need to do more reserach on what people are saying before expressing your opinion:

I'm not too worried about my research. You've claimed that SUVS are critical to our economy even though anyone who's driven on a highway recently can tell that the transportation of all those goods isn't happening with SUVS. You've claimed a direct link between healthcare and the number of SUVS on the road. You think that because the economy requires a transportation industry that means that only the transportation industry as it exists today could fill the role. And you claim technology for alternative energy sources doesn't exist even though things like solar and wind power generators are operating around the world.

And none of that research changes the fact that your quoted blog misrepresented the person it called out by name.

You will probably note that link above lists carbon capture and sequestration as a necessary element, however, CCS actually reduces the energy effiency of coal plants and results in more coal being burnt in order to create the energy required to sequester carbon. In other words, your argument that CO2 targets promote energy efficiency falls completely apart once CCS is included in the mix of actions being promoted. That is why I think it is rediculous to use increased efficiency or renewables as a way to justify CO2 limits.

Energy efficiency happens across the economy not only at coal plants. And using energy for a particular purpose like CCS isn't the same as saying that something is inefficiently using energy. Using energy for 1 thing doesn't make you inefficient if your total energy usage for everything you do goes down.

The "success" of the EU when it comes to reducing emissions has largely been the result of one time events such as the collapse of communism which shut down many inefficient factories and the shift from coal to north sea gas in the UK. Outsourcing production from the EU states to China and Eastern Europe has also created the illusion of CO2 cuts inside the EU while global CO2 production continues to rise.

You've said emissions went down because the UK switched to a less emitting technology. That's the whole point! So switching can make a difference.

[Riverwind]

With your argument coal isn't technically feasible because it's not possible to replace all existing sources of fossil fuel with only coal. Technically feasible means it's possible. And no one's trying to push 100% electricity from wind turbines. Your criteria for using alternative energy sources is so high that not even current energy sources would satisfy you.

You need to decide what point that you are trying to argue. Specifically do you:

1) Believe that IPCC/Scientists/Activists are right and we need to have immediate and drastic cuts in global CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic CO2 induced warming?

2) Believe that IPCC/Scientists/Activists are exgarrating the threat and there no need to a panic but we should still make an effort to reduce CO2 emissions.

If 2) describes your position then you are catastrophic AGW skeptic and you are rejecting the scientific "consensus". If 1) describes your position then none of your arguments make any sense because replacing 6% of our power with wind cost billions, increase the cost of living for everyone but will do nothing to prevent the coming catastrophe. That is what I mean when I say renewables are not technically feasible - i.e. they cannot possibly allow us to meet the CO2 targets which the IPCC claims we need to meet.

when oil prices get even worse than they are now. Tighter fuel efficiency standards will probably save money for transportation. Cheap anything is not the basis of our economy. Generally Canadians believe in more than just cheap. Otherwise we wouldn't have things like labour standards or pollution controls.

We get around that by importing goods from countries with no labour standards or pollution controls. The costs of such measures would be just as damaging if these same standards were applied globally. However, even if we are hypocrites on that front we still benefit from labour standards and pollution controls because these things do make our backyard a better place to live in. Incurring costs to reduce CO2 emissions gives no local benefit and would be ultimately futile if the same standards are not imposed on the rest of the world. If we want to look after our backyard we should be focusing on adapting to climate change. Trying to stop it is an expensive waste of time.

Your current arguments use the same logic southern US states used in the 19th century when they said their economies would collapse if they had to give up their cheap labour.

Irony of ironies. Cheap energy is what propelled the north forward and allowed them to industrialize. When the southerners made that claim the north had already demonstrated that slave labour was not required. There is no wealthy society that has demonstrated that it is possible to have a high standard of living without CO2 emissions. Some do better than others if one does not included the CO2 emissions emitted during the production of goods imported by these countries.

You've claimed a direct link between healthcare and the number of SUVS on the road. You think that because the economy requires a transportation industry that means that only the transportation industry as it exists today could fill the role.

What I said was the economic infrastructure that produces SUVs is the same infrastructure that is required to pay for drug therapies and that you can't have the good without the bad. I suspect you know that but deliberately misrepresenting what people say is debating tactic that you use.

Energy efficiency happens across the economy not only at coal plants. And using energy for a particular purpose like CCS isn't the same as saying that something is inefficiently using energy. Using energy for 1 thing doesn't make you inefficient if your total energy usage for everything you do goes down.

Have you every heard of the "energy efficiency paradox"? e.g. the observation that increase energy efficiency leads to more consumption. More efficiency will not accomplish your stated goal of reducing emissions unless large scale, technically feasible non-CO2 emitting power sources exist. They don't so we will be stuck with burning even more fossil fuels in order to provide the same amount of energy.

You've said emissions went down because the UK switched to a less emitting technology. That's the whole point! So switching can make a difference.

One again you are completely missing the point. The 'dash for gas' happened to be something that the UK could take advantage of *once* but they still emit a huge amount of CO2 and it is not likely to decline any more because the easy stuff has already been done. Japan is in a similar situation - they already have an extremely energy efficient economy yet they have a lot of CO2 emissions and further reductions will be extremely expensive. Edited October 1, 2008 by Riverwind

[marksman]

You need to decide what point that you are trying to argue. Specifically do you:

1) Believe that IPCC/Scientists/Activists are right and we need to have immediate and drastic cuts in global CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic CO2 induced warming?

2) Believe that IPCC/Scientists/Activists are exgarrating the threat and there no need to a panic but we should still make an effort to reduce CO2 emissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Accepting that human caused global warming is happening doesn't mean accepting the most extreme viewpoint available.

Promoting new policy priorities doesn't mean promoting the destruction of the economy.

Incurring costs to reduce CO2 emissions gives no local benefit and would be ultimately futile if the same standards are not imposed on the rest of the world. If we want to look after our backyard we should be focusing on adapting to climate change. Trying to stop it is an expensive waste of time.

I think some Canadians would see some local benefit. http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/climate-f...8524886121.html

What I said was the economic infrastructure that produces SUVs is the same infrastructure that is required to pay for drug therapies and that you can't have the good without the bad.

No what you said was

BTW what I actually said was: "For every SUV that is taken off the road there will be a life saving drug therapy that won't get funding."

See I've included you saying that's what you said since you've forgotten.

Even if you had said the line about producing SUVS it still doesn't change the reality that just because our economy needs transportation that doesn't mean it needs the type of transportation that you say we can't live without. Our economic infrastructure can also be used to invest in new technologies and to adopt new technologies.

Your argument that we've got to accept "the good" and "the bad" is kind of sad. You're saying our economy gives us some good things so now we've got to accept it without any changes. Our economic infrastructure gave us markets to invest in and gave us people like BreX. Interesting that we tried to fix that problem even with all the good stuff markets give us. Same with energy and transportation. We can improve these areas without destroying them.

I suspect you know that but deliberately misrepresenting what people say is debating tactic that you use.

I don't have to deliberately misrepresent what you've said. You've made enough misleading and contradictory statements on your own without including the misrepresentations you've made about what others said.

Have you every heard of the "energy efficiency paradox"? e.g. the observation that increase energy efficiency leads to more consumption. More efficiency will not accomplish your stated goal of reducing emissions unless large scale, technically feasible non-CO2 emitting power sources exist. They don't so we will be stuck with burning even more fossil fuels in order to provide the same amount of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

If the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate is correct, in order to increase energy conservation, fuel efficiency gains must be paired with some government intervention that reduces demand (e.g. cap and trade, fuel tax or carbon tax).

That's why I've said we need multiple approaches not just 1 approach. Energy efficiency is 1 of those steps.

So if fuel efficiency improved and fuel had a carbon tax demand would stay the same and the money could be reinvested into the green energy industry that then gives more economic output so you can buy more of your drugs or SUVS or whatever you want.

One again you are completely missing the point. The 'dash for gas' happened to be something that the UK could take advantage of *once* but they still emit a huge amount of CO2 and it is not likely to decline any more because the easy stuff has already been done. Japan is in a similar situation - they already have an extremely energy efficient economy yet they have a lot of CO2 emissions and further reductions will be extremely expensive.

You're like the guy from the urban legend who wanted to shut down the patent office in 1900 because everything's been invented. You've missed the point and are arguing that we should stop progress because it might be hard.

The UK took a step to a different energy source. We can take steps *once* to adopt more renewable sources. This investment will lead to improvements that will make it possible to move *once* to improved renewable sources.

None of this means that any economy will automatically be destroyed.