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

[TimG]

You simply can't fathom any approach that presumes to target emission reduction.

Because every approach I have seen requires technologies that do not exist or if they exist are too expensive to consider. For example, the IEA roadmap requires CCS to meet its goals yet CSS is likely a technology that will never be viable at the scale required.

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

Many have come to believe that new, highly-efficient, solid-state lighting -- generally LED technology, like that used on the displays of stereo consoles, microwaves, and digital clocks -- will result in reduced energy consumption. We find the opposite is true, concluding "that there is a massive potential for growth in the consumption of light if new lighting technologies are developed with higher luminous efficacies and lower cost of light."

The good news is that increased light consumption has historically been tied to higher productivity and quality of life. The bad news is that energy efficient lighting should not be relied upon as means of reducing aggregate energy consumption, and therefore emissions.

That said, I am all for investing in technologies and deploying them when (and only when) they are commerically viable. The trouble is we cannot know when this will happen which drives people like you nuts. You would rather make up fictious targets and back pedal later when it becomes obvious that the targets cannot be met.

The trouble with targets is they encourage money to be wasted because politicians feel compelled to save face. This is money that would be much spent elsewhere. The best way to avoid wasting this money is to never put targets in place.

Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Hey guys this is not a debate about if AGW is real.

This is a thread that assumes it IS real and what do we do about it?

[TimG]

Hey guys this is not a debate about if AGW is real.

Who are you talking to?

[Michael Hardner]

Who are you talking to?

To everyone - see the title of this thread.

Debating if AGW is real is done here http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8001&pid=585148&st=585entry585148 among other pleases.

This thread is to discuss approaches.

[GostHacked]

Who are you talking to?

I am talking to those who post and make the thread drift to an entirely different topic than what the OP wanted to talk about. It's really causing issues here on MLW. Stick to the topic, or stay out.

I am of the mind that AWG is not a problem, but that's not the point. This is a hypothetical situation we are talking about.

Edited October 2, 2010 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

I am talking to those who post and make the thread drift to an entirely different topic than what the OP wanted to talk about. It's really causing issues here on MLW. Stick to the topic, or stay out.

To quote my OP:

"Again, this thread is not to debate IF it's happening. If you're on this thread, then we're debating what to do about it."

My objective is to discuss approaches, since we're often too busy on here debating WHETHER there is AGW, even as opposition to that idea dwindles.

[bush_cheney2004]

....My objective is to discuss approaches, since we're often too busy on here debating WHETHER there is AGW, even as opposition to that idea dwindles.

Oh, in that case, do absolutely nothing.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh, in that case, do absolutely nothing.

That is indeed an approach. We discussed it early on in the thread, I think. If AGW starts to cause some of the worst-case scenarios - then we're looking at a 1st-world-caused phenomenon (maybe 2nd world too) impacting the 3rd world. Not that that hasn't happened before (see: history of economics, world military history, history of the world) but could the 1st world BEAR the GUILT ? (Yes, they could.)

[TimG]

This thread is to discuss approaches.

I discussions about the expected effects of climate chnage on the economy are on topic since they affect what approaches we might take. The data I linked to suggests that "do something" will cause more harm to people than "doing nothing". The data comes right out the IPCC reports and the Stern report. You don't have any comment?

[Michael Hardner]

I discussions about the expected effects of climate chnage on the economy are on topic since they affect what approaches we might take. The data I linked to suggests that "do something" will cause more harm to people than "doing nothing". The data comes right out the IPCC reports and the Stern report. You don't have any comment?

Yes, that seems right. On second look, I don't know who GhostHacked was addressing there.

[TimG]

If AGW starts to cause some of the worst-case scenarios

Why should we care about the worst case scenarios? If the worst case scenarios are going to a happen then there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it. The case for action rests on the assumption that the worst case scenarios are not likely to occur and there is time to act.

then we're looking at a 1st-world-caused phenomenon (maybe 2nd world too) impacting the 3rd world.

Sorry. The only one to blame for the harms caused by climate change in the 3rd world are the 3rd world countries. They had the opportunity to industrialize like everyone else. They choose not to take it. That is hardly the fault of the people who did. Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Why should we care about the worst case scenarios? If the worst case scenarios are going to a happen then there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it. The case for action rests on the assumption that the worst case scenarios are not likely to occur and there is time to act.

This is a good point - I guess "second worse case scenarios" is a better term.

Sorry. The only one to blame for the harms caused by climate change in the 3rd world are the 3rd world countries. They had the opportunity to industrialize like everyone else. They choose not to take it. That is hardly the fault of the people who did.

They chose to starve and be poor ? That wraps it up nicely.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Not that that hasn't happened before (see: history of economics, world military history, history of the world) but could the 1st world BEAR the GUILT ? (Yes, they could.)

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?

[TimG]

They chose to starve and be poor ? That wraps it up nicely.

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.

Frankly, I am getting tired of the "whiteman's burden" crap that keeps getting spewed by people on the left side if the political spectrum. I have no issue helping out people who are in need out of a sense of human charity but I will be damned if I will do it if someone is going to blame me for their failures.

Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Please explain why societies like China, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Japan were able to industrialize but countries in Africa were not?

It's pretty complicated, isn't it ? If this was 1970 you wouldn't be including China in that, and Korea would just be getting started.

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.

There are complicated factors - as evidenced by the rise and fall of peoples over history. You're blaming the people, as you say, and not other factors. That's simplistic in my view.

[wyly]

This is a good point - I guess "second worse case scenarios" is a better term.

worst case scenario if nothing is done to halt excessive CO2 emissions , so it's still accurate

2nd worse case-perhaps controlling CO2 emissions to an acceptable level and a 2c rise in temp by end of the century

best case getting control of CO2 emissions and developing technology to reverse/limit the damage...despite skeptics belief we can't control the climate researchers looking into it confidently believe we can, man created the problem, man can solve it....

Edited October 2, 2010 by wyly

[TimG]

There are complicated factors - as evidenced by the rise and fall of peoples over history. You're blaming the people, as you say, and not other factors. That's simplistic in my view.

And your blanket claim that it is all the fault of the 1st world in not simplistic? Give me a break.

As for China, they would have been where Japan is today if they had not wasted 30 years on a bankrupt economic ideology. Even given that screw up they have advanced because they have a culture that supports an advanced society. This is not true of all societies and all cultures.

That said, cultures can change so no one is doomed to a life poverty. All I am saying is change must start within.

Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

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?

The "Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die" plan. I guess if you don't give a damn about your descendants, why not?

[ToadBrother]

worst case scenario if nothing is done to halt excessive CO2 emissions , so it's still accurate

2nd worse case-perhaps controlling CO2 emissions to an acceptable level and a 2c rise in temp by end of the century

best case getting control of CO2 emissions and developing technology to reverse/limit the damage...despite skeptics belief we can't control the climate researchers looking into it confidently believe we can, man created the problem, man can solve it....

Even if we can't, eventually we're going to run out those CO2 producing energy sources. Now, there's lots of coal, I'm still dubious we can use it as cleanly as the industry claims, but if we can that will probably buy us a good deal of time, but that won't be infinite either; a century or two at the outside. Sooner or later, regardless of AGW, rising sea levels, severe shifts in agricultural zones and productivity blah blah blah, our global civilization is based on fossil fuels, which don't renew at anywhere near the pace necessary.

But coal, methane and similar deposits only solve the energy half of the equation. As I've pointed out, oil in particular has a much wider array of uses far and beyond energy, and I contend it is here where the real disaster lies. Lose cheap oil, you lose cheap large-scale agriculture, you lose a good chunk of our fabricated materials used in everything from spacecraft to running shoes, you lose a wide array of industrial chemicals and processes, pharmaceuticals, etc and so on.

The point being, to my mind, that the AGW is almost a distraction. It allows the oil companies and their supporters to keep their arguments on a scientific debate, when what people should be seeing is the real wall we're hurtling towards that will render debates about the rest of it irrelevant. People fixate on fuel prices when oil goes up in price, but try really hard and imagine what will happen when oil hits $500 a barrel. It's going to happen. Not tomorrow, not next year, but somewhere around the middle of this century, unless we magically find a whole new source of long-chain hydrocarbons, there will be a profound change, and wishful thinking like "we'll find new technologies" are going to seem like betting that rolling the dice ten times will produce nothing but sixes.

[TimG]

The point being, to my mind, that the AGW is almost a distraction.

We agree on this.

People fixate on fuel prices when oil goes up in price, but try really hard and imagine what will happen when oil hits $500 a barrel.

Which is why we should be "electrifying" our transportation sector as fast as possible. This means using coal and natural gas in the short term - nuclear in the long term. AGW and the obsession with CO2 is the biggest barrier to addressing the problem that you see as most critical. Why are complaining about oil companies when the environmentalists are a bigger problem? Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

Even if we can't, eventually we're going to run out those CO2 producing energy sources. Now, there's lots of coal, I'm still dubious we can use it as cleanly as the industry claims, but if we can that will probably buy us a good deal of time, but that won't be infinite either; a century or two at the outside. Sooner or later, regardless of AGW, rising sea levels, severe shifts in agricultural zones and productivity blah blah blah, our global civilization is based on fossil fuels, which don't renew at anywhere near the pace necessary.

But coal, methane and similar deposits only solve the energy half of the equation. As I've pointed out, oil in particular has a much wider array of uses far and beyond energy, and I contend it is here where the real disaster lies. Lose cheap oil, you lose cheap large-scale agriculture, you lose a good chunk of our fabricated materials used in everything from spacecraft to running shoes, you lose a wide array of industrial chemicals and processes, pharmaceuticals, etc and so on.

The point being, to my mind, that the AGW is almost a distraction. It allows the oil companies and their supporters to keep their arguments on a scientific debate, when what people should be seeing is the real wall we're hurtling towards that will render debates about the rest of it irrelevant. People fixate on fuel prices when oil goes up in price, but try really hard and imagine what will happen when oil hits $500 a barrel. It's going to happen. Not tomorrow, not next year, but somewhere around the middle of this century, unless we magically find a whole new source of long-chain hydrocarbons, there will be a profound change, and wishful thinking like "we'll find new technologies" are going to seem like betting that rolling the dice ten times will produce nothing but sixes.

ya all the details get lost in the noise of AGW, your absolutely correct but none of the details will matter if temps climb past 2c and onto 5c or 10c...10c and we're looking at if not total extinction the end of civilization as we know it...so the practical benefits of oil become irrelevant if we're not around to use it...

it's all a problem that stems from people living for the moment and not giving a fig for their future or more importantly the future of their grandkids and the entire human race...

[TimG]

if not total extinction the end of civilization as we know it

Complete BS. There is no remotely plausible scenario where humans disappear and/or civilization collapses. We may have to make large adjustments but humans are masters at adaption and will survive. Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

And your blanket claim that it is all the fault of the 1st world in not simplistic? Give me a break.

I didn't say that.

As for China, they would have been where Japan is today if they had not wasted 30 years on a bankrupt economic ideology. Even given that screw up they have advanced because they have a culture that supports an advanced society. This is not true of all societies and all cultures.

But their culture left them prone to bankrupt ideologies ? And then their culture got better ?

That said, cultures can change so no one is doomed to a life poverty. All I am saying is change must start within.

Ok. So cultures can change. What makes them change ? Are there other factors that we should be looking at, such as wealth, geopolitical factors, historical factors ? I think we know the answer.

[wyly]

Complete BS. There is no remotely plausible scenario where humans disappear and/or civilization collapses. We may have to make large adjustments but humans are masters at adaption and will survive.

I guess we'll see how well humans adapt when the entire ecosystem/food supply collapses, wildlife has very little technology at it's disposal...it's very simple concept, the seas die, we die...it's complete naivety to believe we can isolate ourselves from our complete dependency to the environment...

your view of the situation is a blinkered one, you're unable to see the bigger picture...

[ToadBrother]

Complete BS. There is no remotely plausible scenario where humans disappear and/or civilization collapses. We may have to make large adjustments but humans are masters at adaption and will survive.

Lose our agricultural production capacities and cheap transportation, my friend, and it will be a lot uglier than you think. There are enough examples of agricultural collapse leading to societal and civilization collapse to suggest that everything about our energy strategies, from the insanity of corn ethanol to the obscene use of oil to make vehicles move is leading to that end.

The human race won't disappear, but our descendants as they try to crawl out of the climactic and technological hole we dug out of greed, selfishness and laziness will gaze in wonder at us. We need to change, and we need to do it now, and we can't rely on the fool's hope that someone in the next fifty or a hundred years will magically make cold fusion work or whatever.