Quote :

"A model is used as an explanation for observed phenomena, NOT a proof. "

Was anyone suggesting otherwise? Weren't you talking about models as a means to predict, not as a way to prove the concept?

5/19/2009 7:16:58 PM

^ you obviously don't know much about the "science" of global-fearmongering, do you? Practically all of its predictions are based on models.

5/19/2009 7:31:24 PM

Quote :

" If I want to be a douche and drive my big ass gas guzzling SUV that gets 12mpg; than I think this is my own business."

I think you missed the point of the plan. It doesn't tell you you can't have an SUV, it increases the average mileage that the manufacturers need to strive for. They won't STOP selling SUVs,and nobody is saying you can't buy or drive one.

5/20/2009 12:02:05 PM

Hey its all good. You can just buy your 12mpg SUV from a foreign manufacturer.

5/20/2009 12:14:20 PM

OH NO's Jeff Masters a Ph.D in meterology at Michigan is once again spread lies as part of the Liberal Hippy Global warming Conspiracy.

Quote :

"The globe recorded its 5th warmest April on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The period January - April was tied for the sixth warmest such period on record. April marked the first time since October 2008 that the planet has recorded a monthly temperature anomaly in the top five warmest months"

how dare he try to decieve the american people by pushing the liberal agenda

but..

Quote :

"The warming may be due to the fact that a La Niña event ended in the Eastern Pacific in April. Global temperature records go back to 1880. "

hmm..

Quote :

"For the contiguous U.S., April temperatures were the 36th coolest in the 115-year record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The month was also quite wet, ranking as the 35th wettest April."

wait a sec. but..

Quote :

"Sea ice in the Arctic below average, but not greatly so "

Al Gore and James Hansen would be pissed at Dr. Masters straying for the script to boondoggle the american people with terror of global warming
and goal of collapsing US industry in the name of green environmental friendly policies.

Quote :

"The rate of ice decline in April was the third slowest on record, thanks to cooler than usual temperatures over the Arctic. Nevertheless, the Arctic remains vulnerable to near-record melting this summer if much warmer than average temperatures return to the region."

I guess even a believer in human influenced climate shift does not have to be a Glood and Doom preacher that humans are
pushing the earth's climate radically astray. Instead he points out that the 'natural cycles' still play a major role in the variations
we see in the weather; even if human interaction does cause some drift.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html

5/20/2009 1:38:27 PM

Here's some peer-reviewed stuff for you guys to read:
Decade-long cooling trends can occur within long-term global warming
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/highlights/highlights.cgi?action=show&doi=10.1029/2009GL037810&jc=gl

Is the climate warming or cooling?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037810.shtml

How much climate change can be avoided by mitigation?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL037074.shtml

Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiation
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037527.shtml

5/20/2009 2:42:34 PM

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090520141935.aspx

Quote :

"“There’s going to have to be a price for carbon,” Immelt said. “In some way, shape of form, you’re going to have to create some certainty. You have to make technology your friend in this debate. But we sit here today Becky, I think about things like global warming. We’ve been on this for four or five years.” Immelt contended he wasn’t an environmentalist, despite criticism that his networks’ have patterns of promoting the green agenda. Immelt told “Squawk Box” the science surrounding man-caused global warming was “compelling” and that it was only a matter of time before something will be done about carbon emissions. “I think the science, as a CEO I’m not an environmentalist – just purely as a CEO that has to make a payroll – things like that,” Immelt continued. “The science is compelling, so it’s a question of when and not if there’s going to be something done on carbon. Give us some certainty and let’s go.” The General Electric CEO said he favored a cap-and-trade system to regulate carbon emissions versus a carbon tax."

5/20/2009 3:46:34 PM

Why does it not surprise me that the CEO of General Electric favors the option (cap and trade over carbon tax) that's more complicated and less transparent?

5/20/2009 3:53:15 PM

plus, cap and trade only make nuclear power more desirable. not bad news for GE

5/20/2009 4:13:32 PM

Quote :

"Decade-long cooling trends can occur within long-term global warming"

Very nice, and what would you call the 150 years of warming that pulled us out of the Little Ice Age?

5/20/2009 8:46:35 PM

Please enlighten us Dr. Hansbury; I am open to your latest dissertation as an expert in this field of research.

5/20/2009 8:51:16 PM

Quote :

"you obviously don't know much about the "science" of global-fearmongering, do you? Practically all of its predictions are based on models."

That doesn't contradict what I said, at all. And since modelling is a universally accepted method of scientific prediction, I'm not really sure what your point is. Sure, if a model is flawed, that's a problem, but it isn't an argument against modelling.

[Edited on May 21, 2009 at 6:03 AM. Reason : ]

5/21/2009 6:02:29 AM

All models require some set of assumptions that can often dramatically change outputs when changed. For example, financial models that assumed a Gaussian distribution would have predicted a nation-wide fall in housing prices to be close to nill. I am not as familiar with climate models, but if their assumptions are as subjective as those in macroeconometric and risk models, the end result is simply the quantification of one's own opinions. I am always extremely skeptical of conclusions drawn primarily from models with subjective assumptions.

[Edited on May 21, 2009 at 8:44 AM. Reason : .]

5/21/2009 8:42:55 AM

^ I'm not sure what you mean by "subjective." The Gaussian copula models that were used by folks working the CDO markets were estimated using objective historical data. The bigger problem was that housing prices had only been going up during the time period of the data being used. I think everyone realized that if housing prices suddenly turned negative that the models would turn out to be wrong, but that seemed like remote possibility considering how long housing prices had been going up. The decision to ignore that possibility was not a modeling error.

As far as climate models go, they are also estimated using actual data from a wide variety of sources. And contrary to arronburro's impression, these models actually are tested over more data after they have been estimated in order to determine whether they are any good or not. For example, I remember reading somewhere that models estimated using historical data on earth have actually fit data we have collected for other planets like venus fairly well (at least in terms of the correlation of the concentration of ghgs in the atmosphere to surface temperature). I looked for a link, but am drawing a blank on where i saw it.

I suppose you could say there is some subjectivity in the model being selected, but it isn't subjective in the same way that liking apples over oranges is subjective. If climate modeling is anything like modeling in economics (and I assume it is), the model you use will largely be dictated by what theory tells you. And if you think there might be better models out there, there are statistical tests to help you determine whether some models fit the data better than others.

[Edited on May 21, 2009 at 9:49 AM. Reason : ``]

5/21/2009 9:43:28 AM

The problem with risk and valuation models is not the data, but rather the assumptions, such as assuming asset prices follow a Gaussian distribution. Doing so will understate tail events as we have seen. This is one of the major pitfalls of value-at-risk models that the SEC institutionalized.

For an example of some assumptions used in climate-change scenarios, below are those used in the US National Assessment of Climate Change. Imagine what estimates for population growth we may have generated 50 years ago. In 1972, the Club of Rome projected that economic growth would come to a grinding hault due to population growth. Projecting population growth, economic growth, fossil-fuel usage, CO2 concentrations and the the rate of technological change (as implied by the estimates of alternative-energy sources) is nearly impossible to do over a century, let alone a quarter century.

Quote :

" Because future trends in fossil fuel use and other human activities are uncertain, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has developed a set of scenarios for how the 21st century may evolve. These scenarios consider a wide range of possibilities for changes in population, economic growth, technological development, improvements in energy efficiency, and the like. The two primary climate scenarios used in this Assessment are based on one mid-range emissions scenario for the future that assumes no major changes in policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Some other important assumptions in this scenario are that by the year 2100: * world population will nearly double to about 11 billion people; * the global economy will continue to grow at about the average rate it has been growing, reaching more than ten times its present size; * increased use of fossil fuels will triple CO2 emissions and raise sulfur dioxide emissions, resulting in an atmospheric CO2 concentration of just over 700 parts per million; and * total energy produced each year from non-fossil sources such as wind, solar, biomass, hydroelectric, and nuclear will increase to more than ten times its current amount, providing more than 40% of the world's energy, rather than the current 10%"

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewAboutScenarios.htm

[Edited on May 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM. Reason : .]

5/21/2009 12:19:52 PM

I know its long but this is an excellent opinion article:

Quote :

"The Climate-Industrial Complex Some businesses see nothing but profits in the green movement. By BJORN LOMBORG Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets. The tight relationship between the groups echoes the relationship among weapons makers, researchers and the U.S. military during the Cold War. President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned about the might of the "military-industrial complex," cautioning that "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." He worried that "there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties." This is certainly true of climate change. We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test. We must ask whether a "climate-industrial complex" is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain. This phenomenon will be on display at the World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen this weekend. The organizers -- the Copenhagen Climate Council -- hope to push political leaders into more drastic promises when they negotiate the Kyoto Protocol's replacement in December. The opening keynote address is to be delivered by Al Gore, who actually represents all three groups: He is a politician, a campaigner and the chair of a green private-equity firm invested in products that a climate-scared world would buy. Naturally, many CEOs are genuinely concerned about global warming. But many of the most vocal stand to profit from carbon regulations. The term used by economists for their behavior is "rent-seeking." The world's largest wind-turbine manufacturer, Copenhagen Climate Council member Vestas, urges governments to invest heavily in the wind market. It sponsors CNN's "Climate in Peril" segment, increasing support for policies that would increase Vestas's earnings. A fellow council member, Mr. Gore's green investment firm Generation Investment Management, warns of a significant risk to the U.S. economy unless a price is quickly placed on carbon. Even companies that are not heavily engaged in green business stand to gain. European energy companies made tens of billions of euros in the first years of the European Trading System when they received free carbon emission allocations. American electricity utility Duke Energy, a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, has long promoted a U.S. cap-and-trade scheme. Yet the company bitterly opposed the Warner-Lieberman bill in the U.S. Senate that would have created such a scheme because it did not include European-style handouts to coal companies. The Waxman-Markey bill in the House of Representatives promises to bring back the free lunch. U.S. companies and interest groups involved with climate change hired 2,430 lobbyists just last year, up 300% from five years ago. Fifty of the biggest U.S. electric utilities -- including Duke -- spent $51 million on lobbyists in just six months. The massive transfer of wealth that many businesses seek is not necessarily good for the rest of the economy. Spain has been proclaimed a global example in providing financial aid to renewable energy companies to create green jobs. But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created. The cozy corporate-climate relationship was pioneered by Enron, which bought up renewable energy companies and credit-trading outfits while boasting of its relationship with green interest groups. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed, an internal memo was sent within Enron that stated, "If implemented, [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory business." The World Business Summit will hear from "science and public policy leaders" seemingly selected for their scary views of global warming. They include James Lovelock, who believes that much of Europe will be Saharan and London will be underwater within 30 years; Sir Crispin Tickell, who believes that the United Kingdom's population needs to be cut by two-thirds so the country can cope with global warming; and Timothy Flannery, who warns of sea level rises as high as "an eight-story building." Free speech is important. But these visions of catastrophe are a long way outside of mainstream scientific opinion, and they go much further than the careful findings of the United Nations panel of climate change scientists. When it comes to sea-level rise, for example, the United Nations expects a rise of between seven and 23 inches by 2100 -- considerably less than a one-story building. There would be an outcry -- and rightfully so -- if big oil organized a climate change conference and invited only climate-change deniers. The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance. The climate-industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everybody. We should not be surprised or impressed that those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for politicians to act. Spending a fortune on global carbon regulations will benefit a few, but dearly cost everybody else. Mr. Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus, a think tank, and author of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming" (Knopf, 2007). "

So even sided, I love it.

5/21/2009 4:56:41 PM

See now, this is where I believe dissent can play a useful role; there is plenty of rent-seeking going on in the policy debate surrounding AGW.

I don't agree that every proponent of AGW is somehow a rent-seeker, but there are certainly very "interested" players out there pushing a very specific policy agenda that benefits them. For example: cap 'n trade, where already we see the rules being twisted in favor of politically connected interests.

This is why we need alternative proposals on the table. Simply sitting this one out and calling the whole thing a hoax basically plays right into the behavior of the rent-seekers - there thus exists no viable policy alternative on the table.

5/21/2009 5:06:56 PM

Quote :

"The opening keynote address is to be delivered by Al Gore,"

As soon as I read this line i stopped reading and assumed the rest of the article is garbage.


ZOMG AL GORE SAYS WE NEED SHUT DOWN THE FACTORIES, STOP DRIVING AUTOMOBILES ON GAS, OCEANS ARE GOING TO FLOOD THE CITIES, ALASKA WILL BECOME A HOT DESERT, AND HE MAKES MONIES OFF OF ECO-FRIENDLY POLICIES; THUS SURELY ANY KIND OF DATA SUPPORTING HUMAN EFFECTING GLOBAL CLIMATE NO MATTER HOW BIG OR SMALL IS ALL LIBERAL HOGWASH TO STEAL MY MONIES!

[Edited on May 21, 2009 at 5:30 PM. Reason : l]

5/21/2009 5:29:17 PM

what's up, troll?

5/22/2009 5:33:19 PM

Good article about how any efforts to reduce CO2 emissions on our part makes little to no impact worldwide, despite massive taxes and changes in lifestyle potentially being forced upon us.

Quote :

"The Geography of Carbon Emissions By Jack Dini No American city is among the top 50 cities in the world for air pollution according to the World Bank. (1) Another list, ‘The Top Ten of the Dirty Thirty,' compiled by the Blacksmith Institute of New York compared the toxicity of contamination, the likelihood of it getting into humans and the number of people affected. Places were bumped up in rank if children were impacted. No US or European sites made the list. Sites in China, India and Russia occupied six of the top ten spots. Some examples: at Linfen in Shanxi province-the heart of China's coal industry-industrial and automobile emissions put the health of 3 million people at risk. At Sukinda in the state of Orissa in India, 2.6 million people face the hazards of one of the world's opencast chromite mines. And in Dzerzhinsk, Russia, 300,000 people are exposed to toxic by-products from chemical weapons. (2) Have you heard about this? Probably not. But there's more. Another report states that seven of the world's ten most polluted cities are in China. Of the ten cities in the world with the highest levels of air pollution, three are in India. (3). There are more reports but by now you probably get the point. Note that no US city has been mentioned. Steven Hayward in discussing the Blacksmith report makes an observation that could well apply to all of these documents: "Not surprisingly the media and green campaigners in the United States completely overlooked this report." (4) China has some of the worst pollution problems in the world. Nearly two-thirds of China's 343 major cities currently fail to meet the nation's air quality standards. Pollution levels in China's major cities are 10 to 50 times higher than the worst smoggy day in Los Angeles (5). The twenty fastest growing cities in the world are all in China. China is adding 100 gigawatts of coal-fired electrical capacity a year. That's another whole United States' worth of coal consumption added every three years, with no stopping point in sight. Much of the rest of the developing world is on a similar path. (6) As Fareed Zakaria notes, "The combined carbon dioxide emissions from the 850 new coal-fired power plants that China and India are building between now and 2012 are five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords. So you can put in all those curly light bulbs and drive all the Priuses you want: India just ate that for breakfast and China will eat the next round of conservation for lunch." (7) Jane Orient adds this on the futility of reducing emissions; "In a symbolic gesture, the Forces of Darkness, which are trying to end an age of enlightenment and reason, urged people to turn off their lights for an hour between 8:30 and 9:30 PM local time. Bjorn Lomborg calculated that if 1 billion turned off their lights for 1 hour, it would have been the equivalent of shutting of China's emissions for a full 6 seconds. (8) Although China receives the most attention, it is not the only Asian nation where this concern is present. India is also growing rapidly, and its major cities experience particulate levels often eight to ten times higher than the worst American cities. India is the fourth-most coal dependent country in the world and has enough reserves to last for the next 100 years. Carbon emissions in India are rising faster than nearly every other country on the planet. Between 1980 and 2006, India's carbon output increased by 341%, compared to 321% for China, 103% for Brazil 238% for Indonesia and 272% for Pakistan. (9) Peter Huber sums this up quite well: "Cut to the chase. We rich people can't stop the world's 5 billion poor people from burning the couple of trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have within easy reach. We can't even make any durable dent in global emissions-because emissions from the developing world are growing too fast, because the other 80 percent of humanity desperately needs cheap energy, and because we and they are now part of the same global economy. What we can do, if we're foolish enough, is let carbon worries send our jobs and industries to their shores, making them grow even faster, and their carbon emissions faster still." (6)"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_geography_of_carbon_emissi.html

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM. Reason : forgot link]

5/27/2009 3:09:02 PM

nice link, lady.

5/27/2009 3:11:01 PM

Quote :

"Peter Huber sums this up quite well: "Cut to the chase. We rich people can't stop the world's 5 billion poor people from burning the couple of trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have within easy reach. We can't even make any durable dent in global emissions-because emissions from the developing world are growing too fast, because the other 80 percent of humanity desperately needs cheap energy, and because we and they are now part of the same global economy. What we can do, if we're foolish enough, is let carbon worries send our jobs and industries to their shores, making them grow even faster, and their carbon emissions faster still." (6)""

This is actually a very legitimate problem. Places like China and India are rapidly industrializing and need cheap power. What's the cheapest power? Generally speaking: coal. While China is also rapidly developing other sources - like nuclear and hydro - coal is generally going to be the cheapest available source.

So, thinking about it from this perspective, if one wants to make a dent in CO2 emissions, going after this end of the problem - finding ways to encourage substitution - is likely going to have the highest marginal impact on the problem. In essence, it's a Coasian bargaining situation.

However, how do you do that without it being prone to abuse? i.e., "pay me to build better power plants or I'll extort you by building coal plants." I don't really have an answer to that question. But this is probably one of the more serious issues with the CO2 problem - the major growth of emissions will be from this part of the world, not the first world.

5/27/2009 3:47:14 PM

^^^That should not be an argument against efforts in the western hemisphere to reduce carbon emissions. That is defeatist. It should be an argument in support of working towards helping/forcing them to reduce carbon emissions.

5/27/2009 6:07:07 PM

And people wonder why we said we wouldn't sign Kyoto if China and India wouldn't sign it

Using a plastic cup to bail water out of a boat isn't going to stop it from sinking if other people are pouring gallon buckets of water into the boat

Assuming the boat is even sinking anyway

5/27/2009 6:12:40 PM

Quote :

"Good article about how any efforts to reduce CO2 emissions on our part makes little to no impact worldwide, despite massive taxes and changes in lifestyle potentially being forced upon us."

I'm confused........

So has the right transformed their position on human influenced global climate change from

"NO fucking way humans can have an impact on the environment"

to......

"Well we really should not be making the radical policy shifts, tax changes, and over the top regulations as pertaining to artificial global warming. After all we'll just be hurting ourselves and this still does not change the fact that other countries who choose not to participate and developing countries are still outputting major green house gases. Also, we are not sure the magnitude of our involvement in climate change"

The later is something i actually support. I though but can't help but laugh how the viewpoint is slowly shifting to "oh artificial global warming does exist" after years of putting their fingers in their ears yelling "lalala". Trying to limit the liberal environmental wacko policies is a reasonable and commendable objective for teh GOP. Trying to somehow go against the flow of the scientific community of accredited researchers just b.c Al Gore makes a buck hyping up global warming is just going to cause the GOP to lose ground.

This does not mean though that we should give up any kind of drift to more eco-friendly and energy saving devices. Just because 100 people driving down I40 throw their McD's bag out the window does not mean that it "not a big deal" if i don't either.

Quote :

"So you can put in all those curly light bulbs and drive all the Priuses you want"

From a economical standpoint it does if it saves me money in electricity and AC (during the summer) by having a CFL bulb. WELL SINCE INDIA IS PUTTING OUT CO2 WE SHOULD ALL JUST GO DRIVE BIG TAHOES BURNING 12MPG JUST TO SHOW WE CAN!!!!


[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 6:44 PM. Reason : l]

5/27/2009 6:40:34 PM

People have been pointing out the China/India scenario for years, including myself, on TWW...this is not some newfound stance by the GOP whatsoever

5/27/2009 6:45:30 PM

Yeah, we Americans clearly have no responsibility to reduce emissions. It's those damn poor countries.

5/27/2009 6:45:58 PM

your map makes no sense. I see red and white on a map and some obscure abbreviations p.a. p.c.

5/27/2009 6:47:33 PM

thats fairly misleading...lets say (based on that map) the average american emits 30 units of CO2, whereas the average person in China only emits 15 units of CO2...China is still emitting twice as much pollution, since they have such a large population...despite the coloration of the map

5/27/2009 6:48:57 PM

It's carbon emissions per capita.

^ Actual numbers would be roughly 20 for American and 4 for China. As global warming affects the entire planet, I don't see why anyone should have the right to emit more carbon than anybody else.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 6:53 PM. Reason : ^]

5/27/2009 6:48:57 PM

what this map tells me is that china and india's Billion rice pattie workers water down all the huge smoke factories and pollution emitting places

5/27/2009 6:50:57 PM

The statistics are dated (2004), but we still have dramatically higher emissions per capita.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 7:01 PM. Reason : higher]

5/27/2009 6:56:29 PM

Quote :

"I don't see why anyone should have the right to emit more carbon than anybody else."

In an ideal world, sure I would agree with you. But its pretty easy for some rich celebrities in the US to preach about how we should cut back, and buy more fuel- and energy-efficient vehicles and appliances. How are you going to convince someone who lives in a hut that they can't burn wood or coal to stay warm? The United States, over roughly the past 100 years, grew from a fairly small country into a global powerhouse, in part by burning the necessary fuel sources to assist the economy and nation's growth. Now that we are more technologically advanced, we have time and assets to invest in developing newer and more efficient technologies. But how do you convince other countries, who are eager for their own growth and prosperity, that they can't use the same energy resources that the US used when we had our largest growth? You can't which is why the US's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol was dependent on what China and India did.

5/27/2009 6:58:09 PM

Quote :

"That should not be an argument against efforts in the western hemisphere to reduce carbon emissions. That is defeatist."

How do you figure? The point of the article is two-fold:

1) us changing our ways won't have any effect, because China will undo it in 3 seconds.
2) us changing our ways will ultimately lead to more pollution by China, as our economies are decimated by the factories heading to China where they can pollute more.

Quote :

"The later is something i actually support. I though but can't help but laugh how the viewpoint is slowly shifting to "oh artificial global warming does exist" after years of putting their fingers in their ears yelling "lalala"."

Come on. If anything is "shifting" it's the alarmists. First it was "Global Warming." Now it's "Global Climate Change." First it was 50 feet of sea-level rise. Then it was a couple feet. Now it's a couple inches. First it was "OMG TIPPING POINT!!! UNCONTROLLABLE INCREASES!!!" and now it is "well, shit can even go down... but it's still bad."

Quote :

"As global warming affects the entire planet, I don't see why anyone should have the right to emit more carbon than anybody else."

Ok, fine. Then let's make China agree to only emit as much carbon as everyone else overall, not per capita, as CO2 doesn't care how people it took to emit it when it gets it the atmosphere.

5/27/2009 7:06:42 PM

Quote :

"Now that we are more technologically advanced, we have time and assets to invest in developing newer and more efficient technologies."

Maybe, but this hasn't decreased our emissions by much yet. That's my point. It's profoundly hypocritical to focus on the poor countries when we put far more carbon into the atmosphere per person. The ideal that reducing emissions here doesn't matter is nonsense.

Now, on the other hand, even if the entire world stopped emitting carbon, global warming would still probably continue for a long time:

http://metamodern.com/2009/01/01/greenhouse-gases-and-advanced-nanotechnology/

Quote :

"Then let's make China agree to only emit as much carbon as everyone else overall, not per capita, as CO2 doesn't care how people it took to emit it when it gets it the atmosphere."

That'd be a dick move they'd never agree to. Each Chinese citizen has as much right to a high standard of living as any American. Only a per capita standard meets basic fairness requirements.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 7:09 PM. Reason : fairness]

5/27/2009 7:06:48 PM

Quote :

"Now that we are more technologically advanced, we have time and assets to invest in developing newer and more efficient technologies. But how do you convince other countries, who are eager for their own growth and prosperity, that they can't use the same energy resources that the US used when we had our largest growth? You can't which is why the US's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol was dependent on what China and India did."

This kind of gets the the heart of the matter: how do you prevail upon these countries to adopt relatively more expensive sources of energy in place of cheaper, dirtier ones, particularly when we have benefited from this path historically?

This is why it's essentially a Coasian bargaining situation, as I see it. If we assume everyone starts with an "equal" right to emit CO2, then what levers does one maintain over say, China and India to forgo their cheaper options? One can try forcing them, but they'd never ratify Kyoto - for pretty obvious reasons. So, it remains to convince them - however, the "damage done" so to speak has not been by them, so their natural reply to simple pleas based upon the impact of such emissions would be that they have the same right to develop economically that the West did.

This leaves us with subsidies as the only foreseeable recourse - but again, how does one engage in "substitution" subsidy without leaving oneself open to simply extortion?

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 7:09 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 7:07:27 PM

Quote :

"It's profoundly hypocritical to focus on the poor countries when we put far more carbon into the atmosphere per person."

How do you figure? Is CO2 bad, or is it not? per capita doesn't fucking matter! It's absolutely dishonest, if we are to believe that CO2 is bad. Is it bad, or is it not?

If you say yes, then why in the fuck should WE destroy our economy to reduce CO2 when what will happen is that our economic activity will MOVE TO CHINA AND EMIT FAR MORE CO2 THERE THAN WE EVER DID?

Per capita doesn't matter one fucking bit when there is one fucking earth and everyone's feces goes into it.

5/27/2009 7:11:18 PM

Quote :

"Per capita doesn't matter one fucking bit when there is one fucking earth and everyone's feces goes into it."

So you'd be cool with an agreement limiting US per capita emissions to current Chinese levels while they're allowed to double emissions? That would reduce carbon overall.

5/27/2009 7:18:57 PM

no. because PER CAPITA doesn't matter. how many times do I have to say it? PER CAPITA DOESN'T MATTER!!!

GET

THIS

THROUGH

YOUR

THICK

FUCKING

LIBERAL

DOUCHE

SKULL

PER CAPITA DOESN'T MATTER

5/27/2009 7:21:52 PM

It doesn't affect the effect on the climate, sure. That's not the only thing I care about.

5/27/2009 7:22:57 PM

ok, then. if you care more about the climate, then, why make such a big deal solely about CO2's effects on the climate? It is disingenuous to get your panties in a wad about CO2 emissions if you will willingly promote policies whose net effect is the generation of more CO2 than the status quo.

if, however, you want to further the agenda of socialism, communism, liberalism, whatever, then, please, state it, so we can discount whatever else you have to say.

5/27/2009 7:28:49 PM

The same amount of pollution is less harmful to the health of the population if its spread over a large area than if its all concentrated in a small area, so wouldn't a cap per square area make more sense than a per capita cap?

5/27/2009 7:30:55 PM

Quote :

"ok, then. if you care more about the climate, then, why make such a big deal solely about CO2's effects on the climate? It is disingenuous to get your panties in a wad about CO2 emissions if you will willingly promote policies whose net effect is the generation of more CO2 than the status quo."

I'm not one who is eager to defend GoldenViper, but I believe that part of his point with per capita is that there is an equity issue, here. Each person in the West tends to emit more CO2, even though there are more people to emit CO2 in China and India. His point is that it is an iniquity to demand that those who emit less per person emit less, when those who emit more per person do nothing, regardless of the fact that the total magnitude of the effect of those who emit less per person is larger than those who emit more per person.

5/27/2009 7:33:38 PM

Quote :

"if you care more about the climate, then, why make such a big deal solely about CO2's effects on the climate?"

Recognizing carbon emissions and global warming as a problem in no way mandates focusing on that issue above all others. You must see this. It's not a complicated or unusual perspective. I assume you're merely pursuing a rhetorical strategy.

Quote :

"The same amount of pollution is less harmful to the health of the population if its spread over a large area than if its all concentrated in a small area, so wouldn't a cap per square area make more sense than a per capita cap?"

For many pollutants, sure. Carbon dioxide isn't the same. It's main harmful effect is global, not local.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 7:39 PM. Reason : global not local]

5/27/2009 7:34:17 PM

Quote :

"His point is that it is an iniquity to demand that those who emit less per person emit less, when those who emit more per person do nothing, regardless of the fact that the total magnitude of the effect of those who emit less per person is larger than those who emit more per person."

And I can understand that, but, when the effect of the smaller per-capita is overwhelming the effect of the larger per-capita, is that really a concern anymore? If everyone is going to be fucked, does per-capita matter? Because, per-capita, the fucking is the same: 1 fucking per capita.

^ sure, but why focus on strategies for dealing with CO2 that will be ineffective at actually dealing with CO2 in the name of the other "purposes?" If we want to deal with CO2, we should DEAL WITH IT and get that problem fixed. If we aint here, then we really aren't going to be able to deal with many of the other problems, are we?

5/27/2009 7:36:30 PM

Quote :

"Because, per-capita, the fucking is the same: 1 fucking per capita."

yeah Viper, aren't you all about no borders and one world people and everything? In that case, its 1 per capita, the Earth's capita

5/27/2009 7:40:32 PM

^^ I think we can deal with it without engaging in even more privileged jackassery than usual.

Quote :

"In that case, its 1 per capita, the Earth's capita"

The inequalities appear within countries as well. Isn't that why folks complain about Al Gore flying all over the place?

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 7:45 PM. Reason : Al Gore]

5/27/2009 7:41:42 PM

Quote :

""Global Warming." Now it's "Global Climate Change.""

Give me a fucking break. The term Global Warming was created b.c the simpletons of our society would stare dumbfounded if some climatologist tried to explain the complexities of sea currents, air circulations, precipitation patterns, temperature trends which all dynamically are involved in the process by which some regions could either be cooler, stay the same, or be warmer, wetter, or drier due to climate change no matter if pure natural or pure human induced.

Simpler is it to just say Global Warming something easy to digest as anyone above the age of 6 can picture a big thermostat that instead of heating their house would be heating the earth; cause as a net whole the earth would be warmer if the hypothesis about humans emissions are true. The debate is about if its a small nudge on the thermostat or a big push.

5/27/2009 7:42:02 PM

anyone above the age of 6 can picture a big white haired god in the sky to punish them for their moral life decisions

5/27/2009 7:43:32 PM

Quote :

"And I can understand that, but, when the effect of the smaller per-capita is overwhelming the effect of the larger per-capita, is that really a concern anymore? If everyone is going to be fucked, does per-capita matter? Because, per-capita, the fucking is the same: 1 fucking per capita."

It's utilitarian vs. egalitarian logic. Your argument is that we should look at the net effect of emissions, regardless of how they are distributed. This is the utilitarian position.

GoldenViper's point about equity is an egalitarian position, in that everyone has an equal "right" (or lack thereof) to pollute. Therefore, if the cumulative effect of pollution is too great, then everyone should be forced to cut back to an equal level, the sum of which is deemed "acceptable." In other words, the burdens should be distributed equally.

I am more sympathetic to the utilitarian position, but I recognize that there's an equity issue at stake here. Folks like China could make the legitimate case that we've been wrecking up the place long before they became a major contributor, and therefore, if we want to make demands upon them to not emit so much, we ought to have something to bring to the table ourselves.

5/27/2009 7:44:59 PM