Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?

[Slim]

You are making a value judgement that is not consistent with existing policies (i.e. wars, mining, energy production, agriculture, etc.). Your position is not rational given the obvious status quo.

Wait, what position am I arguing? Don't you pigeon-hole me, now.

I didn't say they were irrelevant, just that they do not and should not make such decisons. AGW zealots must face the possiblity that little to nothing will be done in the face of higher geo-political and economic priorities. I have never understood why such zealots assumed that we would all just roll over because they predict doom.

Whoa, okay. Nobody is saying scientists make policy. Nobody is assuming that everyone will 'roll over'. That's why I'm trying to have a discussion. And I'm not a zealot, if that's what you're inferring.

[dre]

Then you simply ensure the status quo continues. TB was worried about peak oil and I was responding to him and anyone who thinks peak oil is the issue.

Gas will be used by default. Wind and solar are uneconomic so they will not be used out of expensive feel good projects designed to cater to the CO2 obsessive. Nuclear is not going to happen any time soon. There is no political will to face down the enviros. It is easier to do nothing.

Gas will be used by default. Wind and solar are uneconomic so they will not be used out of expensive feel good projects designed to cater to the CO2 obsessive. Nuclear is not going to happen any time soon. There is no political will to face down the enviros. It is easier to do nothing.

The enviros arent the reason nuclear power hasnt sold plants in North America. If you look at the entire lifecycle of a nuclear plant the economics are questionable. Theyre building lots of them in countries like France with no oil, coal, or gas... but thats about it.

Edited October 3, 2010 by dre

[Slim]

What do you mean by lifecycle? You mean the lifespan of a powerplant?

[betsy]

Guilt is a fool's hope in this case, just as before. Mankind's total history is and will be but a mere blip, and other natural events already take a far greate toll. So who/what is "guilty" for that?

Yes.

Why should the 1st world carry the guilt? Everyone has an equally guilty hand in this. If we're going to point any finger of blame - if we want to be specific as to pinpoint where this all came from - it could very well be SCIENCE and technology.

Besides, whether the poor countries starve and die is not the point of this discussion.....they still did atrocious things to the environment such as de-nuding their forests among other things!

I've read somewhere just one single forest fire alone emits more CO2 than all cars emit in a year! How many forest fires - started by natural causes - do we have in a year? All over the world?

[betsy]

Please explain why societies like China, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Japan were able to industrialize but countries in Africa were not? The only difference is I see is the culture of the societies. The only people to blame for the culture of a society are the people living in that society.

Nature 's survival of the fittest. Any specie who cannot adapt become extinct.

A people with a self-destructing culture will become extinct.

[betsy]

We're all hoping that we can come up with a better solution....but while we're still hoping, what are we supposed to do? What if that hope never materialize? In the meant time, we just continue on?

If the need for change is truly that crucial and so desperate - judging from some of the opinion(s) here - then I assume that we do not have the luxury to wait for a solution. We can do some BIG changes starting NOW. Just with one major step, we can start making the damage to the environment from getting any worse, or reversing it (if it can still be reversed).

We simply just have to change our lifestyle. Our way of life.

For starters:

let's just impose public transportation for everyone. And I mean, everyone! Private transportation allowed will only be those that don't use fuel.

Cars will be a thing of the past! Yes, we do need to impose and enforce the drastic measures if we are truly serious about wanting change. No more private vehicles.

Private planes and other recreational vehicles that uses fuel, whether large or small will no longer be allowed.

Private homes will be downsized dramatically depending the numbers of occupants. A standard size for rooms for everyone (no exception) will be enforced. Cheaper to heat or cool.

Existing large houses and mansions will have to come down....no exception. There'll be no grandfather clause on this. Everyone has to do their share.

Etcetera. You get the pic.

The 1st worlds will be the models of example to all the world. If we can do it, so can anyone else. Actually, adaptation to this new lifestyle will be easier for most third world dwellers imho, since there's not that much luxury to give up.

We enforce this by refusing to trade with any countries that do not do what we do.

With those steps alone, think of the C02 reduction! There are other ways to drastically cut back. UN will work on the target years for transition to this new lifestyle.

The question is: Are we willing to make this change? Put money where our mouth is?....

...Or are we just posturing and all talk?....

...Or the threat isn't real after all?

Edited October 3, 2010 by betsy

[betsy]

Assuming that AGW is man-made, then we need to get to the root of it all! What about man caused this?

That is what we have to seriously address.

It will be an overhaul of our lifestyle and the system. It only makes sense, doesn't it....after all it's our lifestyle and our system that caused it.

Assuming we can reverse the damage, and assuming the concern for our children's future is sincere....then there shouldn't be any halfway measures about it...We reverse it!

At the same time, teach and show the future generation how to go about it.

We can't have it both ways....continuing the way we live, then wring our hands with guilt and cry crocodile tears.

Edited October 3, 2010 by betsy

[scribblet]

The empirical data and solar theories already exist...just been drowned out by the eco-political agenda here on Earth.

Exactly, opposing viewpoints are squashed as seen here.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/the-season-of-disinvitation-continues/#more-25468

Saudi Arabia would benefit from warming as the desert is getting smaller, as would Africa, China, and India. Our northern areas would become more arable and of course our heating bills would go down, so, use less energy.

[GostHacked]

Assuming that AGW is man-made, then we need to get to the root of it all! What about man caused this?

That is what we have to seriously address.

And that's the whole point of this thread. What do we do about it?

It will be an overhaul of our lifestyle and the system. It only makes sense, doesn't it....after all it's our lifestyle and our system that caused it.

This is inevitable. The way we live has had an impact on the planet in terms of pollution (of any kind) and it's been accelerating now that other countries are getting industrialized and countries like China who recently found a peice of the pie, don't want to give it up anytime soon. So it will demand a major shift in the way we live on the whole. Society is going to drastically change if AGW proves to be true.

If the water rises, coastlines cities will be a thing of the past.

Assuming we can reverse the damage, and assuming the concern for our children's future is sincere....then there shouldn't be any halfway measures about it...We reverse it!

I think the concern for the present should be the case. The longer we wait for changes in society, the more dire the whole situation will become, because it will be harder to change the longer we wait.

At the same time, teach and show the future generation how to go about it.

Unfortunately we are too concerned with the hear and now, because I need to get that new app on my iPhone.

We can't have it both ways....continuing the way we live, then wring our hands with guilt and cry crocodile tears.

If everyone does their part. We can do this. We can all do something small that will collectively have a huge impact. We can stop wasting resources packaging/transporting unneccesary items like, bottled water. I mean for the most part, tap water is cleaner and better for you, and it's regulated not like bottled water.

I work in a warehouse and we have several trucks a week loaded with pallets of bottled water. Came from southern Ontario. If we stop using bottled water altogehter, we can save a crap load of plastic from hitting the landfill, because not all of it goes into recycling. Why recylce when you don't need to waste resources producing/transporting something that comes easily is available ouot of the tap? Plastics comes from oil. How much oil are we wasting by doing this?

This is one small area we can have an impact to stop pollution and global warming.

[Michael Hardner]

Agreed...when the continued impact of doing nothing tips the cost benefit analysis, then we will have actions based on economics, not the eco propaganda of polar bears.

It just seems that the opposite approach - no sympathy at all - is equally wrong to me. Southern climes would suffer more from warmer temperatures, caused by industrialized northern countries.

Some on here have opined that the attitude should be "sorry, but if you had a better culture you could afford an air conditioner... your fault".

Edited October 3, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[TimG]

Phasing out coal in favor of natural gas (I know I've been mentioning this a lot lately, but I think it bears repeating) is a great way to both combat peak oil and AGW at the same time. Right now, NG is plentiful and cheap. For the short to mid-term, it should be exploited!

NG can also be used in transport to combust or to use with a fuel cell. If the priority is reducing dependency on oil then NG available should be directed to transportation. Trying to use it to replace coal electricity undermines that use by creating more demand for NG.

But I don't think the same 'enviros' arguing for real solutions to AGW are the same people that protest against nuclear power. Different folks, I reckon.

It really does make a difference when all of the majory enviro lobby groups are anti-nuke. If there is that kind difference of opinion then I would need to see organizations like the WWF, Greenpeace or the Suzuki Foundation publically castigate their fellow enviros for oppositing nukes. Until that happens I will lump all enviros in the same group. Edited October 3, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Assuming that AGW is man-made, then we need to get to the root of it all! What about man caused this?

That is what we have to seriously address.

It will be an overhaul of our lifestyle and the system. It only makes sense, doesn't it....after all it's our lifestyle and our system that caused it.

Assuming we can reverse the damage, and assuming the concern for our children's future is sincere....then there shouldn't be any halfway measures about it...We reverse it!

At the same time, teach and show the future generation how to go about it.

We can't have it both ways....continuing the way we live, then wring our hands with guilt and cry crocodile tears.

Betsy, they do have an idea of what causes the warming, but the good news is we don't actually need it to continue our lifestyle. I have seen estimates of 5% of our GDP to try to mitigate the effects of this. We would take a hit, but our productivity improves continually so we would still have an economy and we would move forward.

Nuclear, for example, is shown to be viable and mostly safe. We can have our lifestyle, but we just have to adjust.

The question I have is whether it would make a difference at this point.

[TimG]

I have seen estimates of 5% of our GDP to try to mitigate the effects of this. We would take a hit, but our productivity improves continually so we would still have an economy and we would move forward.

The same studies show the cost of climate change will not be much more than 5% as well. If you want talk about the possibility extreme outcomes from AGW then I respond with the possibility extreme outcomes from CO2 regulation. The difference is we have real experience with economies destroyed by bad regulation which makes it a much more plausible risk than virtual reality computer models.

Nuclear, for example, is shown to be viable and mostly safe. We can have our lifestyle, but we just have to adjust.

But we can't use ut because of the enviros. Edited October 3, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The same studies show the cost of climate change will not be much more than 5% as well. If you want talk about the possibility extreme outcomes from AGW then I respond with the possibility extreme outcomes from CO2 regulation. The difference is we have real experience with economies destroyed by bad regulation which makes it a much more plausible risk than virtual reality computer models.

I think I read that too. Do you have a link though ?

But we can't use ut because of the enviros.

We can`t use nuclear power ?

[TimG]

I think I read that too. Do you have a link though ?

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

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.

Of course we are talking economics so you can always find different opinions (the link only talks about opinions published in the peer reviewed literature). However, there are also different opinions on the cost of mitigation.

There is also an interesting bais in the literature on the cost of mitigation. These costs are usually estimated using economic models which vary a parameter (i.e. a carbon tax) and look at the consequences. The modellers generally stop running simulations once the models say the consequences are so severe there is no point even discussing the option. What this means is the published results for high carbon prices only include results from the most optimistic models. This in turn gives us a false impression of what the costs of mitigation are likely to be.

Edited October 3, 2010 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

It just seems that the opposite approach - no sympathy at all - is equally wrong to me. Southern climes would suffer more from warmer temperatures, caused by industrialized northern countries.

I can't help with that.....guilt and remorse is a different kind of price tag.

Some on here have opined that the attitude should be "sorry, but if you had a better culture you could afford an air conditioner... your fault".

This kind of argument would lead to things like who is to blame for HIV/AIDS.

[dre]

What do you mean by lifecycle? You mean the lifespan of a powerplant?

I mean the the entire project from start to finish. Fron breaking ground, to contruction, to 30-40 years in operation, followed by the incredibly expensive decommisioning, then having to safeguard radioactive material for hundreds of years after the plant has already been closed down. Thats what investors are looking at when they consider putting their money into nuclear power... and thats why private industry wont build the plans. They want government financing and funding, and they want the public to fuel storage facilities which ammount to a permanent subsidy.

So as I said... it depends on the country. Nuclear energy makes a lot of sense in countries like France... that have no coal/oil/gas. But in coal rich countries like the US its a much tougher sell. The fact they produce low c02 emissions will help quite a lot though. Theres finally a reason to pick nuclear over coal. Before there wasnt.

[dre]

The same studies show the cost of climate change will not be much more than 5% as well. If you want talk about the possibility extreme outcomes from AGW then I respond with the possibility extreme outcomes from CO2 regulation. The difference is we have real experience with economies destroyed by bad regulation which makes it a much more plausible risk than virtual reality computer models.

But we can't use ut because of the enviros.

But we can't use ut because of the enviros.

You attribute way more power to this group than they actually have. "Enviros" are not the reason we arent building nuclear plants.

[TimG]

You attribute way more power to this group than they actually have. "Enviros" are not the reason we arent building nuclear plants.

Really? So why is McGinty spending billions on useless wind mills instead of next-gen reactors that would actually produce power?

[betsy]

If everyone does their part.

That is the problem.

If Al Gore, the greatest spokesperson for the environment couldn't inconvenience himself to be a model of example.....relying on voluntary cooperation from everyone is a hopeless exercise.

Edited October 3, 2010 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

This kind of argument would lead to things like who is to blame for HIV/AIDS.

If the people inflicting AIDS on society didn`t really have to pay for it that much, in personal or monetary terms, but others did - then the analogy would be more similar.

[bush_cheney2004]

If the people inflicting AIDS on society didn`t really have to pay for it that much, in personal or monetary terms, but others did - then the analogy would be more similar.

Here is where you are wrong...others do pay. I knew my "analogy" would strike a nerve.

[dre]

Really? So why is McGinty spending billions on useless wind mills instead of next-gen reactors that would actually produce power?

1. The nuclear industry has a black eye there because of massive cost overruns refurbishing existing plants. They never do any even close to on budget or on time. THe FACT is ontario is spending a shitload on nuclear energy.

2. People are waiting for the new ACR reactor designs to be ready for production, which are supposed to be easier and cheaper to build, and produce power for less money.

If power consumption grows at 1% then and the Ontario government refurbishes existing nuclear plants, and completes its existing alt energy projects as well that will leave a defecit of about 5000 megawatts. My GUESS is that new nuclear plants will be used to fill this void. Probably starting construction in about 4 or 5 years.

[Michael Hardner]

Here is where you are wrong...others do pay. I knew my "analogy" would strike a nerve.

If a near-worst-case scenario for AGW manifested, the countries causing the problems would pay, but not in proportion to their contribution to the problem - not in personal terms.

[bush_cheney2004]

If a near-worst-case scenario for AGW manifested, the countries causing the problems would pay, but not in proportion to their contribution to the problem - not in personal terms.

Is egalitarian suffering important in this scenario? How much cocaine or heroin is sourced from AGW countries? See where this is getting us?

Edited October 3, 2010 by bush_cheney2004