AGW/CC Deniers & "Fake-Skeptics" - their mindset

[TimG]

Well where are these people who are advocating incremental changes and what are their targets? The effects of climate change won't be selective or optional.

Targets are set on an industry by industry basis. i.e. the government talks with car engine experts and tries to figure out what is plausible. It then sets targets for that industry based on those plausible targets. It then does the same with cement makers, coal generation and so on. What is wrong are politicians who set global targets without any thought to how these targets would be met.

[TimG]

What happened in the case of vehicles was the regulators in consultation with experts did come up with standards. Industry had to try and convince them if it wasn't possible.

It is more complicated than that. US car markers complained because Japanese imports had the technology but they did not. So the argument was not that they could not do it - it was that doing it would destroy the US auto industry.

[Wilber]

Targets are set on an industry by industry basis. i.e. the government talks with car engine experts and tries to figure out what is plausible. It then sets targets for that industry based on those plausible targets. It then does the same with cement makers, coal generation and so on. What is wrong are politicians who set global targets without any thought to how these targets would be met.

No, you figure out what needs to be done then you look for ways to achieve it. If you have no objective in the first place, nothing will ever happen. That's what targets are all about. Man set going to the moon as a target, then figured out how to get there. Not the other way around.

[Wilber]

It is more complicated than that. US car markers complained because Japanese imports had the technology but they did not. So the argument was not that they could not do it - it was that doing it would destroy the US auto industry.

Nonsense, it was the US that initiated the concept of vehicle emission controls.

[TimG]

No, you figure out what needs to be done then you look for ways to achieve it.

Believe what you want but that kind of thinking simply ensures that nothing will be done. Targets disconnected from any reality will simply be set and ignored.

[TimG]

Nonsense, it was the US that initiated the concept of vehicle emission controls.

I thought we were talking fuel economy standards - not emissions controls. Emissions controls were also more complicated. Given the gas distribution networks at the time it *was* impossible to meet the standards and it required the oil companies to stop selling leaded fuel. When that happened the technology became practical and it was used. Edited September 29, 2014 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

Believe what you want but that kind of thinking simply ensures that nothing will be done. Targets disconnected from any reality will simply be set and ignored.

Agreed...this is the important underlying point. Targets based on economic and/or technical fantasy will be ignored. When such folly is forced on the public, there will be economic and political backlash. See "energy policy in Ontario, Canada".

[Wilber]

I thought we were talking fuel economy standards - not emissions controls. Emissions controls were also more complicated. Given the gas distribution networks at the time it *was* impossible to meet the standards and it required the oil companies to stop selling leaded fuel. When that happened the technology became practical and it was used.

Emission standards, safety standards, fuel economy, everything starts with a target.

The technology became practical because governments required change. Making safer, more efficient, lower polluting vehicles costs money and there is no way companies would have done it without a shove.

[Keepitsimple]

Emission standards, safety standards, fuel economy, everything starts with a target.

The technology became practical because governments required change. Making safer, more efficient, lower polluting vehicles costs money and there is no way companies would have done it without a shove.

Get back to the point - Global targets plucked out of the air - like the miserable Kyoto failure.....and now pushing for Kyoto II. Those who do not learn from history - are bound to repeat it.

[Keepitsimple]

Agreed...this is the important underlying point. Targets based on economic and/or technical fantasy will be ignored. When such folly is forced on the public, there will be economic and political backlash. See "energy policy in Ontario, Canada".

AAARRGGGHHH!

[TimG]

Emission standards, safety standards, fuel economy, everything starts with a target.

You are arguing a strawman. Please point out where I said that targets were not necessary.

If you read what I said you will see that I am arguing that any targets have to be connected to reality and must be set based on what is plausible for any given industry. I am not arguing that targets are not necessary. The pollution control standards were plausible provided oil companies stopped putting lead in the gasoline. OTOH, global targets such as reducing a country's emissions by X% are futile and self-defeating.

Edited September 29, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

Emission standards, safety standards, fuel economy, everything starts with a target.

The technology became practical because governments required change. Making safer, more efficient, lower polluting vehicles costs money and there is no way companies would have done it without a shove.

Governments shove when the public pressures them to do so. Making the process that turns public will into official action more efficient is the key.

What's missing is the shove the public needs and it needs to be more forceful than the push-back from companies.

[Wilber]

Governments shove when the public pressures them to do so. Making the process that turns public will into official action more efficient is the key.

What's missing is the shove the public needs and it needs to be more forceful than the push-back from companies.

Thing is, you have to shove the public into wanting to spend more money to get lower emissions, safer and more efficient cars because they cost more to build. No manufacturer will voluntarily up his costs unless he knows it will make him money in the end.

[Wilber]

You are arguing a strawman. Please point out where I said that targets were not necessary.

If you read what I said you will see that I am arguing that any targets have to be connected to reality and must be set based on what is plausible for any given industry. I am not arguing that targets are not necessary. The pollution control standards were plausible provided oil companies stopped putting lead in the gasoline. OTOH, global targets such as reducing a country's emissions by X% are futile and self-defeating.

Lead was removed from gasoline primarily because it is a toxin on its own. Governments indeed did dictate levels of emissions the companies had to meet. The companies were given very defined targets and deadlines. They were able to meet them in spite of all their bleating otherwise. They got the lead out of gasoline because they had to, not because they wanted to.

[TimG]

The companies were given very defined targets and deadlines.

Targets and deadlines that were based on plausible implementations of known technology. They were not given targets that depended on the discovery of unicorns and fairy dust which is the typical approach with CO2 targets. Edited September 29, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

Targets and deadlines that were based on plausible implementations of known technology. They were not given targets that depended on the discovery of unicorns and fairy dust which is the typical approach with CO2 targets.

Seeing as the anti AGW types haven't come up with any "plausible implementations of known technology" themselves, I can only assume that all targets will be written off as unicorns and fairy dust. All I hear is can't, well WTF can they do?

[TimG]

Seeing as the anti AGW types haven't come up with any "plausible implementations of known technology" themselves, I can only assume that all targets will be written off as unicorns and fairy dust. All I hear is can't, well WTF can they do?

Yes. That is my point. There incremental things that can be done on an industry by industry basis such as increasing fuel economy requirements for cars or encouraging the use of natural gas over coal. But it is delusional to think that governments can mandate reductions based on arbitrary targets and expect them to be met. If AGW is a concern then we need to be talking about adaption. Mitigation policies are ineffective and a huge waste of money and resources. Edited September 29, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

Yes. That is my point. There incremental things that can be done on an industry by industry basis such as increasing fuel economy requirements for cars or encouraging the use of natural gas over coal. But it is delusional to think that governments can mandate reductions based on arbitrary targets and expect them to be met. If AGW is a concern then we need to be talking about adaption. Mitigation policies are ineffective and a huge waste of money and resources.

Let's wait till we get dumped on and deal with it then. No point in trying to limit the quantity of dumpage. Waist of time. Great strategy.

[TimG]

Let's wait till we get dumped on and deal with it then. No point in trying to limit the quantity of dumpage. Waste of time. Great strategy.

It is certainly better than the "piss away billions on programs that will make no difference" strategy that you seem to prefer. At some point you need to ask if you actually want to deal with the issue or are you just looking for meaningless gestures that make you feel good. Personally, I think doing useful things is a better use of resources.

[eyeball]

Mitigation as Tim describes it sounds a lot more like make our kids and grand-kids invest their resources to fix things except...we'll have used those resources up by the time things get so bad and there'll be little left over to do anything with.

[On Guard for Thee]

I bet we "pissed away billions" on emmision controls for cars. Man am I happy about that when I walk down the street and a car goes by and my eyes don't water up from the stench. And guess what, General Motors et al are still in business.

[Wilber]

It is certainly better than the "piss away billions on programs that will make no difference" strategy that you seem to prefer. At some point you need to ask if you actually want to deal with the issue or are you just looking for meaningless gestures that make you feel good. Personally, I think doing useful things is a better use of resources.

I call it the, I'll probably be dead by then so hopefully it will be someone elses problem strategy. The, I'll keep smoking until I get cancer or I'll keep eating till I have a heart attack and then I'll deal with it solution.

[TimG]

I call it the, I'll probably be dead by then so hopefully it will be someone elses problem strategy. The, I'll keep smoking until I get cancer or I'll keep eating till I have a heart attack and then I'll deal with it solution.

Why don't you try eliminating the CO2 emissions that you create every time you exhale? I suspect you would find it impossible for you to continue living without emitting CO2. Why do you think human society is any different? If there is a problem then adaptation is the only viable path. Edited September 30, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

Why don't you try eliminating the CO2 emissions that you create every time you exhale? I suspect you would find it impossible for you to continue living without emitting CO2. Why do you think human society is any different? If there is a problem then adaptation is the only viable path.

Oh come on, you know damn well breathing is part of the natural carbon cycle, not the intruduction of billions of tons of new carbon int the stmosphere. Breathing doesn't introduce one atom of new carbon into the atmosphere. Because our bodies are 18% carbon, we actually pull carbon out of the atmosphere.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Wilber

[On Guard for Thee]

Why don't you try eliminating the CO2 emissions that you create every time you exhale? I suspect you would find it impossible for you to continue living without emitting CO2. Why do you think human society is any different? If there is a problem then adaptation is the only viable path.

Maybe go learn a little science. When we exhale we are just returning the CO2 to the air that was already there.