Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

you and your sockpuppet keep making unsubstantiated IPCC references... over and over again. You keep making the references, but somehow never quite manage to actually provide a direct quote from an IPCC report. Care to actually step up and quote the IPCC AR5 reference that speaks to both a reduction in severity as well as frequency of hurricanes.

I've provided citations earlier in this thread. The result is less frequent hurricanes and less severe hurricanes.

I certainly don't recall you ever quoting directly from any IPCC report... if you claim to have done so, it should be easy for you to either provide a MLW link reference to your claimed IPCC quotations or to simply restate your supposed/claimed IPCC quotes. As before, please provide an IPCC quotation reference that speaks to both a reduction in severity as well as a reduction in the frequency of hurricanes.

Lol, I love how you ignore 90% of my response and pretend it doesn't exist because it's convenient for you. Even the way you quote me is a misleading strawman. Please respond to what I wrote.

your response is quoted above... it's quite short... I've bold & red colour highlighted it for you. It's the salient point from your earlier post. It's the part you clearly want nothing to do with... it's the part that actually puts you on the spot to support your claim that you've earlier provided citations that speak to the IPCC stating a result of both less frequent and less severe hurricanes. Is there a problem for you in now actually providing a link to your previous (claimed) citations... or for you to simply re-quote those (claimed) IPCC statements? Is there a problem?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

put up something other than your continued unsubstantiated opinion, your strawmen, your CO2 is nothing more than plant food idiocy, your stoopid fixation and isolation on non-real world enclosure growth mediums, your ignoring of findings/statements from reputable organizations, your wild unsubstantiated claims of bias in papers you can't refute, your ignoring of direct questions/challenges put to you, etc., etc., etc.. Do that... and I might actually consider giving your nonsense another look.

I like how you continue with your 'CO2 is plant food' strawman argument even now. All of your statements here have been refuted many times on page 29 and earlier. But because you have run out of logical fallacies to use, you would prefer not to go back there.

it's not a "different graph"... it's a video... of the same graphic evolving over the described time history. As for your fake concern over the absence of a "zero axis" starting point... gee, I guess the ppm doesn't actually fall to that level going back... 800,000 years! Of course, you can bluster & fluster all you'd like. You can purposely refuse to address the other end of the graphic and the most dramatic rise of atmospheric CO2 in the shortest of periods. You can do all that cause, apparently, you claim not to "suck at graphs"! :lol:

Could someone please translate this waldo-speak into English? Does waldo think that if he makes his sentences difficult to understand it makes him sound smarter?

interesting... notwithstanding you've backpedaled from "always chose" to "will often pick"... I still don't see you providing any support for your statement/claim. Is there a problem? Of course, your biggest strawman is to continually throw down this bizarro "alarmist" label and attach your broad-based (unsubstantiated) generalizations. Keep the faith, hey!

You just used 79 as a base year and wrote a thread trying to justify it. Now you are trying to pretend that climate alarmists done use 1970s as a base line?

nice... I've directly included the previous Nov 26, 2013 quote that included the very pointed references within the article that speak to planetary waves (aka Rossby waves... aka waves within the jet stream). And now, you have the audacity to actually link to the very PNAS study that my linked article reference is addressing... as if you're providing some new revelation. :lol: Clearly, you can't follow the very clear bread crumb trail; a trail I've precisely laid out for you several times now. Again, rising atmospheric CO2, increased warming, accelerated Arctic sea ice melting, Arctic/Polar amplification, a more northerly-southerly shifting jet-stream... and a possible underlying physical basis/mechanism (re: the PNAS study) behind the "stalling out" of the shifted jet stream and, accordingly, the resultant impact keeping storms in place for extended periods of time.

Yes and I read that article and other articles in the references to find the theoretical model that explains the relationship between a decrease in global temperature gradient and an increase in the 'stalling' of the jetstream and/or increase in the frequency of pressure resonance effects. Just provide me with equations and/or the theoretical models used because I could not find them.

uhhh... do you need to be handheld through this... even more so? It's a study that reinforces the Arctic/Polar amplification effect. See the same breadcrumb trail repeatedly laid our for you. As you say, duh!

I've said that increasing CO2 concentrations leads to a decrease in global temperature gradient from the beginning. But given that your alarmist brain tries to strawman opposing positions, I guess you forgot that... again. And that still doesn't make up for the fact that you implied the paper suggested something different from what it does in its post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your response is quoted above... it's quite short... I've bold & red colour highlighted it for you. It's the salient point from your earlier post. It's the part you clearly want nothing to do with... it's the part that actually puts you on the spot to support your claim that you've earlier provided citations that speak to the IPCC stating a result of both less frequent and less severe hurricanes. Is there a problem for you in now actually providing a link to your previous (claimed) citations... or for you to simply re-quote those (claimed) IPCC statements? Is there a problem?

So you refuse to recognize that you shortened this:

I've provided citations earlier in this thread. You even provided citations that state this.

More importantly, just providing random out-of-context statements from conclusions of scientific reports without explaining the scientific model used or the methodology isn't useful. Unlike you, I need to understand wtf the theoretical models are. With respect to reduction in hurricanes, it actually doesn't take much to understand why this would occur.

Increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increases the amount of black body radiation from the earth and sun that the atmosphere absorbs. This warms the atmosphere. Since the radiative greenhouse effect is a result of the atmosphere re-emitting some of that radiation back to the earth's surface (and not all of the additional energy absorbed by the atmosphere is re-emitted back to the earth's surface; some is re-emitted to outer space and some warms the atmosphere itself) the atmosphere must warm more than the earth's surface. Hurricane's act as heat engines that transfer heat from near the earth's surface towards the earth's upper atmosphere. A reduction in the temperature gradient between the earth's surface and the earth's upper atmosphere means that the efficiency of a hurricane and reduce the available workable energy of the hurricane. The result is less frequent hurricanes and less severe hurricanes.

to this:

I've provided citations earlier in this thread. The result is less frequent hurricanes and less severe hurricanes.

Why not respond to my entire quotation? Why the need to strawman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a lot of information around and it is difficult to sort the nonsense from the stuff that has merit. I have been reading a lot on this topic for several years and come to the following conclusions:

1) Human emitted CO2 will warm the planet.

2) The amount of warming that CO2 will cause is basically unknown. There are many confounding factors.

3) Climate models generally predicted much more warming than has actually occurred over the last 15 years.

4) This over-prediction suggests that the climate models exaggerate the influence of CO2.

5) Whatever the real answer there is no doubt that CO2 has some influence.

Notwithstanding the above the questions we really care about:

1) Is a warmer world actually worse than the one we have now?

2) Can we actually do anything significant about CO2 emissions even if we wanted to?

The answer to 1) is not clear. The transition will likely create difficulties but it is rather arrogant to assume that the current climate is the "optimum" and any change is "worse".

I pretty much agree right up to here.

In my opinion, the answer to 2) is emphatically no. CO2 reduction technologies are expensive and often ineffective. There are a few things that could be done to reduce emissions by 10% or so but that is about it. Reducing to 0% by 2050 is not on the table. This means that the only policy worth discussing is adaption.

We can and should take action to reduce CO2 emissions. Why?

1. We should not waste fossil fuels, they are non-renewable and we owe it to future generations to conserve them.

2. Burning fossil fuels, especially coal, causes other air pollution (smog)

3. Climate change models could be wrong the other way - they may be understating the amount of warming and sea level rise.

There are many ways to significantly reduce CO2 - without crippling our standard of living:

5. Per person, Australia emitted the most carbon

graph3_550x303.jpg

Divided up per person, each country's share of the world's emissions looks a little different. Australia had the highest per capita emissions in 2012 at 18.8 tonnes. In the US, emissions per capita were 16.4 tonnes, and just behind came oil-rich Saudi Arabia with per capita emissions of 16.2 tonnes.

The EU and China - both major emitters in absolute terms - had much smaller per capita emissions, at 7.4 and 7.1 tonnes respectively.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/11/2012s-carbon-emissions-in-five-graphs/

If high-per-capita-emitting countries followed some of the best practices of the EU - that would be a significant reduction.

As China and other countries develop - will they emit like Americans or like Europeans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how you continue with your 'CO2 is plant food' strawman argument even now. All of your statements here have been refuted many times on page 29 and earlier. But because you have run out of logical fallacies to use, you would prefer not to go back there.

since you're adding nothing new... same response as before:

:lol: what! Where's your previous bravado, chest beating and multiple claims of victory? Check that page again... as I did many times over, I took the trouble to actually respond at length to your continued nonsense... you came back with nothing original, nothing new, nothing to add to the discussion. Your one consistent act was to repeatedly state your unsubstantiated opinion..... and nothing but... your unsubstantiated opinion. As I said on that page 29:

I've responded to you at length, numerous times --- you either completely ignore the statements/positions/references, repeatedly throw stoopid strawmen up, continue your CO2 is plant food nonsense, continue your fixation and isolation with non-real world enclosure growth mediums, ignore the findings/statements from reputable organizations like the IPCC, the USGCRP, NASA, NAS, etc, claim bias in papers you can't refute, ignore direct questions/challenges to you... or you simply come back with nothing more than your own continued bluster & fluster (i.e., your personal unsubstantiated opinion), etc., etc., etc.. C',mon... take your self-declared victory and go relish in your denial! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not a "different graph"... it's a video... of the same graphic evolving over the described time history. As for your fake concern over the absence of a "zero axis" starting point... gee, I guess the ppm doesn't actually fall to that level going back... 800,000 years! Of course, you can bluster & fluster all you'd like. You can purposely refuse to address the other end of the graphic and the most dramatic rise of atmospheric CO2 in the shortest of periods. You can do all that cause, apparently, you claim not to "suck at graphs"! :lol:

Could someone please translate this waldo-speak into English? Does waldo think that if he makes his sentences difficult to understand it makes him sound smarter?

just admit you couldn't be bothered to actually review the video... you saw the still-image associated with the video and you showed your ignorance. Like I said earlier, I suggest you take up your concerns over the video axis and timeline history with NOAA... the source and originators of the video.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

step-up and show where 1970s is being used as a baseline... I detailed the previous baseline chosen/used in regards Arctic sea ice analysis. Step-up and support your statement, "always chose the 1970s as a base line". I quoted you directly from the IPCC... does this read to you as "the 1970s"?

You are your strawman arguments. By 1970s as a baseline, I meant that climate alarmists will often pick various years from the 1970's as a baseline as this decade was cooler than temporally close decades and helps their alarmist arguments.

interesting... notwithstanding you've backpedaled from "always chose" to "will often pick"... I still don't see you providing any support for your statement/claim. Is there a problem? Of course, your biggest strawman is to continually throw down this bizarro "alarmist" label and attach your broad-based (unsubstantiated) generalizations. Keep the faith, hey!

You just used 79 as a base year and wrote a thread trying to justify it. Now you are trying to pretend that climate alarmists done use 1970s as a base line?

that's right... I'm the only one here that's offered any baseline references. As is your standard way, you've offered nothing... nothing from you! I quoted you directly from the IPCC... that wasn't a 1970s baseline. In response to a post by member 'jbg' I provided the previous/initial baseline used by scientists studying Arctic sea ice... and as below, I fully qualified why the 1979-2000 baseline was used... and why the NSIDC chose to, this year, update that baseline to 1981-2010.

1979 stems from the typical past practice followed by scientists studying Arctic sea ice. In that regard, a baseline period of 1979-2000 was used for two reasons:

- 30 years of the most representative (satellite) data were not available; instead, scientists used a 22-year period 1979 to 2000 when comparing current sea ice extent to past conditions.

- useful satellite data concerning sea ice began in late 1978 with the launch of NASA’s Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) satellite.

just this year, coincident with the availability of a more representative 30 years of reference data, NSIDC adjusted its practice to use the baseline reference period from 1981 to 2010

as before, you continue to avoid substantiating your claim. You also might want to qualify why you refer to organizations like the NSIDC as climate alarmists. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nice... I've directly included the previous Nov 26, 2013 quote that included the very pointed references within the article that speak to planetary waves (aka Rossby waves... aka waves within the jet stream). And now, you have the audacity to actually link to the very PNAS study that my linked article reference is addressing... as if you're providing some new revelation. :lol: Clearly, you can't follow the very clear bread crumb trail; a trail I've precisely laid out for you several times now. Again, rising atmospheric CO2, increased warming, accelerated Arctic sea ice melting, Arctic/Polar amplification, a more northerly-southerly shifting jet-stream... and a possible underlying physical basis/mechanism (re: the PNAS study) behind the "stalling out" of the shifted jet stream and, accordingly, the resultant impact keeping storms in place for extended periods of time.

Yes and I read that article and other articles in the references to find the theoretical model that explains the relationship between a decrease in global temperature gradient and an increase in the 'stalling' of the jetstream and/or increase in the frequency of pressure resonance effects. Just provide me with equations and/or the theoretical models used because I could not find them.

provide you... with the theoretical models... and equations! Sure sport... meanwhile you can continue to ignore my earlier question asking you why you continue to fixate on the global gradient while ignoring the actual localized gradients associated with the jet-stream... you know, the localized gradients associated with weather, in particular the extreme weather being reviewed and analyzed in relation to the shifting jet-stream (and it's causal links), in relation to the possible physical basis/mechanism proposed as the causal tie to the "stalling" jet-stream and ensuing amplification of extreme weather. The topic still is... extreme weather, right?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uhhh... do you need to be handheld through this... even more so? It's a study that reinforces the Arctic/Polar amplification effect. See the same breadcrumb trail repeatedly laid our for you. As you say, duh!

I've said that increasing CO2 concentrations leads to a decrease in global temperature gradient from the beginning. But given that your alarmist brain tries to strawman opposing positions, I guess you forgot that... again.

ya ya... somehow you can't translate that changing global gradient into the actual Arctic/Polar amplification effect... the shifting jet-stream and the localized gradients associated with actual weather... and increased extreme weather as reflected by the "stalling" jet-stream. From an earlier post... it's a video (from EarthNow)... I trust with this video, you'll actually run it and not just fixate on the still-image! :lol:

And that still doesn't make up for the fact that you implied the paper suggested something different from what it does in its post.

bogus man! What are you blathering about now?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your response is quoted above... it's quite short... I've bold & red colour highlighted it for you. It's the salient point from your earlier post. It's the part you clearly want nothing to do with... it's the part that actually puts you on the spot to support your claim that you've earlier provided citations that speak to the IPCC stating a result of both less frequent and less severe hurricanes. Is there a problem for you in now actually providing a link to your previous (claimed) citations... or for you to simply re-quote those (claimed) IPCC statements? Is there a problem?

So you refuse to recognize that you shortened this:

to this:

Why not respond to my entire quotation? Why the need to strawman?

no - no strawman intended, or offered. As I stated, I took the salient point from your post and extracted it... highlighted it. You know, the part that highlights your claim that you've provided previous IPCC citations. As before, you continue to deflect/distract from requests for you to either identify these past citation posts... or to simply re-state/re-post them in support of your associated claim... the claim/position you state the IPCC has made/taken. Still nothing from here in that regard. And, again, is there a problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. We should not waste fossil fuels, they are non-renewable and we owe it to future generations to conserve them.

There is merit to this (assuming the creation of synthetic fossil fuels won't be more cost effective in the future).

2. Burning fossil fuels, especially coal, causes other air pollution (smog)

CO2 doesn't cause smog, it's the nitrogen and sulfur oxides that give you smog. If you want to have laws/regulations against sulfur/nitrogen oxide emissions then fine, but targeting smog indirectly by limiting CO2 emissions makes no sense.

3. Climate change models could be wrong the other way - they may be understating the amount of warming and sea level rise.

I don't think the 'well we could be completely wrong and the climate change may be far more catastrophic than we think' argument is convincing. Let alone the fact that I've argued that warming is overall good, not bad.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let alone the fact that I've argued that warming is overall good, not bad.

you've..... argued? All I seem to recall is you stating your unsubstantiated opinion, fixating on non-real world enclosure growth mediums... and declaring your personal (unsubstantiated) opinion that global growth yields for staple crops will increase with increasing CO2 levels. Ergo, in your esteemed personal opinion, "warming is good"... in other words, your perpetuation of the "CO2 is plant food" meme!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is merit to this (assuming the creation of synthetic fossil fuels won't be more cost effective in the future).

IMO, this alone (conserving fossil fuels) justifies a carbon tax.

CO2 doesn't cause smog, it's the nitrogen and sulfur oxides that give you smog. If you want to have laws/regulations against sulfur/nitrogen oxide emissions then fine, but targeting smog indirectly by limiting CO2 emissions makes no sense.

Burning fossil fuels results in smog. A carbon tax would indirectly help reduce smog - especially as it would penalize coal.

I don't think the 'well we could be completely wrong and the climate change may be far more catastrophic than we think' argument is convincing. Let alone the fact that I've argued that warming is overall good, not bad.

Maybe not, we should continue to research. As I've said, my first reason was reason enough to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some actions to reduce CO2 emissions would increase standards of living. For example switch from coal to nuclear.

Germany and Japan wanted to shut down nuclear.....bad idea. The U.S. already has more nuke plants than any other nation. Switching from coal in Ontario has been an economic disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Divided up per person, each country's share of the world's emissions looks a little different. Australia had the highest per capita emissions in 2012 at 18.8 tonnes.

Per capita emissions are a completely useless metric because they do not take into account geography or the completely different roles that countries play in the world economy. For example, lightly populated countries with a large energy sector are never going to have per capita emissions that are comparable to a densely populated country with high-end manufacturing base.

It illustrate the impossibility of reducing emissions any significant degree I will use France as an example because they have gone completely nuclear (the only viable CO2 technology) and have bought into the European CO2 phobia.

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2013-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report-1148.pdf

In 1990 France's emissions were 0.39 BtCO2 - in 2012 they were 0.37 BtCO2 - a 5% drop over 20+ years.

But this is actually pretty good in per capita terms considering that France's population increased from 56m to 63m in the same period, however, the planet does not care about per capita - it only cares about total emissions and despite France's willingness to adopt many anti-CO2 measures they still only managed a 5% reduction. IOW - I was generous when I gave 10% as the best possible.

0% by 2050 is not going to happen in France or anywhere else. Lightly populated energy producing countries will find it difficult to even reduce emissions at all if their population is rising at the same time.

To only prudent CO2 policy at this time is one that assumes that radical CO2 reductions will not occur and any available resources should be devoted to adapting to changes as they materialize.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It illustrate the impossibility of reducing emissions any significant degree I will use France as an example because they have gone completely nuclear (the only viable CO2 technology) and have bought into the European CO2 phobia.

In 1990 France's emissions were 0.39 BtCO2 - in 2012 they were 0.37 BtCO2 - a 5% drop over 20+ years. (bold highlighted by the waldo)

But this is actually pretty good in per capita terms considering that France's population increased from 56m to 63m in the same period, however, the planet does not care about per capita - it only cares about total emissions and despite France's willingness to adopt many anti-CO2 measures they still only managed a 5% reduction. IOW - I was generous when I gave 10% as the best possible.

per your linked reference:

- in 1990 Italy's emissions were 0.43 BtCO2 - in 2012 they were 0.39 BtCO2 - a 9% drop over 20+ years.

- in 1990 UK's emissions were 0.59 BtCO2 - in 2012 they were 0.49 BtCO2 - a 17% drop over 20+ years.

- in 1990 Germany's emissions were 1.02 BtCO2 - in 2012 they were 0.81 BtCO2 - a 21% drop over 20+ years.

was I being as selective... as you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per capita emissions are a completely useless metric because they do not take into account geography or the completely different roles that countries play in the world economy. For example, lightly populated countries with a large energy sector are never going to have per capita emissions that are comparable to a densely populated country with high-end manufacturing base.

By itself, per capita emissions, it not very useful, yes or couse we need to consider different geographies and economies. Still it is useful to know that EU countries emit hald as much as us and still have a high standard of living. This suggests that we have some low hanging fruit.

It illustrate the impossibility of reducing emissions any significant degree I will use France as an example because they have gone completely nuclear (the only viable CO2 technology) and have bought into the European CO2 phobia.

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2013-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report-1148.pdf

In 1990 France's emissions were 0.39 BtCO2 - in 2012 they were 0.37 BtCO2 - a 5% drop over 20+ years.

But this is actually pretty good in per capita terms considering that France's population increased from 56m to 63m in the same period, however, the planet does not care about per capita - it only cares about total emissions and despite France's willingness to adopt many anti-CO2 measures they still only managed a 5% reduction. IOW - I was generous when I gave 10% as the best possible.

0% by 2050 is not going to happen in France or anywhere else. Lightly populated energy producing countries will find it difficult to even reduce emissions at all if their population is rising at the same time.

I never suggested 0% by 2050 - this seems ridiculous.

So France, already a low-emitter, dropped by 5% absolute and 15 % per capita. What if we all became a little more like France? (except that we still took showers every day). We in NA could easily reduce emissions by 10-30% overall in the next 20 years.

Yes, absolute CO2 is what matters to the planet. But when you advocate doing nothing then you are basically advocating an increase in CO2 of how much? About 5% due to population growth and development? This means that in 15 years CO2 emmisions would double under your "plan". Even if our plan was to not cut total emission at all - just stop the growth - then in 15 years they would be half as much as what you are advocating.

To only prudent CO2 policy at this time is one that assumes that radical CO2 reductions will not occur and any available resources should be devoted to adapting to changes as they materialize.

Yes, adaption is necesary and prudent, but I still can't understand how someone can think that it is not prudent to stop wasting energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By itself, per capita emissions, it not very useful, yes or couse we need to consider different geographies and economies. Still it is useful to know that EU countries emit hald as much as us and still have a high standard of living. This suggests that we have some low hanging fruit.

I don't think so. Canada does not have the population density of Europe plus it has rapidly a growing population, an aversion to nuclear power and a large and growing energy sector. There is little or no scope for reductions from where we at now.

My point is the each advanced economy is already close to their 'natural' level of emissions and government policy can only reduce it at the margins (i.e. 10% or so). It makes no difference that Europe or Japan has lower per capita emissions because their examples simply do not apply to Canada because the geographic, economic and demographic context is different.

The one thing that has made a significant difference in emissions are sudden shifts which tend to be one off events. i.e. the switch from coal to natural gas in the UK and the US or the mass closure of East German industries. But these shifts are unpredictable and never occur on a schedule mandated by government - all governments can do is facilitate such shifts once they have already started.

I never suggested 0% by 2050 - this seems ridiculous.

Many environmentalists claim that industrialized countries must be at zero emissions by then or warming will spin out of control. If you do the math with the arbitrary limits they dream up (350/400/450ppm) you come up with requirements for >80% reductions by 2050. It is not going to happen. If there are right it is simply more evidence that mitigation diverts resources for little benefit. The finite pool of resources should be spent on adaptation.

Yes, adaption is necesary and prudent, but I still can't understand how someone can think that it is not prudent to stop wasting energy.

A meaningless platitude. Energy costs money so very few people waste energy unless the cost of saving it exceeds the cost of wasting it. If you raise the cost of energy you will reduce some waste but at the cost of economic activity because more resources are spent on energy. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so. Canada does not have the population density of Europe plus it has rapidly a growing population, an aversion to nuclear power and a large and growing energy sector. There is little or no scope for reductions from where we at now.

nonsense... or more precisely, what you more correctly should have said is that there is, "little or no interest by Harper Conservatives in pursuing mitigation initiatives".

.

My point is the each advanced economy is already close to their 'natural' level of emissions and government policy can only reduce it at the margins (i.e. 10% or so).

no - your own (just provided) reference says otherwise... notwithstanding, there has been no enforceable binding emissions agreement established to-date. Again, per your own reference:

per your linked reference:

- in 1990 Italy's emissions were 0.43 BtCO2 - in 2012 they were 0.39 BtCO2 - a 9% drop over 20+ years.

- in 1990 UK's emissions were 0.59 BtCO2 - in 2012 they were 0.49 BtCO2 - a 17% drop over 20+ years.

- in 1990 Germany's emissions were 1.02 BtCO2 - in 2012 they were 0.81 BtCO2 - a 21% drop over 20+ years.

was I being as selective... as you?

.

Many environmentalists claim that industrialized countries must be at zero emissions by then or warming will spin out of control. If you do the math with the arbitrary limits they dream up (350/400/450ppm) you come up with requirements for >80% reductions by 2050. It is not going to happen. If there are right it is simply more evidence that mitigation is bad policy.

could you be any more generalized... any more 'all over the map'? You don't mention "what environmentalists" or how your leap from "environmentalists" to government action translates/happens... you don't qualify what baseline year the target reductions reference... you don't qualify what mitigation actually means (e.g., outright reduction (and what that means) versus reduction/sequestration versus carbon tax/dividend within the reduction/sequestration mix, etc.). Notwithstanding, the broad sweep you take at ppm targets... clearly, 350 vs. 400 vs. 450 presumes on different approaches/targets/proposals. Why... the most demonized proponent of all, Hansen (and his 'group') propose measures to reach stabilization by... 2100... which doesn't presume solely on outright emission reductions... or on Hansen's "pet designs" on so-called '4th-gen ("safe") nuclear'. Again, could you be any more imprecise in pumping your fevered 'Adapt-R-Us (only)' alternative approach? An adaptation only approach, which as you've stated previously, presumes on independent adaptation measures taken by individual countries... none of that "wealth distribution/transfer' thingee for you, hey!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so. Canada does not have the population density of Europe plus it has rapidly a growing population, an aversion to nuclear power and a large and growing energy sector. There is little or no scope for reductions from where we at now.

Well Finland and Norway have ~10-12 tonnes per capita per year, Sweeden is 5-6, compared to Canada's 16. How do they do it? There must some best practices that we can adopt. Consider also that we waste 30% of our food - there is a lot of fat to be trimmed.

My point is the each advanced economy is already close to their 'natural' level of emissions and government policy can only reduce it at the margins (i.e. 10% or so). It makes no difference that Europe or Japan has lower per capita emissions because their examples simply do not apply to Canada because the geographic, economic and demographic context is different.

Even if you are right, after 10-20 years, a net 10% reduction is still very significant compared to a 2-5% annual growth in emissions.

Also, how will China and India develop, will their emissions grow at 2% or 10%?

The one thing that has made a significant difference in emissions are sudden shifts which tend to be one off events. i.e. the switch from coal to natural gas in the UK and the US or the mass closure of East German industries. But these shifts are unpredictable and never occur on a schedule mandated by government - all governments can do is facilitate such shifts once they have already started.

Governments have no input into energy policy?? Perhaps this is true in Canada - I would argue that we are the exception. But even here, who builds hydro dams? Gas taxes and energy conservation programs...

Many environmentalists claim that industrialized countries must be at zero emissions by then or warming will spin out of control. If you do the math with the arbitrary limits they dream up (350/400/450ppm) you come up with requirements for >80% reductions by 2050. It is not going to happen. If there are right it is simply more evidence that mitigation diverts resources for little benefit. The finite pool of resources should be spent on adaptation.

Well I hate to use the term "stawman", but never have I even suggested that I support these kids kids of exrtreme mitigation efforts. Please stop associating my views with these nutjobs.

The finite pool of ressources should be wisely spent on a combination of mitigation and adaptation.

A meaningless platitude. Energy costs money so very few people waste energy unless the cost of saving it exceeds the cost of wasting it. If you raise the cost of energy you will reduce some waste but at the cost of economic activity because more resources are spent on energy.

Are you saying that very few people waste money/time/energy?? If this were tru you would not have us wasting 30% of our food. You would not have people paying 20% credit card interest and Money Mart. You would not have so many people living in such huge homes, nevermind filling them up with overpriced junk then wasting their time cleaning sorting or agonizing why they have so much "stuff". Don't get me wrong I am not at all advocating a return to the "good old days" - I apprecite the advances (leaps) in our standard of living - but just imagine that you are viewing our society from as a person from 50 or 100 years ago. the waste would drive you crazy!

Yes you are right, to reduce waste raise the cost of energy. But no, if it is done right, this will not reduce economic activity as the extra cost of energy is offset by the savings of consuming less energy. Often increasing the cost of energy will simply reduce the payback period (or increase the ROI) for investments or energy-efficient designs. Often increasing energy costs will be enough to shift behavious from a wasteful to less wasteful - with no net decrease in standards of living.

Edited by carepov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Finland and Norway have ~10-12 tonnes per capita per year, Sweden is 5-6, compared to Canada's 16. How do they do it? There must some best practices that we can adopt.

Note that Norway is double that of Sweden despite the demographic/geographic similarities - why the large difference? According to your logic it should be easy for Norway to get its per capita emissions down to Swedish levels (despite the fact that they already pay $10/gal for gas). The reality is Norway will never match Swedish levels and it would be stupid for them to try. The same is true of Canada.

Different countries have different economies and it makes no sense to expect them to emit the same per capita. Your logic is like comparing a 200lb man to a 90lb woman and insisting the 200lb man should consume no more food than the 90lb woman. IOW - complete nonsense.

Even if you are right, after 10-20 years, a net 10% reduction is still very significant compared to a 2-5% annual growth in emissions.

Except an absolute reduction is not even an option for a country like Canada as long as the energy sector/population grows. I realize that many environmentalists think we should just kill our energy sector but that is a recipe for poverty because Canada's comparative advantage in the world is as an energy provider.

Well I hate to use the term "stawman", but never have I even suggested that I support these kids kids of exrtreme mitigation efforts. Please stop associating my views with these nutjobs.

These are not the extreme nutjobs - these are mainstream views of the environmental movement. This is the thinking adopted by the people trying to create a Kyoto 2 treaty. If you do not support their emission goals then you are a "denier".

If this were tru you would not have us wasting 30% of our food. You would not have people paying 20% credit card interest and Money Mart. You would not have so many people living in such huge homes, nevermind filling them up with overpriced junk then wasting their time cleaning sorting or agonizing why they have so much "stuff".

Now you are making moral judgements. You think they have "too much" and are therefore "wasting it" - but that is simply your opinion. The government is not in the business of legislating morality. Legislated puritanism is not the answer.

Often increasing energy costs will be enough to shift behavious from a wasteful to less wasteful - with no net decrease in standards of living.

If energy costs go down because of more efficient technology then consumption often goes up. If you want to reduce consumption you need economically damaging price increases. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that Norway is double that of Sweden despite the demographic/geographic similarities - why the large difference? According to your logic it should be easy for Norway to get its per capita emissions down to Swedish levels (despite the fact that they already pay $10/gal for gas). The reality is Norway will never match Swedish levels and it would be stupid for them to try. The same is true of Canada.

Different countries have different economies and it makes no sense to expect them to emit the same per capita. Your logic is like comparing a 200lb man to a 90lb woman and insisting the 200lb man should consume no more food than the 90lb woman. IOW - complete nonsense.

Again, I hate to use "stawman" but I never once implied that any country should match emission to another country. What I am saying is that such a disparity in per capita emissions striongly suggests that there are major oportunities for emissions reductions.

To continue your analogy, my logic is like comparing a 200 lb man to a 90 lb woman. I am not insisting that the man consume the same amount of food. I am saying let's look at the diets/lives of both people - maybe the man is eating too much or not excersizing enough and can learn a thing or two about healthy living. Maybe the woman is a smoker and the man can teach/inspire her to quit.

Except an absolute reduction is not even an option for a country like Canada as long as the energy sector/population grows.

Not so fast. Not all CO2 is from the energy sector - and even there it can be reduced.

I realize that many environmentalists think we should just kill our energy sector but that is a recipe for poverty because Canada's comparative advantage in the world is as an energy provider.

These are not the extreme nutjobs - these are mainstream views of the environmental movement. This is the thinking adopted by the people trying to create a Kyoto 2 treaty. If you do not support their emission goals then you are a "denier".

True, I did not see it that way. Yet, that's all the more reason that us "deniers" should not start calling each other offensive names like "alarmists" or "mainstream environmentalists".

Now you are making moral judgements. You think they have "too much" and are therefore "wasting it" - but that is simply your opinion. The government is not in the business of legislating morality. Legislated puritanism is not the answer.

I am as horrified as anyone at the thought of increased legistlated puritanism. Taxing waste / creating incentives for conservation is not legistlated puritanism.

First, my examples were to counter your claim that "very few people waste energy because very few people waste money". Second, there is no moral judgement in "waste".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,742
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CrazyCanuck89
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • User earned a badge
      Posting Machine
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...