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

[wyly]

If humanity had a real long-term plan we'd be looking at how to use our resources to uplift our planet bound species into a space faring one.

Once we get to that stage we can give this poor old place a break and some time to heal.

long term that's a ok but but there may be no long term if we can't cope with the short term...

[eyeball]

I suspect you'll be pushing up daisys before you get a chance to see beachfront, do it for your grandkids...

I am, I just found out my first one is on the way actually.

[Wild Bill]

I am, I just found out my first one is on the way actually.

Congratulations!

[wyly]

I am, I just found out my first one is on the way actually.

congrats!...I look forward to my first...someday

[ToadBrother]

If this is really what you are concerned about then you should be in favour of cheap electricity because that will make EVs much more viable. Unfortunately, cheap electricity requires we burn coal in the short term while nuclear generation is built in the long term. Neither of which is politically correct because of this obession with CO2 and nuclear waste.

A sane society would not be obsessed with solving all problems at once and focus efforts on the more immediate problems such as possibility that oil demand with out strip supply.

Except that burning coal has clearly demonstrated and severe environmental effects that make it very unsuitable. Coal is nasty stuff, and even with modern scrubbing techniques you can hardly call it clean.

Every barrel of oil that goes into gasoline, diesel, furnace oil, etc. is a barrel that can't go to the most critical functions of our society; materials fabrication and agriculture (the latter being, essentially, the most important industry of them all). Burning oil for motive purposes is moronic no matter which way you look at it.

[wyly]

Except that burning coal has clearly demonstrated and severe environmental effects that make it very unsuitable. Coal is nasty stuff, and even with modern scrubbing techniques you can hardly call it clean.

Every barrel of oil that goes into gasoline, diesel, furnace oil, etc. is a barrel that can't go to the most critical functions of our society; materials fabrication and agriculture (the latter being, essentially, the most important industry of them all). Burning oil for motive purposes is moronic no matter which way you look at it.

yes we should be demanding a switch to clean energy purely based on the stupidity of burning a non-renewable resource, AGW doesn't even have to be considered...

[Michael Hardner]

It is a meaningless question that depends on the specifics of the investment, who pays and what the likelyhood of success or failure.

Well, you were the one who addressed large sums of money. I'm trying to nail you down on what is large and what isn't.

Where is the evidence that spending the money would actually do something about the problem? Everything I have read tells me that we could spend trillions on mitigation and it will change nothing. If you want to convince me to spend something on mitigation you have to identify specific actions with quantifiable costs and a high chance of success. I am have no interest in spending money to assuage misplaced feelings of guilt.

Ok.

We are sayihng we could save more lives later if we invested the money we have now in things other than mitigation.

But not huge amounts... so... it sounds like we'll spend a little now to feel less guilty about the mass death later.

[ToadBrother]

But not huge amounts... so... it sounds like we'll spend a little now to feel less guilty about the mass death later.

I'm more interested in the vast amounts of money we'll have to spend patrolling our borders when waves of migrants come washing ashore. If a few boatloads of Tamils has everyone screaming about keeping refugees out, just imagine how expensive things will get when we have to have a thousand battleship navy patrolling our coastlines, and how everyone will feel about it as we torpedo migrant boats.

People don't just sit on their asses and die. When it becomes intolerable, they'll walk, float, do damned near everything to save themselves.

[betsy]

I haven't envisioned anything, it's the worst case scenario...in such a situation the term allies becomes a non factor, there will be no allies it will be everyone for themselves, the social fabric of society will fall apart...

deleted. Misunderstood statement.

Edited October 1, 2010 by betsy

[TimG]

Well, you were the one who addressed large sums of money. I'm trying to nail you down on what is large and what isn't.

Canada spending a few 100 million per year on something that has no obvious ROI is not a huge some of money. Canada spending few billion per year is.

[betsy]

I'm more interested in the vast amounts of money we'll have to spend patrolling our borders when waves of migrants come washing ashore. If a few boatloads of Tamils has everyone screaming about keeping refugees out, just imagine how expensive things will get when we have to have a thousand battleship navy patrolling our coastlines, and how everyone will feel about it as we torpedo migrant boats.

If the situation comes to that point then, civilians will do their share of patrolling the shorelines and borders. After all we're now talking pure survival.

People don't just sit on their asses and die. When it becomes intolerable, they'll walk, float, do damned near everything to save themselves.

True. So no one will sit idly by and just watch swarms of migrants coming to shore. They'll protect what they have!

Edited October 1, 2010 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

True. So no one will sit idly by and just watch swarms of migrants coming to shore. They'll protect what they have!

Because that worked so well for the people who found themselves in the way of the Mongols and Turks.

[wyly]

I'm more interested in the vast amounts of money we'll have to spend patrolling our borders when waves of migrants come washing ashore. If a few boatloads of Tamils has everyone screaming about keeping refugees out, just imagine how expensive things will get when we have to have a thousand battleship navy patrolling our coastlines, and how everyone will feel about it as we torpedo migrant boats.

People don't just sit on their asses and die. When it becomes intolerable, they'll walk, float, do damned near everything to save themselves.

if it gets to that conditions will have deteriorated to point I doubt we will be in any shape to anything about it...don't expect only the hot areas of the planet to be effected and not us, change will be felt in the northern latitudes first...

[wyly]

If the situation comes to that point then, civilians will do their share of patrolling the shorelines and borders. After all we're now talking pure survival.

yes if it comes to that...

True. So no one will sit idly by and just watch swarms of migrants coming to shore. They'll protect what they have!

but those migrants likely won't be coming to shore, they'll be coming from below the 49th parallel...

[TimG]

People don't just sit on their asses and die. When it becomes intolerable, they'll walk, float, do damned near everything to save themselves.

Sure. And if we want to prevent that then the best plan is economic growth because richer people are better able to take care of themselves. Any plan that limits access to energy and economic growth will make the problem worse in the end.

[bush_cheney2004]

...but those migrants likely won't be coming to shore, they'll be coming from below the 49th parallel...

Don't worry....the Americans already absorb a lot more Canadian "migrants" in the opposite direction.

[ToadBrother]

Sure. And if we want to prevent that then the best plan is economic growth because richer people are better able to take care of themselves. Any plan that limits access to energy and economic growth will make the problem worse in the end.

How will economic growth help you when your country's most fertile areas end up under water? Or if the arable land is rendered much less productive because of climate shifts?

Edited October 1, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Don't worry....the Americans already absorb a lot more Canadian "migrants" in the opposite direction.

If AGW is happening, it's more than likely that Canada will have to worry about American migrants. Might have to build a big wall, I guess, and have crazy-ass cowboys patrolling the borders, too.

[wyly]

If AGW is happening, it's more than likely that Canada will have to worry about American migrants. Might have to build a big wall, I guess, and have crazy-ass cowboys patrolling the borders, too.

it would be a chain reaction starting in central america everyone moving north...about the only thing that I can think of that would prevent it is population reduction in those regions...even Canada would not be able to support a huge population increase if our agricultural areas lose productivity...our northern regions aren't very fertile for agriculture... Edited October 1, 2010 by wyly

[TimG]

How will economic growth help you when your country's most fertile areas end up under water? Or if the arable land is rendered much less productive because of climate shifts?

Most of Hollands arable lands are underwater. They seem to managed. Also, rich societies can buy food from elsewhere. This process will be made easier because some arable lands will become more productive thanks to climate change. All we need is a reliable global trade network and the people will stay at home.

[ToadBrother]

Most of Hollands arable lands are underwater. They seem to managed.

With a complex dike system built over centuries. Also expensive to maintain and a major sea level rise might drown even the Dutch out.

Also, rich societies can buy food from elsewhere. This process will be made easier because some arable lands will become more productive thanks to climate change. All we need is a reliable global trade network and the people will stay at home.

Yes, the patterns of arable land will move. That's my point. History indicates that as climate patterns shift, so do populations. People living in these regions, which also tend to be poor, will be about as capable of accessing global trade as those living in marginalized regions in Africa which have been taken over by the Sahara.

[dre]

It is a meaningless question that depends on the specifics of the investment, who pays and what the likelyhood of success or failure.

Where is the evidence that spending the money would actually do something about the problem? Everything I have read tells me that we could spend trillions on mitigation and it will change nothing. If you want to convince me to spend something on mitigation you have to identify specific actions with quantifiable costs and a high chance of success. I am have no interest in spending money to assuage misplaced feelings of guilt.

We are sayihng we could save more lives later if we invested the money we have now in things other than mitigation.

Where is the evidence that spending the money would actually do something about the problem? Everything I have read tells me that we could spend trillions on mitigation and it will change nothing

Like what? The vast majority of plans involve spending on energy research or encouraging spending on energy research which is exactly what you recommended. In fact... the main result of AGW has been a massive increase in energy research spending on everything from coal, to nuclear, to wind and solar.

Unfortunately youve bought into a bunch of global conspiracy theory and histeria. You believe theres a massive conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to do fraudulent research that proves man is responsible... a common meme in this debate. And now youre parroting the often spouted "sky is falling" scenario where its suggested that countries will destroy their own economies and plunge themselves into poverty trying to curb CO2 emissions.

The fact is the REAL "sky is falling" scenario happens if we do nothing. We should have acted 30 years ago, and now were up against the wall. Energy volatility is already an impediment to economic growth, and played a major part in the recent economic catastrophe.

[TimG]

Yes, the patterns of arable land will move. That's my point. History indicates that as climate patterns shift, so do populations. People living in these regions, which also tend to be poor, will be about as capable of accessing global trade as those living in marginalized regions in Africa which have been taken over by the Sahara.

First, climate change will bring more water to the Sahara. There is already evidence that the Sahara is shrinking. Second, I know the people living in these countries are marginalized which I why I said economic developed should be the first priority. In fact, all of the predictions of disaster presume that these countries develop and in 100 years the average African will be as rich as a Canadian today. They should be able to import food as they need.

Lastly, fossil fuels have changed the human experience. It used to be cheaper to move people to where the food is. No longer. It is now cheaper to move the food to where the people are so your appeal to human history does not really mean much.

Edited October 1, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

With a complex dike system built over centuries. Also expensive to maintain and a major sea level rise might drown even the Dutch out.

they've already accepted the war with the sea will be lost hence their drive to see the EU succeed they need to go somewhere when sea levels finally overcome the dykes...

Yes, the patterns of arable land will move. That's my point. History indicates that as climate patterns shift, so do populations. People living in these regions, which also tend to be poor, will be about as capable of accessing global trade as those living in marginalized regions in Africa which have been taken over by the Sahara.

some shift in arable land will occur but far more will be lost than gained, other than in the far north if there is arable land to be found it's already being used for something now...people make the common mistake looking at a map and think that's all arable, far from it...look at a map of Canada that shows our actual arable land and it amounts to very little relative to the entire country, and most of it is already in use or is being lost to urbanization(southern ontario).... Edited October 1, 2010 by wyly

[TimG]

You believe theres a massive conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to do fraudulent research that proves man is responsible

No I don't. I think scientists are human and greatly influenced by their peer group and funding bodies. I think the political dimensions of this field have encourage scientists to seek research areas which support the consensus while avoiding those that might undermine it. It is better called 'group think' and is a real phenomena that has occurred in the past. You use the 'conspiracy' label because you are looking for excuses to avoid looking at flaws in out scientific institutions.

Energy volatility is already an impediment to economic growth, and played a major part in the recent economic catastrophe.

I said this before: you worries about energy volatility have not credibility as long as you support policies that outlaw the use of coal and increase the price of electricity. If energy supply is a concern we should focus on oil. CO2 is a distraction that is actually hurting our ability to deal with oil price shocks.