Copenhagen

[Guest TrueMetis]

and we love and need oxygen but pure oxygen is toxic and can kill you just as pure CO2 will kill plants and us...

you can breath pure O2 just fine as long as the presure is low enough. They use pure O2 in some spacesuits. Just wanted to point that out and I'm not sure if the same holds true for plants and CO2. (though it wouldn't matter because of the pressure)

[Argus]

Gore never claimed to be a scientist, obviously. Essentially... he played the role of facilitator, presenting scientific consensus in a 'packaged' manner. Either side of the debate should easily accept that, if nothing else, his involvement has helped to raise international public awareness of climate change and to reenergize environmental consciousness.

anything else is just attacking the messenger... cause one doesn't care for the message.

Gore recently claimed the Alberta oil sands would destroy ciivilization. Why wouldn't people attack a moronic statement like that, or question the sanity of anyone who uttered it?

[Argus]

There is the little matter of the passage of years in between these events.

But, Gore MUST be evil in order for your argument to make sense, right ?

No, just a blowhard taking advantage of the mindlessly credulous to enrich himself.

[Michael Hardner]

Gore recently claimed the Alberta oil sands would destroy ciivilization. Why wouldn't people attack a moronic statement like that, or question the sanity of anyone who uttered it?

You just did.

[Michael Hardner]

No, just a blowhard taking advantage of the mindlessly credulous to enrich himself.

I take it your answer is "no"... then if the answer is "no" let's leave Al Gore, and the others like him out of the debate shall we ?

[Argus]

Simply stated, you should have checked her out more completely - don't blame me if your go-to denier blogger has no credence.

I think you've made it amply clear you believe NO climate science "denier" has any credence.

Which is part of the reason why you have none.

[Riverwind]

I take it your answer is "no"... then if the answer is "no" let's leave Al Gore, and the others like him out of the debate shall we ?

Gore and Moncton are both politicians that harm their respective "sides" more than they help.

[Michael Hardner]

Gore and Moncton are both politicians that harm their respective "sides" more than they help.

Gore is a salesman to the cause, and as such should be left out of the discussion on the merits of the argument themselves.

I'm not sure whether I wear Nike running shoes because I saw Tiger Woods in an ad for them, but if I'm telling people how good the shoes are, I don't include "Tiger Woods likes them" in my reasons. Not too many would admit to doing that, I think. Similarly, nobody should decide on the merits of AGW because Al Gore says it's so.

[Argus]

Some of these things have been covered in this thread already.

I'm still waiting to hear just what affect the proposed treaties will actually have on the alleged "man made" global warming.

So far, as best I can discern, the supports believe that cutting back emissions might, someday (they're not sure when) have some sort of positive effect (they really have no idea how much) on "man made" global warming.

At a cost of trillions of dollars and massive changes to not just our economis, but our entire style of living.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm still waiting to hear just what affect the proposed treaties will actually have on the alleged "man made" global warming.

So far, as best I can discern, the supports believe that cutting back emissions might, someday (they're not sure when) have some sort of positive effect (they really have no idea how much) on "man made" global warming.

At a cost of trillions of dollars and massive changes to not just our economis, but our entire style of living.

You sound like you're reading to start talking about solutions to AGW !

The figure I saw on these threads was a 2% cost. Our entire style of living is impacted by such small things, it's true, but not that much.

[Argus]

I take it your answer is "no"... then if the answer is "no" let's leave Al Gore, and the others like him out of the debate shall we ?

The thing is - its people like Al Gore who turned what should have been a purely scientific debate into one whereby anyone who disagrees is somehow morally deficient, and turned those eager to find something in their lives to follow - Ie waldo and wiley - into fanatical supporters.

[Riverwind]

The figure I saw on these threads was a 2% cost. Our entire style of living is impacted by such small things, it's true, but not that much.

2% of what? GDP? Based on whose numbers? The studies that say that the cost of mitigation is only 2% of GDP 100 years from now also say the cost of doing nothing is about the same (i.e. maybe 3-4% of GDP). The only way to justify spending money up front is if one chooses a low discount rate that exagerrates the impact of future spending in todays dollars.

More importantly, anti-CO2 measures do not have an equal impact. Some people will be barely affected while others will have their livelihoods destroyed. Ultimately it is the unequal distribution of costs which will make action on CO2 politically impossible

Edited December 10, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

The thing is - its people like Al Gore who turned what should have been a purely scientific debate into one whereby anyone who disagrees is somehow morally deficient, and turned those eager to find something in their lives to follow - Ie waldo and wiley - into fanatical supporters.

People like Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh, and the like yes...

Unfortunately we can't stop people from being persuasive.

[Michael Hardner]

2% of what? GDP? Based on whose numbers? The studies that say that the cost of mitigation is only 2% of GDP 100 years from now also say the cost of doing nothing is about the same (i.e. maybe 3-4% of GDP). The only way to justify spending money up front is if one chooses a low discount rate that exagerrates the impact of future spending in todays dollars.

More importantly, anti-CO2 measures do not have an equal impact. Some people will be barely affected while others will have their livelihoods destroyed. Ultimately it is the unequal distribution of costs which will make action on CO2 politically impossible

That's interesting - I got my numbers from a post on this thread, I think.

All these numbers seem pretty low to me, though.

As for the question of equal impact - nothing has an equal impact, and as such there are always those who must pay more. Having your livlihood destroyed is a major impact, though, and as such these people need to be supported through the change.

[Riverwind]

Having your livlihood destroyed is a major impact, though, and as such these people need to be supported through the change.

I got a better idea: forget about the hypothetical and support the people who get affected by climate change when it actually happens.

Here is a good summary of the economic POV on climate change:

http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/the-economics-of-climate-change-essential-knowledge/

There have been 13 count them, 13 studies published in the peer reviewed literature that have wrestled with the economic implications of a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GhGs) on a CO2-equivalent basis. Those 13 studies have yielded 14 estimates of what will subsequently happen to global GDP. For those who are curious, 10 of those studies assume a subsequent warming of 2.5 C; two assume that a 1 C warming would follow; and two assume a 3 C warming would follow.

Here are the estimated changes to GDP relative to a baseline scenario where no CO2e buildup occurs: +2.5%, +2.3%, +0.9%, +0.1%, no change, -0.1%. -0.4%, -0.9% -1.3%, -1.4%, -1.5% -1.7% -1.9% and -4.8%. In short, climate change will either add or subtract about one year of economic growth from the global economy in the second half of this century. The positive findings in that dataset reflect the fact that temperature has an ambiguous effect on human health; that very little of the modern industrialized economy is weather dependent, that adaptation to climate change is relatively cheap, and that many clear benefits follow from CO2 saturation and warmer weather.

There is no economic case to be made for CO2 emission regulation. It is purely a religious/moral argument. Edited December 10, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

I got a better idea: forget about the hypothetical and support the people who get affected by climate change when it actually happens.

Here is a good summary of the economic POV on climate change:

http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/the-economics-of-climate-change-essential-knowledge/

There is no economic case to be made for CO2 emission regulation. It is purely a religious/moral argument.

That's interesting - and the discussion on adaptation vs mitigation should be further underway than it is.

I'm interested in details, though, such as the identified risks, projected loss of life. It's hard, of course, to get excited by a number like 3% but if it means a 3% death rate, a little more exciting, and if you say 180 million dead then it starts to sound rightfully terrifying.

[Riverwind]

That's interesting - and the discussion on adaptation vs mitigation should be further underway than it is.

That is because enviromentalists refuse to consider adaptation as an option - just like most insist that nuclear is not an option despite the fact that it is CO2 emission free.

The debate over AGW is a moral/ethical debate like the debate over abortion. It is not a scientific or economic debate.

I'm interested in details, though, such as the identified risks, projected loss of life. It's hard, of course, to get excited by a number like 3% but if it means a 3% death rate, a little more exciting, and if you say 180 million dead then it starts to sound rightfully terrifying.

It cuts both ways. Slow down economic growth and you push more people into poverty which increases deaths. Do it across the world and you could easily match the deaths due to hypotheical damage due to climate change. Edited December 10, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

That is because enviromentalists refuse to consider adaptation as an option - just like most insist that nuclear is not an option despite the fact that it is CO2 emission free.

I would say it's because we haven't even got popular agreement on AGW yet.

The debate over AGW is a moral/ethical debate like the debate over abortion. It is not a scientific or economic debate.

Well, it shouldn't be. The response is a moral/ethical debate in that the loss of human lives are involved.

It cuts both ways. Slow down economic growth and you push more people into poverty which increases deaths. Do it across the world and you could easily match the deaths due to hypotheical damage due to climate change.

I don't think economic growth in Asia will be slowing down anytime soon. What kind of deaths would occur due to a carbon tax ? That's pretty hard to quantify.

[Riverwind]

I don't think economic growth in Asia will be slowing down anytime soon. What kind of deaths would occur due to a carbon tax ? That's pretty hard to quantify.

Carbon regulation related deaths would occur in Canada too.

i.e.

a carbon regulation == slower economic growth == less tax revenue == cuts to health care == more deaths.

I agree that it is hard to quantify but no less real and cannot be ignored if you want to use 'hypothetical deaths due to climate change' as an argument for mitigation.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Carbon regulation related deaths would occur in Canada too.

i.e.

a carbon regulation == slower economic growth == less tax revenue == cuts to health care == more deaths.

I agree that it is hard to quantify but no less real and cannot be ignored if you want to use 'hypothetical deaths due to climate change' as an argument for mitigation.

Don't stretch things, Riverwind. Didn't you quote 4% as the rate ? Even in this recession, we didn't cut healthcare.

[Riverwind]

Don't stretch things, Riverwind. Didn't you quote 4% as the rate ? Even in this recession, we didn't cut healthcare.

Only because we let the deficit balloon - a short term fix in a recession but not an option if we deliberately slow economic growth with carbon regulation.

You have to look at the other side. i.e. what evidence exists that climate change would cause any deaths? I think you will find that nothing conclusive exists and many of the so-called consequences of climate change would occur anyways because of over population in some regions (i.e. if famine occurs is it really the result of climate change or too many poor people?)

Edited December 10, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

Gore never claimed to be a scientist, obviously. Essentially... he played the role of facilitator, presenting scientific consensus in a 'packaged' manner. Either side of the debate should easily accept that, if nothing else, his involvement has helped to raise international public awareness of climate change and to reenergize environmental consciousness.

anything else is just attacking the messenger... cause one doesn't care for the message.

Gore recently claimed the Alberta oil sands would destroy ciivilization. Why wouldn't people attack a moronic statement like that, or question the sanity of anyone who uttered it?

Gore has been consistent in his calls for the need to, the urgency to, shift away from carbon-based fuels... I believe the exact quote was, "extracting oil from Alberta's tar sands jeopardizes the survival of our species". Your poetic license in equating "jeopardize" to "destroying" is noted

[wyly]

you can breath pure O2 just fine as long as the presure is low enough. They use pure O2 in some spacesuits. Just wanted to point that out and I'm not sure if the same holds true for plants and CO2. (though it wouldn't matter because of the pressure)

thats true for spacesuits but again it's only temporary, even in hospitals you don't get pure O2...I looked up the plant thing, plants need both, if it's an either or situation, they die...everything is in balance that's evolution and we as well as plants have evolved to specific ratios...

[fellowtraveller]

I read that there are around 1200 limousines ferrying delegates around Copenhagen ,and at least 140 private jets plus countless commercial flights required to get everybody there.

Will that put any curve into the famous hockey stick graph?

[waldo]

I read that there are around 1200 limousines ferrying delegates around Copenhagen ,and at least 140 private jets plus countless commercial flights required to get everybody there.

Will that put any curve into the famous hockey stick graph?

don't forget about the hookers? That early flurry of "news" articles that spoke to the "deals" being offered by some of Copenhagen's finest... surely... those deals will raise the CO2 expiration rates to unfathomable heights. Oh the humanity!