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

[TimG]

I would agree with him that it's the economics that are presenting the biggest barrier to nuclear power (historically). Do you disagree?

Cost is an issue if you are comparing to coal/hydro. If you are comparing the wind/solar then nukes are a lot cheaper and more reliable.

[waldo]

wash, rinse, repeat cycle... the roadmap offers an immediate target/goal that aims to reduce emissions over a protracted 40+ years. You simply can't fathom any approach that presumes to target emission reduction. Of course, the IEA roadmap (exec summary - as only an example), in no way positions to eliminate the use of FF over that period - obviously it can't be done, wouldn't make sense to do it... and would never be accepted. So the roadmap constructs an approach that reconciles a continued dependency on FF => leveraging investments in renewables, nuclear power and a smart electric grid, and perfecting technologies such as carbon sequestration.

you keep harping on a technology gap - "missing technologies" - but never quite manage to, with specificity, identify what's missing in relation to what timeline... but, as always, that's what advocates for delay (and inaction) reach for. You also repeat (again, and again) that only innovation can truly drive R&D... cause... targets, goals, incentives, subsidies... they're just things that must stifle ingenuity!

The IEA also assumes that increasing energy efficiency will decrease demand for energy. This is a delusion that is not supported by past experience where increasing efficiency always leads to higher energy consumption.

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/09/why_energy_efficiency_does_not.shtml

which is why... of course... the IEA roadmap also includes such things as carbon pricing and conservation standards. You know, those textbook responses to your raised concerns over the well known, well understood and well recognized concept that energy use increases associate with increased efficiency. Go figure - imagine... IEA energy economists might actually understand basic micro/macro rebound effect implications of use versus efficiency. Of course... it's really going to put a damper on all those glamoring for 2.5 meter plasma televisions to fit into their over-sized McMansions - hey? Imagine having to deal with material over consumption - the consumer right of passage - what a concept!

[Slim]

Cost is an issue if you are comparing to coal/hydro

I'm not comparing to coal/hydro. I'm considering it on it's own merits. Which that it may not be a feasible part of the solution to AGW (at this time, with the current technology).

Which isn't to say that next-gen nuclear won't be useful, especially some of the 'mini-nuke' designs. Kinda interesting stuff, actually. But that's a whole 'nother bag of worms.

If you are comparing the wind/solar then nukes are a lot cheaper and more reliable.

Not according to anything I've read. Feel free to link some studies that state wind/solar are far more expensive. The less reliable may have some merit, but it's mitigated by intelligent use of wind/solar with other forms of power generation.

You seem to have a real grudge against wind and solar. What gives?

[GostHacked]

He's done it alright. At $300,000 per lecture....hah! Pays better than the presidency, not to mention the power that goes with it. Flying first class is not good enough....it has to be his private jet!

That some interesting stuff Betsy. If you are going to support a cause and tell everyone about it, you should at least have done your part before lecturing others about the hockey stick. He should be looking at spending the money to convert his main home to the green technology.

[betsy]

That some interesting stuff Betsy. If you are going to support a cause and tell everyone about it, you should at least have done your part before lecturing others about the hockey stick. He should be looking at spending the money to convert his main home to the green technology.

Yes. Especially if he's going to make a career out of it (what with his endorsement power as a former VP of the US and his experience with dirt-digging media and anti-GW)...I would've prepared everything before I even started just so there's nothing to throw at me. I mean, why give your opponents ammunition?

Imagine, GW Bush even beat him to it, as far as going green is concerned.

Edited October 4, 2010 by betsy

[wyly]

He's done it alright. At $300,000 per lecture....hah! Pays better than the presidency, not to mention the power that goes with it. Flying first class is not good enough....it has to be his private jet!

Environment (that includes GW) is an I N D U S T R Y!

GW is a cash cow for Gore!

which is all BS because you never looked into did you Betty...

his lecture fee is a standard 100,000K for ex VPs, the same as Sarah Palin and she has done what exactly???

his homes energy still more BS-The think tank said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.

But electric company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never provided them with any information.

Parker said Gore has been purchasing the "green power" for $432 a month since November. The Gore home is also under renovation to add solar panels, Kreider said.[/u]

and no he does not own a private jet, most of his flights are commercial airlines and private when necessary

[betsy]

which is all BS because you never looked into did you Betty...

his lecture fee is a standard 100,000K for ex VPs, the same as Sarah Palin and she has done what exactly???

his homes energy still more BS-The think tank said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.

But electric company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never provided them with any information.

Parker said Gore has been purchasing the "green power" for $432 a month since November. The Gore home is also under renovation to add solar panels, Kreider said.[/u]

Look at the year my article was published. You mean his house is still under renovation after all these years? Still? WHAT'S TAKING HIM SO LONG????

and no he does not own a private jet, most of his flights are commercial airlines and private when necessary

Probably now....AFTER he's been criticized! That's the whole point, isn't it? It's a reflection on how seriously he believes his dire prediction, and saying we only have about 10 years to do something about it! Just see the comparison with Bush several years back. What's Gore's excuse? Talk about the mother of all procastinators.

Well Mr. Gore, time is ticking!

Edited October 4, 2010 by betsy

[waldo]

Well Mr. Gore, time is ticking!

is there a point... any point... that your targeting a somewhat dated communicator might have to this thread? At one time in the past, Gore held a somewhat prolific position in helping to add a profile and a communications approach... he has no real substantive hold/influence today... other than being an easy go-to target for the easily swayed and those lacking real understandings.

[betsy]

is there a point... any point... that your targeting a somewhat dated communicator might have to this thread?

He was the poster face of GW. And yes the relation to the thread is still there....what do we do about it?

Let me ask you, how can you expect everyone, especially those who never bought into this GW prediction in the first place, to do their serious conscientious share in reversing the damage or stopping any further damage?

At one time in the past, Gore held a somewhat prolific position in helping to add a profile and a communications approach... he has no real substantive hold/influence today... other than being an easy go-to target for the easily swayed and those lacking real understandings.

Why do you think he no longer has any real influence today?

Anyway, if you guys really want to see people getting in on the bandwagon.....somebody ought to tell Mr Gore to maintain a very low profile. True, he's become a target....a caricature....there's that good reason why he should voluntarily get back into the background....for the sake of the planet.

Edited October 4, 2010 by betsy

[dre]

Cost is an issue if you are comparing to coal/hydro. If you are comparing the wind/solar then nukes are a lot cheaper and more reliable.

That whole outlook shows ignorance on your part of how technologies emerge. You could have said the exact same about the first nuclear plants that were built. "The energy will be much more expensive than established alternatives so lets not both". But the reality is those first nuclear projects, while not efficient from a cost/benefit standpoint were an important part of the nuclear energy development cycle.

You could say the same thing about literally every energy technology to emerge since the industrial age. Wind energy is in its infancy compared to Nuclear energy in terms of capital investment. Its fallacious to compare costs in the way you are attempting to.

Having said that... I would consider building new nuclear plants to fill some of that 5000mw defecit I mentioned earlier. The problem again is that the government is probably scared to do so because of the gigantic cost overruns at Pickering 1 and other plants. We are going to need to invest a mountain of capital into refurbishing existing plants never mind building new ones. The refurbished plants will produce more power as well, which will help cut into that 5000mw defecit.

[waldo]

Let me ask you, how can you expect everyone, especially those who never bought into this GW prediction in the first place, to do their serious conscientious share in reversing the damage or stopping any further damage?

obviously, to a point, the weight of public opinion holds influence over politicians with policy implications. No amount of appropriate education and communication will win-over purposeful denying individual miscreants...

Why do you think he no longer has any real influence today?

Anyway, if you guys really want to see people getting in on the bandwagon.....somebody ought to tell Mr Gore to maintain a very low profile. True, he's become a target....a caricature....there's that good reason why he should voluntarily get back into the background....for the sake of the planet.

'for the sake of the planet'? That's quite the leveling charge that you hold Gore to? Are you speaking to his current business pursuits or his past movie participation? I believe it does hold relevance to this thread in asking you to speak to how a prolific past communicator... with a mind to communication approaches/strategy moving forward... could/might forsake the planet?

[dre]

He was the poster face of GW. And yes the relation to the thread is still there....what do we do about it?

Let me ask you, how can you expect everyone, especially those who never bought into this GW prediction in the first place, to do their serious conscientious share in reversing the damage or stopping any further damage?

Why do you think he no longer has any real influence today?

Anyway, if you guys really want to see people getting in on the bandwagon.....somebody ought to tell Mr Gore to maintain a very low profile. True, he's become a target....a caricature....there's that good reason why he should voluntarily get back into the background....for the sake of the planet.

Let me ask you, how can you expect everyone, especially those who never bought into this GW prediction in the first place, to do their serious conscientious share in reversing the damage or stopping any further damage?

I DONT expect them to do their share.

I expect them to dig in their heals, and do everything they possibly can to stop any measures that might help, and any measures that threaten the status quo.

I expect them to tout economic "sky is falling" doomsday scenarios, and claim that developing new energy alternatives will destroy the economy and result in us all living like people in the Congo, or Zahir. I expect them to herald studies funded by the FF industry that conveniently conclude theres no reason to do anything but increase the use of oil and coal.

Far from expecting these people to "do their share" I fully expect that we will have to drag them KICKING AND SCREAMING into the future.

[wyly]

Look at the year my article was published. You mean his house is still under renovation after all these years? Still? WHAT'S TAKING HIM SO LONG????

really betty are you that dishonest? that you deliberately slander someone for debating points?

from your link which you dishonestly left out...

Kreider, June 16: The Gores' home is certified by the US Green Building Council as a Gold LEED certified home for retrofitted homes. As part of the LEED certification process, they upgraded their windows, lighting, appliances and insulation, among other items in and around the home [...] The residence is powered with a geothermal system as well as 33-solar panels. The Gores also participate in the "Green PowerSwitch" program offered by their utility [company].

Probably now....AFTER he's been criticized! That's the whole point, isn't it? It's a reflection on how seriously he believes his dire prediction, and saying we only have about 10 years to do something about it! Just see the comparison with Bush several years back. What's Gore's excuse? Talk about the mother of all procastinators.

Well Mr. Gore, time is ticking!

no it's a reflection of your bias making personal attacks without researching properly as well as being dishonest...

what's really silly is the only people who give a shit about Gore or refer to him on any subject are the deniers...

Edited October 4, 2010 by wyly

[ToadBrother]

He was the poster face of GW. And yes the relation to the thread is still there....what do we do about it?

Which is completely irrelevant to the science. I see no point in even talking about Gore.

[Michael Hardner]

Which is completely irrelevant to the science. I see no point in even talking about Gore.

Like any blog, or commentator - their value is only to provide play-by-play summary of the actual scientific debate. It's a tricky task, because the temptation is to restate the science in an easy-to-understand format (good) and to strip out complexity (not always good) so as to make it baby simple (very bad).

The talk-show set's take on Climategate and Gore's movie are examples of people trying to restate things so as to reach out to a broad audience, and both failed because they made errors, IMO.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[dre]

Like any blog, or commentator - their value is only to provide play-by-play summary of the actual scientific debate. It's a tricky task, because the temptation is to restate the science in an easy-to-understand format (good) and to strip out complexity (not always good) so as to make it baby simple (very bad).

The talk-show set's take on Climategate and Gore's movie are examples of people trying to restate things so as to reach out to a broad audience, and both failed because they made errors, IMO.

I dont really think Gores movie failed. He presented a laymens perspective that increased general understanding amongst most of the public even though there was some mistakes in it. It played a constructive part in bringing attention to the issue. Really though I dont think its one of the big factors in this whole thing.

Edited October 4, 2010 by dre

[wyly]

Which is completely irrelevant to the science. I see no point in even talking about Gore.

absolutely correct, the only people who repeatedly bring up Gore are the deniers...Gore isn't a scientist he only made a documentary that brought the AGW issue to public attention...

[wyly]

I dont really think Gores movie failed. He presented a laymens perspective that increased general understanding amongst most of the public even though there was some mistakes in it. It played a constructive part in bringing attention to the issue. Really though I dont think its one of the big factors in this whole thing.

a layman's perspective and still many didn't understand it...

[Michael Hardner]

I dont really think Gores movie failed. He presented a laymens perspective that increased general understanding amongst most of the public even though there was some mistakes in it. It played a constructive part in bringing attention to the issue. Really though I dont think its one of the big factors in this whole thing.

I think that this topic is so divisive that you need to be 100% accurate. That goes for skeptics and environmental types both.

[Michael Hardner]

a layman's perspective and still many didn't understand it...

Who is going to be convinced by a Democrat urging people to fix the environment ? Not Republicans. We have done a bad job of promoting leading minds and intellectuals in our society. The closest we have is politicians, journalists, actors and musicians. These are proxies for intellectuals, really.

There's nobody neutral enough to engender trust and really lead us.

[TimG]

absolutely correct, the only people who repeatedly bring up Gore are the deniers...Gore isn't a scientist he only made a documentary that brought the AGW issue to public attention.

This thread is about "what do we do about it". It is not about the science. It is about policy and politics. The opinions of Gore and any other advocate for climate policy is most definitely relevant.

The biggest problem with this debate are people who think that the science dictates what policy to adopt. It tells us no such thing. It identifies a particular problem that we should discuss. How we act on that information is up to us. More importantly scientists have no special expertise that gives them authority tell us what to do. They can express their opinion but it carries no more weight that the opinion of any other lobbiest.

Edited October 4, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

Who is going to be convinced by a Democrat urging people to fix the environment ? Not Republicans. We have done a bad job of promoting leading minds and intellectuals in our society. The closest we have is politicians, journalists, actors and musicians. These are proxies for intellectuals, really.

There's nobody neutral enough to engender trust and really lead us.

true enough, but look at the situation here in Canada we have the official Conservative party line demonizing Ignatieff as an "intellectual" and "elitist" since when is being an intellectual a bad thing? is it preferable to elect high school dropouts to be an MP?...then the same party muzzles scientists where the info should be coming from, so who does that leave to keep us informed and advise us? the Conservative party?...few people paid any attention to AGW issue when it was presented by scientists not until a concerned political figure(Gore)made a documentary did it gain public attention... if it weren't for that documentary I doubt we'd be discussing this topic now...

AGW should be purely a scientific issue but too many people can't separate partisan politics from science...

[dre]

This thread is about "what do we do about it". It is not about the science. It is about policy and politics. The opinions of Gore and any other advocate for climate policy is most definitely relevant.

The biggest problem with this debate are people who think that the science dictates what policy to adopt. It tells us no such thing. It identifies a particular problem that we should discuss. How we act on that information is up to us. More importantly scientists have no special expertise that gives them authority tell us what to do. They can express their opinion but it carries no more weight that the opinion of any other lobbiest.

Science and technology has a MASSIVE impact on public policy. Especially here in the west. Its not a matter of scientists having the authority to "tell people what to do". Its a matter of the science/tech community being by far the best resource available to politicians who formulating this kind of policy.

[dre]

I think that this topic is so divisive that you need to be 100% accurate. That goes for skeptics and environmental types both.

Well great. You just set the bar so high that no human being can ever try to educate others about the subject again.

[dre]

Who is going to be convinced by a Democrat urging people to fix the environment ? Not Republicans. We have done a bad job of promoting leading minds and intellectuals in our society. The closest we have is politicians, journalists, actors and musicians. These are proxies for intellectuals, really.

There's nobody neutral enough to engender trust and really lead us.

Thats ok. Youre never going to get everybody on board. You just need to get enough so that progress is made. We can drag the rest kicking and screaming just like we had to at every OTHER epoch in human history.

And global warming just has to do its part. It doesnt have to carry all the water by itself. Maybe AGW can be the vehicle used to convince liberals, and things like "Energy Indepence", and "security" and "economic" concerns can be used to convince conservatives.

We still wont get EVERYONE on board though but we dont need to.