Doing Nothing About Climate - A Radical Option

[jbg]

The views expressed below - doing nothing about climate - are admittedly radical. Sometimes the better part of discretion is recognizing what we can do something about, and having the wisdowm to know what we can do nothing about.

I start off this thread with a quote from a post from the "Rex Murphy" thread since I considered that posting my thoughts there would contribute to "thread drift" on an already unwiedly thread. Ditto the "Climatati" thread.

There can be no meaningful political discussion on this topic until we start by accepting that doing nothing is a valid option and working to find some middle ground that includes some sensible mitigation policies.

I totally agree. Amazing, the New York Times, generally a hotbed of both political correctness and climate activism, is showing some flexibility on at least publishing contrary opinions. Maybe ClimateGate is a good prod towards honesty. Link, excerpts below.

Trusting Nature as the Climate Referee -

Imagine there’s no Copenhagen.

(link)

New York Times

Published: December 14, 2009

By JOHN TIERNEY

Imagine a planet in which global warming was averted without the periodic need for thousands of people to fly around the world to promise to stop burning fossil fuels. Imagine no international conferences wrangling over the details of climate policy. Imagine entrusting the tough questions to a referee: Mother Earth.

That is the intriguing suggestion of Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario who, like me, is virtuously restricting his carbon footprint by staying away from Copenhagen this week. Dr. McKitrick expects this climate conference to yield the same results as previous ones: grand promises to cut carbon emissions that will be ignored once politicians return home to face voters who are skeptical that global warming is even a problem.

To end this political stalemate, Dr. McKitrick proposes calling each side’s bluff. He suggests imposing financial penalties on carbon emissions that would be set according to the temperature in the earth’s atmosphere. The penalties could start off small enough to be politically palatable to skeptical voters.

(snip)

Edited December 26, 2009 by jbg

[Riverwind]

I totally agree. Amazing, the New York Times, generally a hotbed of both political correctness and climate activism, is showing some flexibility on at least publishing contrary opinions. Maybe ClimateGate is a good prod towards honesty. Link, excerpts below.

Gavin Schmidt responds here.

But by far the biggest problem with this scheme is that the responsibility for potentially billions of dollars of revenue rests with imperfect monitoring tools. Any reassessment of the numbers because of a new procedure, a new correction, the addition of new sources of data, would then become direct battlegrounds between revenue seeking governments and business, with the scientists caught helplessly in the middle. This is a recipe for a much greater politicization of the science than we have ever seen to date. Mixing science and politics is already fraught. Mixing science and the I.R.S. would be explosive.

Ross McKitrick responds to Gavin here.

Gavin also worries that “potentially billions of dollars of revenue rests with imperfect monitoring tools.” Does this mean the data’s too unreliable to base policy on? Now you tell us! If true, this is a big problem for all climate policy, not just the T3 tax. If at this late date we don’t have monitoring tools that give us policy-class data, we better hurry up and get them. At least the satellite readings are analyzed by two independent groups, so I would propose simply taking an average, but also making sure the algorithms and data are fully transparent.

The other responses to Ross are equally self-serving. It is clear the advocates of carbon mitigation want to have it both ways. i.e. they want the ability to explain away any results that don't fit the the models but they insist we should set policy based on the models.

In the end such disussions are irrelevent because it is economically impossible to reduce CO2 emission to levels demanded within the time periods (e.g. 2050) specified.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[Bugs]

Why do we think this is about the environment at all? I don't see any reason, except ... they tell us so.

These new mouth-warriors come from the same organization that, in the person of Kofi Annan, hung up on Romeo Delaire so that the coming massacre could unfold. The UN -- why should any Canadian pay any attention to such people when they dishonor us so? Why are they deserving of more credibility now than then?

How many of them skimmed an extra cent per barrel off Saddam's notorious 'Oil for Food' scam? It ended up, it was an 'Oil for Palaces' program. And on it goes ...

I don't want to go so far as to say I know what strategies are in play, but it seems obvious that, after the science fell apart, nothing changed. In fact, their behavior is entirely consistent with the kind of rush job you would expect from swindlers pushing their mark.

Why are the current crop any different? [http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/20/follow-the-money-ipccagw-edition/]

I don't think this is a left-right thing, and I am really trying to see if anyone else is bothered by the fact that we seem to have pulled back, a tad, from taking on onerous obligations to faceless bureaucracies that is not democratically constituted, and is demonstrably corrupt. (Corrupt to the point that The Sudan -- the last country on earth to allow slavery, complete with regular auctions -- was elected head of the UN Human Rights Commission!) All in the service of a mythic threat, on the basis of dummied up science. This seems to me to be the financial equivalent of the World Trade Center attacks.

It seems to me we are coming to the point where we have to wonder if the UN isn't so compromised, as an instrument, that we ought to go around it as much as possible, if we are serious about getting things done.

[Riverwind]

Time for a Climate Change Plan B

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107604574607793378860698.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

But even without that, there is not even a theoretical (let alone a practical) basis for a global agreement on burden-sharing, since, so far as the risk of global warming is concerned (and probably in other areas too) risk aversion is not uniform throughout the world. Not only do different cultures embody very different degrees of risk aversion, but in general the richer countries will tend to be more risk-averse than the poorer countries, if only because we have more to lose.

The time has come to abandon the Kyoto-style folly that reached its apotheosis in Copenhagen last week, and move to plan B.

And the outlines of a credible plan B are clear. First and foremost, we must do what mankind has always done, and adapt to whatever changes in temperature may in the future arise.

This enables us to pocket the benefits of any warming (and there are many) while reducing the costs. None of the projected costs are new phenomena, but the possible exacerbation of problems our climate already throws at us. Addressing these problems directly is many times more cost-effective than anything discussed at Copenhagen. And adaptation does not require a global agreement, although we may well need to help the very poorest countries (not China) to adapt.

Beyond adaptation, plan B should involve a relatively modest, increased government investment in technological research and developmentin energy, in adaptation and in geoengineering.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

It seems to me we are coming to the point where we have to wonder if the UN isn't so compromised, as an instrument, that we ought to go around it as much as possible, if we are serious about getting things done.

The UN doesn't control the world's scientists. It's accepted that warming is happening and that humans are causing it. If you think there's a UN conspiracy, then you are a fringe dweller and should stay out of the mainstream discussions altogether.

As for doing nothing - this means that there will likely be a requirement for even more direct aid to affected countries. Are we going to have to fight governments yet again in the future in order to make that happen ?

[Riverwind]

As for doing nothing - this means that there will likely be a requirement for even more direct aid to affected countries. Are we going to have to fight governments yet again in the future in order to make that happen ?

Obviously doing nothing today will be an argument used to justify foreign aid if/when specific problems can be linked to climate change. However, there is a tendency amound NGOs and activist scientists to try and link every human ill to climate change. This will ensure there will always be a rhetoric gap between what NGOs say should be paid and what governments actually offer. Edited December 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Obviously doing nothing today will be an argument used to justify foreign aid if/when specific problems can be linked to climate change. However, there is a tendency amound NGOs and activist scientists to try and link every human ill to climate change. This will ensure there will always be a rhetoric gap between what NGOs say should be paid and what governments actually offer.

So, if it turns out that the scientists were right and there is climate change, and the 3rd world needs our help, the rhetoric gap will be filled.

[Riverwind]

So, if it turns out that the scientists were right and there is climate change, and the 3rd world needs our help, the rhetoric gap will be filled.

One would hope so. But if the poor coutries are still poor and unable to look after their own in 50 years there will be a lot of questions on why that happened and how much of the failure was actually the fault of developed world (i.e. as more and more non-western countries industrialize and become wealthy it will become much harder for the laggards to blame colonialism or any other externality for their own failures). Edited December 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

One would hope so. But if the poor coutries are still poor and unable to look after their own in 50 years there will be a lot of questions on why that happened and how much of the failure was actually the fault of developed world (i.e. as more and more non-western countries industrialize and become wealthy it will become much harder for the laggards to blame colonialism or any other externality for their own failures).

And thus, the way will be clear for us to let the people die while their dictators do nothing to help. Is that right ?

[Riverwind]

And thus, the way will be clear for us to let the people die while their dictators do nothing to help. Is that right ?

Everything depends on the circumstances at the time.

Keep in mind the issue would be worse if the developed world did make huge sacrifices to reduce emissions which turned out to be not enough. It is quite likely that the public would say they have done enough and the developing world is on their own.

[Michael Hardner]

Everything depends on the circumstances at the time.

Keep in mind the issue would be worse if the developed world did make huge sacrifices to reduce emissions which turned out to be not enough. It is quite likely that the public would say they have done enough and the developing world is on their own.

And how likely will they be to help next time around, especially if they turn out to be wrong now and it ends up being a very expensive proposition, or if mass immigration to the northern countries is needed ?

[jbg]

So, if it turns out that the scientists were right and there is climate change, and the 3rd world needs our help, the rhetoric gap will be filled.

How much "Third World help" gets beyond the dictators to the people?

[myata]

Most certainly, "doing nothing" is a valid option, just as collective praying to miscellaneous gods (or PM of the day). There isn't really right or wrong answer - it depends on our view of the world, which is ultimately determined by who we are. So let's first separate the question from justification (of already predetermined answer) and ask instead:

Should we be doing somethinhg simply because our rational minds are telling us that we could do better, have a cause and opportunity to improve?

Or

Should we not do anything until and unless somebody (or something) kicks us in the a.. and there isn't anywhere to run away (or behind - like China and India, in the Harper's approach)?

It's all in the mind of the beholder, take your pick, which btw will tell of who you are (and where you'll most likely to end up).

I believe that more than anything, this challenge demonstrates that idealistic view of "united humanity" may not be exactly what the future holds in store. More likely, it's going to be another point of separation, just like any number of critical points in our species evolution. Some will move on, creating more advanced, sustainable, sophisticated future for themselves and their descendants. And like always, there will be those lagging behind hoping that the challenge would go away and things would return to their good old familiar and uneventful selves.

If we decide to act, we won't be needing reasons other than our own understanding of the need to do better. And if we're of the second category, why not being honest with ourselves (nothing shameful about it) and just state plainly that nothing is kicking us in the butt just yet, and we still have room to run around, so we aren't going to be doing anything simply because that's the way we are, who we are?

[Michael Hardner]

How much "Third World help" gets beyond the dictators to the people?

Yes, good point - that's another excuse to do nothing.

[Riverwind]

Should we be doing somethinhg simply because our rational minds are telling us that we could do better, have a cause and opportunity to improve?

Or

Should we not do anything until and unless somebody (or something) kicks us in the a.. and there isn't anywhere to run away (or behind - like China and India, in the Harper's approach)?

The most rational option which is rejected by alarmists everywhere: invest in alternative energy sources while being realistic about how much can be done in a short period of time. What most people miss is it really does not make a difference what the science says because economics says we will need to expand our use of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. The most renewable technologies can do is slow the increase. Edited December 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

The most rational option which is rejected by alarmists everywhere: invest in alternative energy sources while being realistic about how much can be done in a short period of time. What most people miss is it really does not make a difference what the science says because economics says we will need to expand our use of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. The most renewable technologies can do is slow the increase.

"Most rational" is also in the eye of the decision maker. If the "most rational" for me is to sit on my ar.e doing nothing till I get kicked, then maybe, investing triffle token peanuts into obscure projects would probably be on the top list of my "rationality".

If, on the other hand, "rationality" means meaningful reduction in harmful emissions (here and now), one would look for solutions that achieve actual, measurable reductions, rather than publicity stunts and the appearance of doing something while doing nothing (serious). Why would it be "rational" to spend money on developing alternative sources, while there's no market mechanism to ensure that they would be selected over traditional polluting ones? Why is it "rational" to pump subsidies into gazzling projects like oil sands, rather than cleaner technologies, like e.g. the next generation of nuclear reactors?

Thinking rationally, one would have to identify the main causes of high GHG emissions, like consumer behaviour and outdated and/or offending technologies, developed in the environment of zero GHG cost. After that, develop a meaningful, market based mechanism to influence these behaviors, correct, by applying meaningful compensating cost to both conumer behaviour (consumption carbon tax) and offending technologies (production carbon tax). Without the former, consumer behavior would never move to a more sustainable model; and without the latter, there would be no market differentiation promoting "green" carbon efficient technologies over the polluting ones.

And guess what, the economy will pick up and run along the adjusted directions just as well. This is because in a sensible, rational society the economy works for the people, and not the other way around, as we like to hear from our conservative oracles. In France significant portion of energy needs is generated by nuclear stations, and their emissions per capita are a third of ours. In Europe, they invest massively into creating useful and convenient public transit resulting in significant reduction of car traffic. As said, genuinely and seriously looking for a positive change, we'll need no further reasons other than our committment to do better; and seeking any pretext to sit back and do nothing, we could also relax and stop worrying about plausible justifications, I mean who's interested, people who chose to do something? your children, etc?

[Riverwind]

Why would it be "rational" to spend money on developing alternative sources, while there's no market mechanism to ensure that they would be selected over traditional polluting ones?

That is why the alternatives that can compete with the fossil fuel sources much be developed before they can be mandated. So far we have none that are cheap enough.

After that, develop a meaningful, market based mechanism to influence these behaviors, correct, by applying meaningful compensating cost to both conumer behaviour (consumption carbon tax) and offending technologies (production carbon tax).

There is no plausible way to implement any 'market based' mechanisms because as soon as someone gets hurt by the 'market' there will be calls for governments to address the 'market failures'. The poster boy for the irrationality of the 'market based' mechanisms for CO2 control is the Redcar Steelworks in Britian. The Indian company that owns it has decided that it makes more 'market sense' to close the mill and simply sell its carbon quotas rather than to employ Britains. To supply the steel the company plans to open a new plant in India which will then qualify for credits under the 'market based' clean development mechanism.

Market-based carbon control mechanisms are an oxymoron. The only rational response is to develop alternatives that can compete in a market free of government attempts to rig it.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

That is why the alternatives that can compete with the fossil fuel sources much be developed before they can be mandated. So far we have none that are cheap enough.

Nothing's been said about "mandated" so I'm not sure where have you picked up the idea? It's only a matter of paying the full cost of production. GHG cost to the society and somebody has to pick up the tab. Why should it be the public, me and you, as opposed to major emitters, like oilsands operations? Alternatives may never become "cheap enough" if polluter is allowed to go on as if nothing happened.

There is no plausible way to implement any 'market based' mechanisms because as soon as someone gets hurt by the 'market' there will be calls for governments to address the 'market failures'.

Yes there is, if we start looking for solutions as opposed to reasons to not do things. We can invest into developing cleaner technologies and sell them when developing countries start catchning up on the need to change. We can slam equalizing quotes on imports where full cost of production isn't paid. Pointing a finger is the easiest way to do nothing, but isnt' it easier just to say it? Guess not, we want to do nothing and still feel good about it, there, psychology of scepticism popularly explained.

Market-based carbon control mechanisms are an oxymoron.

You wished it to be, and that's why it's self obvous and needs no further, unpleasant and complicated explanations?

The only rational response is to develop alternatives that can compete in a market free of government attempts to rig it.

"Rig" through making producers pay full cost of production, like cleaning up water, air, production sites, storing safely contaminating materials, and such? Yeah right, who needs that kind of "rigging", would we be so much better off the way things were couple hundred years back?

[eyeball]

And thus, the way will be clear for us to let the people die while their dictators do nothing to help. Is that right ?

A cynic might suggest the way will be clear to spend trillions of dollars on a military adaptation to things like dictators, die-backs and waves of refugees.

Edited December 23, 2009 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

A cynic might suggest the way will be clear to spend trillions of dollars on a military solution to things like dictators and die-backs.

I don't think environmental issues would be enough of an incentive to military action.

[Riverwind]

It's only a matter of paying the full cost of production. GHG cost to the society and somebody has to pick up the tab.

So far the cost of GHGs to society is a big fat ZERO. Any future costs are purely hypothetical cannot be used to rationalize fees today.

Why should it be the public, me and you, as opposed to major emitters, like oilsands operations? Alternatives may never become "cheap enough" if polluter is allowed to go on as if nothing happened.

Again. You are assuming that GHGs are actually a pollution that will result in a net negative economic effect. Until those effects occur and it is possible to quantify them it is not possible assess any charges against emitters based on the 'costs of pollution'.

We can invest into developing cleaner technologies and sell them when developing countries start catchning up on the need to change. We can slam equalizing quotes on imports where full cost of production isn't paid.

ROTFL. You talk about 'market based' mechanism and then you roll out a list of policies that are decidely anti-market. Like I said: market based carbon control mechanisms are an oxymoron.

"Rig" through making producers pay full cost of production, like cleaning up water, air, production sites, storing safely contaminating materials, and such? Yeah right, who needs that kind of "rigging", would we be so much better off the way things were couple hundred years back?

All of the actions you listed are directly connected to the extraction of resources and have costs which can be quantified. It is reasonable to expect the resources extractors to pay those costs. You logic only becomes fuzzy when you start trying to charge companies for hypothetical costs that may never occur. Edited December 24, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

ROTFL. You talk about 'market based' mechanism and then you roll out a list of policies that are decidely anti-market. Like I said: market based carbon control mechanisms are an oxymoron.

Laugh all you want, it only shows what you have about as much clue about the economy as the matters of high science. Society has the economic mechanisms to charge producer the full cost of their business to the society, be it a clean air standard, fines for pollution, mandatory reforestation, or a tax on tobacco. And of course, the negative effect of GHG for our societies has been established, to the best of our knowledge of today, because it is confirmed by the great majority of professionals working in the field, and you failed to present any scientifically valid arguments to the contrary.

And so, that position is very much reduced to denying the obvious, like that ostrich and the sand, because once the problem is recognised, there would be no explanation, nor justification to that inherent abhorrence of change and reluctance to act. And at that I would strongly encourage you (and others sharing similar views, including Mr Harper himself) to stop playing meaningless games and ridiculous justifications, throw off misplaced shame, take pride in yourselves and say it plain and clear, that we folks hate and despise any change and won't do anything until our backs and ar... are stuck firmly against the wall, and that's not because of China and India, but the way we are, i.e. who we are and what we do.

[Riverwind]

And of course, the negative effect of GHG for our societies has been established

This is your entire problem. You cannot seperate reality from virtual reality. There ZERO REAL evidence that shows that GHGs will have a net negative effect on society. There are plenty of climate models but they are not real nor are they evidence. Edited December 24, 2009 by Riverwind

[jbg]

How much "Third World help" gets beyond the dictators to the people?

Yes, good point - that's another excuse to do nothing.

I wouldn't call it an excuse; I'd call it recognizing reality. Together with most children during the late 1960's and early 1970's when I went out on Halloween I said "trick or treat for UNICEF". I believed that a penny would feed a child for a day, or whatever it was they said. During late 1971 I had my parents buy me, for my Holiday gift, George Harrison and Bob Dylan's "Concert for Bangladesh" with the motive as much for charity as for the music (I had most of the songs already).

When it became publicized that most of the proceeds of both UNICEF and the Concert album were being misused, I changed my view radically. Maybe it's age as well. I recognize that a dracula dictator like Mengitsu was not going to be moved to tears by "We Are the World" and let the money go to his starving people. Of course, his Swiss bank account fills first. Copenhagen is an even more blatant shakedown than UNICEF or "USA for Africa" (the singers of "We Are the World").

[Michael Hardner]

I wouldn't call it an excuse; I'd call it recognizing reality. Together with most children during the late 1960's and early 1970's when I went out on Halloween I said "trick or treat for UNICEF". I believed that a penny would feed a child for a day, or whatever it was they said. During late 1971 I had my parents buy me, for my Holiday gift, George Harrison and Bob Dylan's "Concert for Bangladesh" with the motive as much for charity as for the music (I had most of the songs already).

When it became publicized that most of the proceeds of both UNICEF and the Concert album were being misused, I changed my view radically. Maybe it's age as well. I recognize that a dracula dictator like Mengitsu was not going to be moved to tears by "We Are the World" and let the money go to his starving people. Of course, his Swiss bank account fills first. Copenhagen is an even more blatant shakedown than UNICEF or "USA for Africa" (the singers of "We Are the World").

UNICEF may be inefficient but the also have helped improve the lives, and reduce risk for millions. How much corruption will cause us to throw out the baby with the filthy bathwater ?