I tried to get through it, I really did. But I stopped at page 62.
This morning I sat down with the A State of Knowledge Report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The Knowledge Report was recently put out by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (now the U.S. Global Change Research Program), which is sponsored by 13 federal agencies including the U.S. EPA.
The Knowledge Report is the so-far definitive climate change report/study put out by the United States government.
Most of us have probably never read the couple-year-old report put out by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I know I haven’t. It seems kinda stupid to be talking about climate change without actually having read the definitive studies.
So this morning I dove in to the Knowledge Report. I got to page 62 (of 190) and had to stop. I just couldn’t take it seriously.
Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities. Warming over this century is projected to be considerably greater than over the last century. The global average temperature since 1900 has risen by about 1.5ºF. By 2100, it is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5ºF. The U.S. average temperature has risen by a comparable amount and is very likely to rise more than the global average over this century, with some variation from place to place. Several factors will determine future temperature increases. Increases at the lower end of this range are more likely if global heat-trapping gas emissions are cut substantially. If emissions continue to rise at or near current rates, temperature increases are more likely to be near the upper end of the range.
Human produced greenhouse gases have raised the average temperature by 1.5ºF over the last century and are poised raise it an additional 2 to 11.5ºF if emissions are not cut.
Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7ºF.
So, climate change will result in warmer air temperatures, heavier rain events and higher sea levels? The average winter temperature has risen 7ºF in the last thirty years.
But what are the side effects of that increase in temperature? What exactly will climate change do? How will our lives be affected? Longer growing seasons. Less ice on rivers and lakes.
So far, they’re just not scaring me. There must be something more.
Stabilization
The stabilization scenario is aimed at stabilizing the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at roughly 450 parts per million (ppm); this is 70 ppm above the 2008 concentration of 385 ppm. Resulting temperature changes depend on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and particles and the climate’s sensitivity to those concentrations. Of those shown on the previous page, only the 450 ppm stabilization target has the potential to keep the global temperature rise at or below about 3.5°F from pre-industrial levels and 2°F above the current average temperature, a level beyond which many concerns have been raised about dangerous human interference with the climate system.
Re-read that last paragraph.
The goal of all climate change legislation should be to stabilize carbon dioxide concentration at “roughly 450 parts per million (ppm); this is 70 ppm above the 2008 concentration of 385 ppm.” A carbon dioxide concentration under 450 ppm should have very livable consequences for us.
Uncertainty
In projecting future conditions, there is always some level of uncertainty. For example, there is a high degree of confidence in projections that future temperature increases will be greatest in the Arctic and in the middle of continents. For precipitation, there is high confidence in projections of continued increases in the Arctic and sub-Arctic (including Alaska) and decreases in the regions just outside the tropics, but the precise location of the transition between these is less certain.
The report speaks in generalities because obviously its too difficult to make specific predictions about climate that far into the future. What they can fairly predicts goes something along the lines of:
- Temperatures will rise all over, but it will rise more in colder climes than in warmer latitudes. Winters will warm further than summers will.
- Heavy, as in 100-year-flood-heavy, precipitation events will increase. Think: One hundred is the new twenty. Twenty is the new five.
- Even with more rain overall, there will be more periods of drought, especially in those areas that are already susceptible to it.
- The parts of the globe that are currently thought of as “poor” are likely to see more significant changes which impact food and water than are North America and northern Europe.
Adaptation
Adaptation can include a wide range of activities. Examples include a farmer switching to growing a different crop variety better suited to warmer or drier conditions; a company relocating key business centers away from coastal areas vulnerable to sea-level rise and hurricanes; and a community altering its zoning and building codes to place fewer structures in harm’s way and making buildings less vulnerable to damage from floods, fires, and other extreme events. Some adaptation options that are currently being pursued in various regions and sectors to deal with climate change and/or other environmental issues are identified in this report. However, it is clear that there are limits to how much adaptation can achieve.
Humans will have to continue to adapt to their environment. Farmers will plant different crops or plant the same crops at slightly different times of year.
Building codes and local zoning ordinances will need to be updated to reflect the more likely occurrence of severe weather.
Humans have adapted to changing climatic conditions in the past, but in the future, adaptations will be particularly challenging because society won’t be adapting to a new steady state but rather to a rapidly moving target. Climate will be continually changing, moving at a relatively rapid rate, outside the range to which society has adapted in the past. The precise amounts and timing of these changes will not be known with certainty.
This is a ridiculous statement. Absolutely ridiculous fearmongering that is completely blind to the facts. Adapting to changing climate conditions in the modern age, with all of our technology, will be much easier than it has been for humans for the last 10,000 years.
Ridiculous. Fear. Mongering.
More Heat Waves
Scientists are sometimes asked whether extreme weather events can be linked to human activities. Scientific research has concluded that human influences on climate are indeed changing the likelihood of certain types of extreme events. For example, an analysis of the European summer heat wave of 2003 found that the risk of such a heat wave is now roughly four times greater than it would have been in the absence of human-induced climate change.
In a warmer future climate, models project there will be an increased risk of more intense, more frequent, and longer-lasting heat waves. The European heat wave of 2003 is an example of the type of extreme heat event that is likely to become much more common. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, by the 2040s more than half of European summers will be hotter than the summer of 2003, and by the end of this century, a summer as hot as that of 2003 will be considered unusually cool.
Okay, so global warming will bring more heat waves….
Rain, Rain Go Away
One of the clearest precipitation trends in the United States is the increasing frequency and intensity of heavy downpours. This increase was responsible for most of the observed increase in overall precipitation during the last 50 years. In fact, there has been little change or a decrease in the frequency of light and moderate precipitation during the past 30 years, while heavy precipitation has increased. In addition, while total average precipitation over the nation as a whole increased by about 7 percent over the past century, the amount of precipitation falling in the heaviest 1 percent of rain events increased nearly 20 percent. During the past 50 years, the greatest increases in heavy precipitation occurred in the Northeast and the Midwest.
More rain overall. More rain in shorter periods of time. More periods of no rain. Seems to me like something that can be planned for. If only we had more than a fifty to hundred year time frame to do it…
If only…
Drought
Like precipitation, trends in drought have strong regional variations. In much of the Southeast and large parts of the West, the frequency of drought has increased coincident with rising temperatures over the past 50 years. In other regions, such as the Midwest and Great Plains, there has been a reduction in drought frequency.
Its unfortunate that so little of the nation’s food stock is grown in the Midwest and Great Plains….
Although there has been an overall increase in precipitation and no clear trend in drought for the nation as a whole, increasing temperatures have made droughts more severe and widespread than they would have otherwise been. Without the observed increase in precipitation, higher temperatures would have led to an increase in the area of the contiguous United States in severe to extreme drought, with some estimates of a 30 percent increase.
Read that paragraph again. As predicted by climate change theory, increasing temperatures have resulted in more rain. If this additional rain had not occurred, there would have been more drought!!
But there hasn’t been more drought. There’s been more rain.
In the future, droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe in some regions. The Southwest, in particular, is expected to experience increasing drought as changes in atmospheric circulation patterns cause the dry zone just outside the tropics to expand farther northward into the United States.
So, more drought in the desert Southwest? More rain and longer growing seasons in the breadbasket…
Water Resources
Key Messages: Climate change has already altered, and will continue to alter, the water cycle, affecting where, when, and how much water is available for all uses.
- Floods and droughts are likely to become more common and more intense as regional and seasonal precipitation patterns change, and rainfall becomes more concentrated into heavy events (with longer, hotter dry periods in between).
Precipitation and runoff are likely to increase in the Northeast and Midwest in winter and spring, and decrease in the West, especially the Southwest, in spring and summer.
In areas where snowpack dominates, the timing of runoff will continue to shift to earlier in the spring and flows will be lower in late summer.
Surface water quality and groundwater quantity will be affected by a changing climate.
Climate change will place additional burdens on already stressed water systems.
The past century is no longer a reasonable guide to the future for water management.
I think the last bullet point is the kicker. Not just for water management but for all of the aspects of life that we are addressing here: The past century is no longer a reasonable guide to the future for….
Proper planning prevents poor performance.
Energy Supply and Use
Key Messages:
Warming will be accompanied by decreases in demand for heating energy and increases in demand for cooling energy. The latter will result in significant increases in electricity use and higher peak demand in most regions.
- Energy production is likely to be constrained by rising temperatures and limited water supplies in many regions.
Energy production and delivery systems are exposed to sea-level rise and extreme weather events in vulnerable regions.
Climate change is likely to affect some renewable energy sources across the nation, such as hydropower production in regions subject to changing patterns of precipitation or snowmelt.
The upshot here I think is that it is easier to generate renewable electricity than it is to generate carbon free heat. To that extent, global warming is in some sense self-correcting.
Moreover, it is consistent with the line of thought that I subscribe to which is that the best way to reduce carbon emissions is to put everything on the electrical grid.
Agriculture
Key Messages:
- Many crops show positive responses to elevated carbon dioxide and low levels of warming, but higher levels of warming often negatively affect growth and yields.
- Extreme events such as heavy downpours and droughts are likely to reduce crop yields because excesses or deficits of water have negative impacts on plant growth.
- Weeds, diseases, and insect pests benefit from warming, and weeds also benefit from a higher carbon dioxide concentration, increasing stress on crop plants and requiring more attention to pest and weed control.
- Forage quality in pastures and rangelands generally declines with increasing carbon dioxide concentration because of the effects on plant nitrogen and protein content, reducing the land’s ability to supply adequate livestock feed.
- Increased heat, disease, and weather extremes are likely to reduce livestock productivity.
The impact of climate change on food production systems throughout the world is still being investigated. It is mostly unquestioned that the initial, near-term effect of increased carbon dioxide concentrations would result in an increase in agricultural production. Plants consume CO2, so more CO2 should be good for plants.
Researchers are now studying to determine at what temperatures the confounding effects of climate change (e.g., heat stress, changing precipitation patterns, increasing weather variability) would counter-act those initial gains and result in reduced agricultural production.
It can now be stated with higher confidence than before that climate change is likely to challenge food security among the world’s poorest people located in the low latitudes. It will be less troublesome to agricultural systems in the mid- to high latitude nations (like the USA), at least in the early stages of warming. Adaptation effectively maintains cereal yields in the mid- to high latitudes at or above current levels through moderate amounts of warming (~+4-5 C), but it only protects low latitude cereal yields for a few degrees of warming (~+3 C). The direct effects of rising atmospheric CO2 levels on crop growth will offset some of the deleterious effects and enhance the beneficial effects of climate change. (Morehere and here.)
Transportation
Key Messages: Sea-level rise and storm surge will increase the risk of major coastal impacts, including both temporary and permanent flooding of airports, roads, rail lines, and tunnels.
- Flooding from increasingly intense downpours will increase the risk of disruptions and delays in air, rail, and road transportation, and damage from mudslides in some areas.
- The increase in extreme heat will limit some transportation operations and cause pavement and track damage. Decreased extreme cold will provide some benefits such as reduced snow and ice removal costs.
- Increased intensity of strong hurricanes would lead to more evacuations, infrastructure damage and failure, and transportation interruptions.
- Arctic warming will continue to reduce sea ice, lengthening the ocean transport season, but also resulting in greater coastal erosion due to waves. Permafrost thaw in Alaska will damage infrastructure. The ice road season will become shorter.
So, less Ice Road Truckers.
Human Health
Key Messages:
- Increases in the risk of illness and death related to extreme heat and heat waves are very likely. Some reduction in the risk of death related to extreme cold is expected.
- Warming is likely to make it more challenging to meet air quality standards necessary to protect public health.
- Extreme weather events cause physical and mental health problems. Some of these events are projected to increase.
- Some diseases transmitted by food, water, and insects are likely to increase.
- Rising temperature and carbon dioxide concentration increase pollen production and prolong the pollen season in a number of plants with highly allergenic pollen, presenting a health risk.
- Certain groups, including children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to a range of climate-related health effects.
The “Key Messages” of the last two sections of the report have
discussed ice road trucking and hayfever and I have lost interest. I’d rather take a few extra Clariton every fall allergy season than spend a few trillion dollars over-hauling our entire energy and transportation infrastructure.
But hey, that’s just me.
Thanks for printing these excerpts Brian. I feel that reading them all has been enough to get a feel for the document.
And nice followup observations. I particularly enjoyed”
“Ridiculous. Fear. Mongering.” I just love one word sentences. The drama had my lips quivering. 😉
“So, less Ice Road Truckers. ”
This had me laughing out loud. I can just imagine all the people watching that show shouting out in unison to “save the ice road trucker!”
I personally hate that show, so I’m burning some oil in my backyard right now in hopes of speeding its demise. I’m a huge fan of the history channel and the last couple of years it’s been completely overtaken by these idiotic “real life” dramas, like Axe Men, Ice Road Truckers, and Most Dangerous Catch.
Darn it, I want my in-depth WWII documentaries back! I want to know what happened in Hitlers bunker in the last moments. I want to know how the Soviets reverse engineered the B-29. I want to learn more about Verner Von Brauns health problems and JFKs addiction to women and pain killers. Heck, I even want more R.Lee Ermies Mail Call. So, lets all go light a fire and commute in an SUV, lets see about taking The History Channel back!
There is more to history than war, assassination and overrated Presidents. How can you hate Ice Road Truckers?! I watch and laugh at the amateurs. Let’s see them drive a 5800 pound rear-wheel drive peach Ford Thunderbird up and down the hills of Sioux City. Now that’s some Ice Road Trucking…
While you’re waiting for your beloved History Channel to return to you in her pure state, I suggest you check out Whale Wars on Animal Planet. I only caught a couple of episodes but its a pretty good “laugh at the hippies” show.
Holy cow, I forgot about that car! What a sweet ride.
Whale wars huh? Never heard of it. I’ll have to check it out. Better than the crap I’ve been watching while my lady History Channel is on hiatus: Meercat Manor. I’m old….so, so, so, old.
Meercat Manor sounds like something watched by an old british lady.
Whale wars is a documentary (or, unintentional mockumentary) aboard a save the whales boat named the Steve Irwin as it shadows and harasses a Japanese whaling boat.
The funny thing about is that their only real means of harassment is to throw smelly acid on the deck of the boat which causes the meat to go bad. Which of course only means one thing. They gotta go catch themselves another whale cuz this ones been ruined….
As much as I disagree with some of your comments, I appreciate your candid highlighting of some of the contentious points in the Knowledge Report. Despite the fact that the data does not lie, speculation as to what will happen is ultimately up to our government. Scientific implementation of any solutions cannot occur unless the largely unscientific bodies of our government enact science to do its hopefully well-funded solutions. Until the U.S. decides to regulate the emissions of our country, we are left to speculating about what the future holds just like meteorologists. The modern age IS capable of adapting to climate change better than people of 10,000 years ago. However, will our political process spend too much hourglass sand arguing about how to interpret data before anything is done. Our country is very reluctant to change the way we are becoming comfortable in living. That reluctance is the only thing standing in our way. Future climate change speculation is just that, speculation. In the mean time, why not try to be a more conscious global citizen and lighten your footprint? What harm is there in thinking about everyone? You can still enjoy everything that is “American”, except maybe a Hummer.
Can I ask you to identify further which comments you disagree with so that perhaps I can further elaborate my thinking?
Its not all contained in the article above, but my climate change thesis goes something like this:
Do greenhouse gasses reduce the loss of heat from the environment? YES.
Are greenhouse gasses not actually present in the atmosphere at the measured levels? YES.
Are the noted increase in greenhouse gasses not the result of the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities? YES.
Is it indisputable that the earth is currently warming? YES.
That the earth is warming is indisputable. Unfortunately, the effects of that warming can only be predicted within a certain range of accuracy. Not only because we don’t know what the effect of warming will be, but also because we don’t know how much the climate will warm.
Most importantly, we don’t know whether global warming will be, on balance, a positive or negative change to the environment. There will be negatives, sure. But how bad are those things?
I reviewed the Knowledge Report to find out what the U.S. Government thinks are the biggest effects of climate change will be.
The debate should not be whether climate change is occurring. It is. The debate should be over whether climate change is good or bad for us. The debate should be over the extent to which slowing or reversing climate change is more economically efficient than adapting to it.
The Knowledge Report has laid out the current predictions as to the effect of climate change. Those effects, in my mind, are not that dire, provided that positive but not necessarily drastic action is taken in the near future.
An interesting read on the two North Dakota Senators’ cap and trade positions: http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/fencesitter-dorganconrad
“The debate should be over whether climate change is good or bad for us. The debate should be over the extent to which slowing or reversing climate change is more economically efficient than adapting to it.”
Thank you for clarifying your thesis. I disagree with what should be debated. Overwhelmingly, climate change will effect the third world in all aspects negatively, thereby rendering the human reaction to climate change a catastrophe. I am interested in giving voices to the voiceless. I am not, however, condoning the fact that so many people live in places that will be effected. Everyone is a victim of his/her own choices. However, the modern age of a global consciousness precludes the fact that all people are connected through empathy. My heart goes out to someone in Tanzania who works in subhuman conditions to supply the world with enough lanthanum to supply my battery-controlled devices. I am going to change my consumer habits because I know someone is being effected by my purchase. I realize there are too many middle players to account for, who make sure that Tanzanian laborer does not improve his/her quality of life. Already, the world has way too many people below the poverty line. Because I live in the comforts of urban America and have been fortunate to be raised with everything America provides, does not afford me the luxury of not thinking about how this product appeared in my hand.
The economic efficiency of the human reaction to climate change is not that important when you consider the poorest three quarters of the world. They just want to live more like Americans. The current economic efficiency of our culture could nor be more wasteful. We have enormous room for efficiency improvement. I thinking mostly of the American dependence on cars(oil), HVAC systems, and fast food(gm AG). HVAC systems built for every house and building in the US for the last thirty-forty years have been capitalism at its best. If homes were designed to use the elements that already exist, energy efficiency would never be an issue.
As far as whether climate change is bad or good, let’s just assume that an undetermined future with climate uncertainty is most likely going to shake the world up a little. Things will change to the point that an American will feel less like we’re on the top of the consumer chain. We will feel more connected with every part of the world because we will need each other to handle the future resource issues of the future. America controlling all of the players so we stay on top is not likely.
I will continue this conversation later, I gotta go.
First, Brian, let me say that I agree with the lack of economic viability of trying to legislate climate change reversal. I think that an attempt to slow or reverse climate change will have economic impacts that result in greater harm to third world countries than what climate change would have. Whether you get your energy from oil, solar, or wind, it will get MUCH more expensive if we begin efforts of increased taxation and regulation. The increase in expense to corporations and the consumer will, as you say, slow growth and have a greater negative impact on the poorest people, than climate change ever could. It’s one more example of the far left hurting those they claim they want to help.
Another debate worth having, ancillary to this one, is this: Can ANY amount of taxation and regulation in the US have an overall effect on pollution and ultimately on climate change? Will China follow suit with similar cap and trade style legislation? Will India? South America?
According to the World Bank in 2004, exactly ZERO of the most polluted cities were in the US.
Cairo
Delhi
Calcutta
Tianjin
Chongqing
Lucknow
Kanpur
Jakarta
Shenyang
Zhengzhou
Jinan
Lanzhou
Beijing
Taiyuan
Chengdu
Ahmadabad
Anshan
Wuhan
Bangkok
Nanchang
12 in China and 5 in India. Are these cities and their respective countries ready to stand up and be responsible global citizens? Can we as US citizens effect any kind of meaningful change without them? Where is their Obama?
Also, with regard to Gus’ comments about lanthanum. I’m curious. Gus mentions “subhuman” conditions, but what exactly are the living conditions in Tanzania in the areas where lanthanum is extracted to begin with? Why do you suppose people are working for these companies? Are they physically enslaved? Or are they working of their own free will? I’m against slavery, so if that’s the case, I completely agree with you. I don’t think that’s the case though. Do you really think people are going to put themselves through hellacious working conditions if they have a better option? Why would they do that?
I’m reminded of an episode of 48 hours where some US senators were putting pressure on a Nike factory because American citizens were offended by the child labor, long hours and poor wages. Kids anywhere from 8-14 were working 12-15 hour days in the factory to make shoes for Americans. The working conditions were “subhuman”. Unfortunately, when combined with average age of the labor force, all the 3rd world corruption and international red tape, raising the wage, improving conditions and offering health insurance would render the factory unsustainable. Needless to say, it closed. 6 months after the factory closed, journalists went back to check on some of the former child workers. Where were they? Answer: Sold into child slavery and prostitution by their parents. Why? Because their income source was removed by meddling Americans with “empathy”. The only reason they worked in the “sweathshops” is because it was better than the next best alternative.
In my opinion, Africa could use a few more sweatshops. They would almost certainly have to be better than sitting in a camp starving and waiting for half a bowl of rice from the Red Cross.
I even read some interviews with migrant workers in Tanzania specifically, and they were begging for sweatshops. There is literally more labor force than work so people are starving with no ability to earn ANY wage, let alone, one that is derived from subhuman conditions.
“Joe Lugalla, author of Crisis, Urbanization, and Urban Poverty in Tanzania: A Study of Poverty and Survival Politics, argues that the informal sector(unregulated/unsactioned) is vital for the livelihoods of the urban poor and that government restrictions and harassment are therefore regressive.”
Food for thought.
Mike, I have a clarification question.
Do you mean that its too expensive to do anything? Or simply that economic efficiency should be the guiding principle?
Total expenditures for energy services in the U.S. economy were $1.2 trillion in 2007. The Energy Information Administration predicts that energy expenditures rise to $1.8 trillion (2007 dollars) in 2030. (In reality, $1.5-2.0 trillion, depending on economic growth.
Energy expeditures accounted for 9.8% of GDP in 2008, the highest since 1986. The EIA predicts that improvements in the energy efficiency of the economy will reduce that share to 7.3% of GDP in 2030.
Total energy expenditure over the next 21 years, disregarding carbon output, is going to amount to a minimum of $30 trillion.
That said, let’s just pretend that by 2030 the United States is able to install 300 GW of Wind Capacity, a fairly realistic scenario.
The rate impact of the transmission portion of the 300 GW Scenario could be as low as $1.30 per residential customer per month.
The basic capital cost assumptions which the DOE used in the 300 GW Scenario:
Shallow Offshore Wind: ($2,520/kW in 2005), decreasing 12.5% to $2,200/kW.
Natural gas: ($780/kW in 2005)
Coal plant: ($2,120/kW in 2005) increases about 5% through 2015 and then remains flat through 2030
Nuclear plant: ($3,260/kW in 2005) decreasing 28% by 2030.
These figures need to be adjusted for two things: carbon constraints and capacity factor. MacKay tells us to expect that capital costs will double if carbon constraints are implemented. Capacity Factor is that fraction of actual output of a power plant relative to full nameplate capacity.
Thus, using nuclear as the control group, the predicted relative capital cost in 2030 would be:
Shallow Offshore Wind: $6,600/kW.
The above numbers do not include the cost of fuel which will be drastically more expensive for gas and coal than for wind and nuclear.
Continuing….
Nuclear is cheap. Wind after factoring in the cost of fuel is not going to be that much more expensive than gas or coal, if its not cheaper.
The country is growing and new electric capacity will be needed. Present capacity will eventually wear out and will need to be replaced. The United States’ power companies are constantly adding capacity. If nuclear is cheaper than coal/gas and wind is more expensive than coal/gas, why not some sort of ratio based mandate of nuclear and wind that equals the expected cost of new coal/gas?
Carbon output aside, I do believe that every additional dollar that is spent on energy relative to the lowest cost generation is a wasted dollar. Its a dollar that could be spent on other things.
What I’m saying is something along the lines of “a rising tide lifts all ships”, or rather, in this case, the inverse of that axiom.
If our (the first world nations in general and the US in particular) economies are saddled with the taxation and regulation necessary to reduce and reverse anthropogenic climate change, it will have strong adverse effects on our growth and economic power, both of which would have negative impacts on the developing world.
It’s times of rapid growth and expansion that drive the kinds of industry and capital that moves into 3rd world nations, seeking new opportunities and resource, builds new factories and hires new employees. Its this type of growth that leads to the electrification of many third world cities and towns. A factory gets built and needs water and electricity and workers. So electricity, water lines and housing will be expanded or even newly built.
If companies are burdened with new taxes and regulations, I think they’ll be less experimental in their efforts to grow markets and expand business. This doesn’t hurt the well established work force nearly as much as it does the people at or below the poverty line, both here and abroad.
So, I’m not saying it’s too expensive to do anything, I’m saying the increased expense that would be added to the developed world would actually have drastic negative connotations for the developing world.
And that’s not even taking into account all the positives of climate change (and there are many).
I forgot to mention in my previous post, that I also thing the debate should focus on whether or not climate change is actually a net negative. I’m not sure it is. And on the possibility it’s not, don’t we owe it to ourselves as a people to find that out? I mean, imagine all the time, energy and resources we’ll have to spend to reverse climate change and imagine if that was all wasted because climate change turned out to be a net positive.
Something we need to keep in mind in all this…. The current global climate isn’t “correct”. Throughout the history of the earth, the number of millenia with hotter climates than now, outnumber those with cooler climates. Historically speaking, the earth is currently in a very cool period.
Ok, I’ve reread my previous comment and it’s still confusing.
To put it more succinctly,
As you’ve pointed out, Climate change has benefits and drawbacks. The US and Europe see most of the benefits and fewer of the drawbacks. Local to the US and Europe, I think it’s clear that climate change is a net positive. However, in the poorest places on earth (those areas for which Gus would like to be a voice) this is not necessarily true.
However…
Attempts by developed nations to reverse man made climate change will be really bad for developing nations (i.e. all the taxes and regulations will slow growth and kill industrial/capital expansion into undeveloped nations, leaving them undeveloped). Worse than climate change itself would be.
Because of this, I think it’s in everyones (rich countries and poor) best interest to understand the potential benefits/drawbacks and to adapt, rather than attempt to reverse it.
Mike, although it seems like we mostly agree on just about everything, I actually think we disagree here. Kinda.
I don’t think I would agree that climate change is a net positive. The only real positives are the possibility of increased agricultural production in certain areas and warmer winters. Climate change will eventually require us to expend more economic resources than we otherwise would have. As a result I can only conclude that it is a net economic negative.
How much of a net negative we cannot be certain right now.
——
The things I’ve read lead me to conclude that you are correct to assert that the Third World would be better off if the world’s policy focus was on economic growth/poverty reduction rather than climate change.
I do not agree however that developed nations should not work to “reverse man made climate change.”
First, lets define what I am comptemplating with respect to stabilizing the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. There is a level of CO2 at which the relatively minor effects which I have outlined above will occur. I don’t know exactly what that CO2 level is. But there is a level, decades above where it is now, where the adverse effects of increased CO2 from today’s levels aren’t really so adverse.
Let’s call that CO2 Level the Tipping Point. There is a CO2 level above the Tipping Point where the negatives begin to outweigh the positives. Perhaps seriously.
The goal of changing our CO2 output, whether voluntarily or mandated, is to ensure that we do not cross the Tipping Point. Partially this is because crossing the Tipping Point is economically inefficient. Maybe more important is that past the Tipping Point we start to affect the way we live. Where we live. How we interact with each other.
Preventing CO2 levels from reaching the Tipping Point ensures that our we are able to live our lives more or less as we do now for as little economic cost as possible.
Conclusion: I guess what I’m saying is this. We need to make economically efficient choices within the range of choices which keep atmospheric CO2 levels below the Tipping Point.
When I used to work at Coughlin Landscaping back in good old Sioux City Iowa, I learned a phrase that is both hilarious and smart: “Sometimes, you just have to sh*t your pants and deal with it.”
But just because the preferred course of action is to poop your pants doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t put on some Depends. Or at least get out of public view.
Here’s the second point.
I don’t think its a given that changing our actions in order to reduce climate change is necessarily going to reduce economic growth in this country.
Disregard whether or not China is going to eventually do anything to reduce their carbon output. Even if they do, China isn’t going to solve climate change. They don’t have the technological, educational, financial and innovative thing that we’ve got going on here. No one does.
The point being, if climate change is a problem, if reducing carbon output is the goal, then there is (apologies to gloomy Gus and is pessimistic view of the United States) only one country in the world that will be able to put it all together. There is only one country that will be able to profit from it.
Profit.
Climate change is, in my opinion, an opportunity that is too good to pass up. Develop efficient wind turbines. Share nuclear technology. Mass adopt tech which increases energy efficiency.
All of these things are opportunities which the United States is uniquely capable of capitalizing on. All of these things are opportunities which to make money on.
I’ll look it up tomorrow, but I betcha the entire annual increase in cost associated with climate change would, as a nation, be mostly balanced out via the reduction in imported oil.
300 GW of Wind means a ridiculous amount of jobs in the U.S. Midwest.
New clean energy technology means lots of great paying, profitable jobs.
Yeah, we need to do it right. With smart regulation/compulsion. But, if you properly define the rules of the game, make them clear and concise and make sure that everyone is following, then there is no country I would bet on other than the United States. The United States is the Tiger Woods of innovation, technology and finance. Sure, you could choose to bet “the field” but I’ll take Tiger.
“I don’t think I would agree that climate change is a net positive. ”
I think in the cooler, more technologically advanced developed nations it is. Longer growing seasons would be huge in areas with heavy farming. As it is, we’ve got hybrids are are nearly good enough to harvest twice per season. Give farmers an extra month and I guarantee corn output will double. Heating costs far outweigh cooling costs on a national scale in the US and almost certainly in mainland Europe (or at least they would if we didn’t go and populate the frakking desert!). Nationally, our resevoires are draining, so increased precip would be a major benefit. The weather instability is almost a non-issue. Most of the country either has tornadoes, hurricanes or earth quakes so construction codes already meet or exceed what would be necessary to compensate for additional weather impacts. Ok, fine, we’ll let New Orleans go. It was a losing battle anyway.
“Conclusion: I guess what I’m saying is this. We need to make economically efficient choices within the range of choices which keep atmospheric CO2 levels below the Tipping Point.”
Ok, sure. No argument from me. The problem is that little “economically efficient” part.
Gus makes a good point when he complains about HVAC inefficiencies. The problem is that why things like a ground source heat pump are WAY more economically efficient in the LONG term, they are pretty seriously expensive up front. The truth about economic efficiency of alternative energy is that the payback is slooooooow.
And I’m not so sure there would a net gain in jobs. There are a huge number of people who make their living in the natural gas/coal/oil extraction/refinement and transport industries. I’d love to see a study on how many “green” jobs would be created by 300GW of wind power + Nuke vs. how many jobs would be lost in the traditional energy creation and transport sectors.
“I don’t think its a given that changing our actions in order to reduce climate change is necessarily going to reduce economic growth in this country.”
I agree with this statement on its face. The problem is that we’re not simply talking about everyone waking up one day and living more efficiently. We (our govt) is talking about dragging our economy kicking and screaming into a greener future. For what you’re saying to be true, there needs to be an economic incentive that’s not purely punitive in nature. Good luck getting that done. Well, unless you can get oil prices back up to $150 a barrel, but that has it’s own problems.
“Disregard whether or not China is going to eventually do anything to reduce their carbon output. Even if they do, China isn’t going to solve climate change. They don’t have the technological, educational, financial and innovative thing that we’ve got going on here. No one does.”
First, No. You can’t disregard it. And the reason you can’t is because we can’t do this alone, which is a huge problem when you consider what you’re saying about the US being the only ones positioned to do it. You could cut our oil/coal/natural gas consumption in half in the next 30 years (a VERY bold but possible goal) and not even put a dent in the global carbon production if China and India continue to grow the way they are. China is putting more cars on the roads daily than we ever have. They’re opening up coal plants almost weekly. And their cars are not the catalytic angels we drive here. They had ZERO emmissions regulations for vehicles prior to 2000! And their coal plants make the ones we were building in the 50s look like products designed by Apple. No solution has any chance of success if it doesn’t include China, Russia, and India in some meaningful way.
“The point being, if climate change is a problem, if reducing carbon output is the goal, then there is (apologies to gloomy Gus and is pessimistic view of the United States) only one country in the world that will be able to put it all together. There is only one country that will be able to profit from it.”
That is true, and that is at the root of the problem.
“300 GW of Wind means a ridiculous amount of jobs in the U.S. Midwest.”
Thats great, I’m from the midwest. But how many of those jobs represent a lost job in Texas, Alaska, Louisiana or California, when offshore drilling rigs, refineries and pipelines are no longer being run and maintained? I’m not fighting for oil, I don’t like it either. I’m just saying the job losses will be real and they will be astounding. I’m not certain the new green jobs can offset them completely. A better argument to make might be that the job loss/gain will be roughly equal but with better average pay. And I’m not even so sure about that without seeing some real numbers. I’ve done a lot of reading about Spain. They had this same debate about 25 years ago and they put huge investments into green energy production and infrastructure and now it’s killing their economy. Their energy yield predictions were too high and the ROI was completely off and the production costs were underestimated at every turn. Keep that in mind when you’re writing the lyrics to your green power anthem.
“Yeah, we need to do it right. With smart regulation/compulsion. But, if you properly define the rules of the game, make them clear and concise and make sure that everyone is following, then there is no country I would bet on other than the United States.”
Ok, I’m looking at the President. I’m looking at his team. I’m looking at the Senate and the House and I’m wondering who our “Tiger” is. Do you know? I’m not seeing one.
Ok, so now I sound gloomy too. 🙁
Honestly, I’m totally in love with the idea of green power, of a nuke+wind strategy. It DOES make sense, but the up front costs are prohibitive to say the least. Unseating the status quo is an almost insurmountable task. Yes, this country can do anything, but lets be honest. Our greatest moments were REACTIONS. In order to do what you say, we’ll need to get hit by something, hit hard. We’ll need a Pearl Harbor/9-11 event. Are you willing to pay that price to get this done? Because that’s what it’s going to take to get this train moving.
I’m going to respond in parts…
Okay, I’ll give you the heating and cooling costs. And I’ll add in the positives associated with conservation via increased insulation and more efficient machines. Combined, I would expect energy usage to go down.
I am less sanguine (is that the right word?) about increased weather variability. I believe that there will be significant increased costs associated with dealing with that variability. Let’s start with planting crops. Although the air temperature may allow for a longer growing season generally, there will always be issues which affect localized agriculture.
I am thinking of flooding in Cedar Rapids. Either you deal with those floods every 20 years or so, or you spend a lot of money designing a water system that can handle it. I’m thinking of wet fields. Probably not a huge deal, but I know that a really wet spring here in Illinois, put planting behind. Just looking it up now as I haven’t paid attention through the summer months, but the Illinois crop is about two weeks behind normal.
This may not be a big deal this year as it appears as if we’re still looking at the second largest crop ever. But the point remains that variability is likely to lead to increased costs.
The point being, don’t overlook the costs associated with building higher walls, deeper reseviors, sturdier bridges, moving entire roadways along the coast and in low lying areas. These are not difficult things to do. They are not things that are impossible to plan for. They are however increased costs that have to be factored into the economic argument.
My second response will simply be this: I too have a negative view of the politics which will go into addressing the issue and creating a solution. I’m not going to waste a lot of ones and zeros addressing it however, unless maybe you have plans on running for political office and then I’ll be your wing man.
Hold on, hold on, why does my stance assume an air of pessimism. Just because I acknowledge hurdles does not mean I am not pointing out possible sources of hope. I love reading this dialogue if we are all respectful of eachother’s point of view. I looked beyond your hippie-bashing comments and added my two-cents. I don’t have time to do the research to add to my points because business is picking up again, thankfully. As I have read my “hippie” literature, I have a very similar dialogue in my head. In my world, my product is created though a process of critical analysis. Pessimism would not enter the process because I see a better product emerging from criticism. Hope, therefore is the only motivation. If I am critical of the U.S. and its direction, its because I am a passenger and I have a vested interest in improving our navigation (to continue the ship analogy). If all you see is pessimism in my remarks, then you fail to see how improvement happens.
As far as Mike’s initial comments, please check out the per capita data for polluters in the world. The US wins handily. I look inward to improve myself. I cannot point the finger at anyone else. I am part of the American system. Even though I watch how much I consume, I still use much more energy than the average china man. A burgeoning middle class in China is slowly obscuring that difference, but is now being offset by enormous solar plants. We, our business, want to embrace a downhill approach to energy because our business could definitely use less expenses.
In the past, I know you have baited me with environmental-themed posts. I love these discussions, however I would hate to feel like I cannot participate due to poor sportsmanship.
I have a busy weekend ahead of me but I want to continue this conversation. The electric car debate is definitely worth my time as well. Thanks for the topics.
The Economics
First, let me say that I am not informed on the pain in Spain, although it is a familiar refrain. If you are aware of any decent articles I would be much obliged.
Now that I’ve told you I know nothing, I assert my initial doubts. My suspician is that the Spanish situation is similar to Germany and/or California where electricity is expensive because windmills were erected before they were cost efficient. I am all for avoiding that situation here. Note that I do not talk about solar but at all. I am limiting my renewable discussion to wind and nuke because I believe that generally those forms of generation can now be put into place with acceptable increases in cost.
I am in favor of building nukes and continuing nuke research.
I am in favor of building wind and continuing wind research.
I am in favor of solar research.
I believe that as the nuke and wind industries ramp up throughout the world over the next five years, we build whatever conventional plants are necessary. But my guess is that after five years, we should be in a position where the infrastructure is in place to build enough wind and nuclear every year to (a) satisfy new demand and (b) replace existing conventional generation at the end of its useful life.
Heat Pumps
Your are correct to assert that the costs associated with many energy saving techniques are, unfortunately, up front. With respect new construction I believe this is less of an issue. These increased costs are something that should be allowed to be rolled into a mortgage and paid for over the life of the machine.
Replacement machines are a whole other ball of wax.
I actually started researching the costs associated with, and the tax credits available for geothermal heat pumps because my parents’ air conditioner is from the stone-age. In order to operate it at peak efficiency I think you actually have to a guy deliver a block of ice every morning. 🙂
Geothermal heat pumps are similar to ordinary heat pumps, but instead of using heat found in outside air, they rely on the stable, even heat of the earth to provide heating, air conditioning and hot water.
Approximately 70 percent of the energy used in a geothermal heat pump system is renewable energy from the ground. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, geo-exchange systems save homeowners 30 to 70 percent in heating costs, and 20 to 50 percent in cooling costs, compared to conventional systems.
The problem, as Mike says, is that heat pumps are expensive up front.
As a rule of thumb, a geothermal heat pump system costs about $2,500 per ton of capacity. The typically sized home would use a three-ton unit costing roughly $7,500. That initial cost is nearly twice the price of a regular heat pump system that would probably cost about $4,000, with air conditioning.
In addition to the cost of the unit however, you have to add in cost of drilling and installing a tube which runs below ground throughout your back yard. Depending on the size and type of GHP, drilling conditions and local labor rates, trenching will run an additional $1,000 to $3,000 per ton.
The size of the loop field depends on the size of the building to be conditioned. Typically, one loop (400 to 600 feet) has the capacity of one ton. So, lets just say the average person needs 1,500 feet of tubing put in their back yard to operate efficiently.
A federal tax credit exists for 30% of the cost of energy-efficient doors and windows, insulation, air conditioners, furnaces, heat pumps and boilers, up to a lifetime cap of $1,500. This credit is available for 2009 and 2010.
There is no cap on the credit with respect to heat pumps and is available until 2015.
The Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE) Web site has the latest information about incentives. Check with
your electric utility to see if they offer any rebates, financing, or special electric rate programs.
Let’s assume that a 3-ton heat pump costs $10,000-$12,000 to install in the Karpuk’s back yard.
A $12,000 GHP, after credits and rebates would cost $2,300 more than a replacement air conditioner.
How soon will that $2,300 be paid back if your energy costs are 20% lower? 50% lower? Personally, I spend about $2,200 a year on heating and cooling, so I’d be looking at somewhere between 2.5 to 6 years.
Btw, check out this article on Mark Lydon’s passive solar retrofit on the outskirts of Madison.
http://crescendodesignblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/passive-solar-farm-house-keep-it-simple-and-let-nature-help-you/
Profits
I actually agree with you on your assertions regarding China. My statement to disregard their actions was unfortunately not very clear. I agree with not joining Kyoto because of the gaping holes relating to the Third World. If any action is to be taken, it must be taken concertedly throughout the world.
Probably “disregard” was the wrong word. Actually, it absolutely was. What I should have said was that I believe that the pollution is/will be so bad in China and India that they will have no choice but to eventually adopt the energy tech that we’ve developed.
And when I talk pollution, I’m talking about real pollution, not the fake CO2 pollution that environmentalists lump in with everything else.
By way of example on how I expect the U.S. to prosper from climate change, check out Westinghouse’s AP 1000, which looks like its one of six Gen III+ reactor designs. Construction on the first four AP 1000’s has begun. In China.
The Chinese are using American designs. Bush’s nuclear deal with India means that the Indians are likely to use American designs. Eventually, even the United States will be using American designs. Assuming of course the NIMBY’s can be accomodated.
GE has moved into the wind business. The design will be American. If you’ve ever seen the size of the wind parts rolling down I-80, you can understand why the manufacture of turbines is not going to be outsourced to China. They more or less need to be locally manufactured.
As I said, I believe that the U.S. will find a way to profit from technological advances in energy production. The cutting edge stuff, where the money is, is what we’re good at.
You are correct to look at the corresponding job losses. I am unsure if you are correct to assume that they will be drastic. I think we can assume that with respect to oil the only thing that will matter is the marginal cost of production relative to price. Whether in Texas, or the Gulf, or Alaska, or North Dakota, oil gets pumped from the ground as long as the price is greater than the cost to produce. If we don’t need it here, but the price is high enough, it will get pumped and shipped elsewhere.
Natural gas is a little different. Until the recent expansion of LNG plants throughout the world it was less influenced by global production. Now there is some competition, but local demand is still the primary driver of production.
The point being, regardless of what we do we’re still looking at 30 to 50 years of reliance upon conventional sources.
Brian, I’ll respond to your responses when I have more time, perhaps this evening.
Gus,
I can’t speak for Brian, but I’m guessing he will agree with me. I really enjoy your comments, not just because they are reasoned and delivered respectfully, but because they come from such a different point of view from my own. Its growing clear with more topics that Brian and I have similarly grounded perspectives, which leads to at least general agreement. This, may I say, is BORING.
I agree, we need to be sportsmanlike in our exchanges, otherwise, progress is difficult. While I think you may be over reacting a bit to the “pessimism” comment, I understand what you’re saying.
That being said, I would like to respond to something you said, and something that gets brought up a lot in conversations like this.
“As far as Mike’s initial comments, please check out the per capita data for polluters in the world. The US wins handily.”
I would like to state for the record that “per capita” measurements of pollution are absolutely meaningless in this debate. If you have a country of 10,000 people who each use a barrel of oil a day, that is a pittance compared to a country of 1 million people who each use a half barrel of oil a day. When it comes to pollution, the earth doesn’t measure anything per capita. It only cares about absolute amounts, raw numbers. I have no idea what the energy consumption is per capita in the US vs China (though I’m sure there is a report on this site that details it exactly, thanks brian!) but I am confident that it would be easier and vastly more economically efficient for the average chinaman to cut his consumption by 10 percent than it would be for an American to cut theirs by 50 percent, even though the global impact would likely be similar, if not more beneficial should the chinaman make the smaller cut.
Point being, the “per capita” measurement of things like this is simply a fallacy. You mentioned earlier that “the data does not lie”. I would say, that in this case, the per capita data may not lie, but it is seriously misleading.
Last comment for a day or so.
Gustave,
It is statements like “Overwhelmingly, climate change will effect the third world in all aspects negatively, thereby rendering the human reaction to climate change a catastrophe,” among others which lead me to call your outlook gloomy. It was meant in the spirit of fun and friendship. Its funny cuz that’s your name, but its true because you’re gloomy about many of the world’s prospects.
Pollution Statistics
PM 10 (i.e., air you can choke on):
SO2 emissions per populated area by country:
Organic water pollutant (BOD) emissions > kg per day
1980 # 1 China: 3,377,105 kg/day
NOx emissions per populated area by country
Expenditure pollution control as % of GDP (most recent) by country: #3 United States: 1.6 % of GDP
Water Salinisation (most recent) by country
Water Freshwater pollution (most recent)
Wow! I have to catch up. We had a very nice, busy weekend. Now I can relax and catch up on some reading. I am going to try and address everything you two brought up. First I am going to apologize for my hypersensitivity with this issue. I have been helping out MoveOn.org here in Omaha confront our local congressmen this summer concerning the Waxman-Markey bill. The divisiveness this issue fosters can get kind of ugly. Consequently, I am not used to enjoying a rational discussion on energy with people who actually have an opinion based on a cohesive world perspective. I appreciate the respect both you and Mike have shown by attacking the issue and not me. As Mike succinctly stated, we do have very different points of view based on our respective world views. I believe that someone’s world view is only as good as their sources. I read Scientific American, SA Mind, and SA Earth 3.0(which doesn’t exist anymore), Popular Mechanics, National Geographic, OneEarth, NY Times, Huffington Post, Reddit, Digg, Omaha world Herald, Treehugger, Atlantic Monthly, and local environmental publications. I am just telling you this so you know that my sources support my views. I read all of these cover to cover. I do read articles contrary to my perspective because I like to be challenged. Unfortunately, I am not used to the blogging routine to back up all of my assertions with examples and statistics from my reading material. I do not have a Brian to unleash the data that support my point of view. So, bear with my vagueness. If you have specific data disagreements with my assertions, I will try to oblige in a relatively timely manner.
Secondly, anyone can be summarized anyway, when you cherry pick sentences out of context. My catastrophe remark was a precursor for a “what if” scenario. If my foreshadowing sounds pessimistic, then I’m guilty as charged. However, I do not subscribe to a pessimistic world view. I am reminded how a 12 year old from Montreal figured out how to break down plastic to over 80% of its own weight with normal decomposition techniques for his science fair. His parents challenged him to do something other that an exploding volcano. These stories are my optimistic examples. There are parents out there challenging their children to do things Multi-billion dollar companies should be doing. Therein also lies my skepticism with the future and relying on monetary factors to correct or even encourage paradigm change.
Next, I want to address Mike’s challenge to the sweat shop scenario. I do hope we can agree on one thing. The social/political/economic improvement of any society hinges on one dynamic, female education. If the women are educated in a society, all poverty indicators will melt away. Given this dynamic, how would sweat shops improve standards when the cycle depends on the poverty of the initial miners of whatever we’re talking about; lanthanum, gold, diamonds, tin, whatever. The cycle Mike is referring to allows no social progression, just monetary wealth for the respective country’s coffers. Muhammed Yunus’s approach of microcredit loans is an example of social development that encourages social progression. The women are encouraged to embrace the loans because women in poverty only have one goal, to work less in their respective male-dominated society. Compared to sweat shops in which human labor has no value or little to no value, social programs which address poverty by treating people like people seem like the obvious choice. Prices may rise world-wide, but that is the result of paying the global-consciousness cost. England pays 8 bucks for a gallon of gas because it is not heavily subsidized, but rather taxed because driving a car is a luxury not a right.
Next, heat pumps are not the only solution to downhill HVAC. Before Reagan removed the solar panels on the white house, this nation had the most solar technology on the planet. My wife and I went to an estate sale a few weeks ago and I found a book called “the Solar Home Book” by Bruce Anderson published in 1976. Because I am still renovating our studio/home, I was hoping to find at least one helpful tip from my 50 cent find. What I discovered in this book astounded me. The concepts and technology explained for the laymen are amazing. All ideas presented assumes the design precedes the construction. Consequently, retrofitting some of these concepts would be less effective than if the house was built with solar heating in mind. With that said, the startup costs for some of the ideas presented seem minimal when you consider that all systems are virtually maintenance free for the entire lifetime of the house. Furnaces and ac units die. Geothermal and solar sources continue to provide heat as long the sun shines. Not only were the concepts presented new to me, but they were implemented in northern states that need the heat. My wife pointed out a good point though, are these solar home examples still working? With what little I know about physics and the way convection works, these ideas are bullet-proof, simply amazing. Modern technology and materials could only improve the concepts presented in this book. I felt like I was reading a book about how future homes are going to be built. I digress. Whether or not these concepts have been improved upon, the fact that sustainable home design seems to have been skipped in our country’s history, is more notable.
Next, I want to address the per capita argument. Why would per capita pollution statistics be useless? The 300 million Americans use much more electricity because we are used to as standard of living that includes much more electricity. I could not disagree more with Mike in his assertion that it would be easier to tell the China man to cut back ten percent than an American to cut back 50 percent. The average China man probably has no electricity at home and relies on a vehicle or some type of automation to do some steps in the production of the widget. In contrast, the average American has grown accustomed to have cheap energy supply every aspect of our automated life from coffee to the supposed six hours of TV a day. In addition, the American homeowner has the option of choosing from ten different power tools for yard care. Really, why do we need a loud gas-powered blower to do what a broom does just fine? I assure you most of China uses brooms. China also does not have the cultural standard of groomed lawns which need all those power tools. China, as a whole, is without much power-supplied automation. I do not disagree with you in terms of whole ppm statistics for the entire country. A developing country has no choice but to embrace older technology to catch up. Only 1st world nations have the luxury of researching and trying new systems without harming the economic engine. China has more people, therefore different sustainability issues. China, however, wants the same luxuries as the US. If every China man assumed the consumption rates of an American, game over. Per capita estimations, therefore indicate what level of luxury the respective country lives with in their particular region. More energy with less people vs less energy and more people. I see a discrepancy in energy consumption per person not a discrepancy as a whole.
And, finally, some people call me Goofy Gus because I can do cartwheels on demand. I would like to continue this conversation later on the topic of whether the IPCC data mean anything to Congress, the people who NEED to be convinced. I personally think lobbying distracts from the conviction needed to effectively legislate. Just me. Later
Well, Gus,
I read your comments and appreciate your thoughtful presentation of your view. You’ve confirmed a lot of what I suspected about differing world views, which makes things make more sense. One point we’re in full agreement on is…
“I personally think lobbying distracts from the conviction needed to effectively legislate.”
You’ve certainly hit a bulls-eye with me there.
I’d like to mention one thing about the sweatshops and how you’ve related them to womens education, then I’ll try to bring my point back around to how that relates to pollution. 🙂
“The social/political/economic improvement of any society hinges on one dynamic, female education.”
Assuming you actually mean this, i’m curious what you base this on. I can list plenty of societies that have made significant social, political and economic improvements without any special focus on female education. I’m not making excuses, or even trying to justify how women were treated in the past (or now, in certain places), but many western (and eastern) societies made quite a few social/political/economic improvements with women in a subservient and even uneducated role for millennia. So, while I think the effort to educate women is wholly important, and incredibly honorable, I think I would have to disagree with your premise that somehow, overall progress “hinges” on it.
Ok, with that out of the way, in regards to sweatshops, you ask the question,
“how would sweat shops improve standards when the cycle depends on the poverty of the initial miners of whatever we’re talking about”
First, I don’t think the cycle depends on anyones poverty. Somewhat confusingly, it’s not poverty it depends on, but lack of opportunity. There is a distinct difference. Keep in mind, we had similar working conditions in Europe and even the US at the start of the industrial revolution. Nasty working conditions, long hours, child labor. Look where that led for us, an economy that is the envy of nations. Look at the situations in England and the US. Our current strength was built largely on the back an industrial revolution that was fueled by the very conditions that you want to prevent. I think you probably see your view as one of protecting weaker peoples and societies (a goal that is respectable to be sure). But I see it largely as the denial of opportunity, the same type of opportunity we had in this country 100 years ago. The opportunity shovel crap all day long when there was nothing else to shovel.
You mention giving developing nations a pass for pollution because….
“A developing country has no choice but to embrace older technology to catch up.”
I see this as a paradigm for hard labor industries in developing countries. Just like pollution, I think developing countries have little to no choice when it comes to these types labor opportunities. Every developing nation has to ride that train. Sure, it would be nice to build a school in the middle of Rowanda, but who’s going to do it, and to what purpose? Do natives with no job opportunities need to learn to read? It ‘s a chicken and the egg scenario. Do we, as a society spend resources to educate people with no work prospects? Or do we attempt to employ people with no education? Which one allows a citizen of Zimbabwe to buy some meat for their family?
What response do you have to the people in nations who say that sweatshops and hard labor opportunity is better than what they have now (which is often nothing)?
The point is, I don’t think your “schools or sweatshops?” hypothetical is realistic. What I hear you saying, is that schools are better than sweatshops. Well, of course, but the reality is that if you don’t have sweatshops (or some other mildly exploitative labor opportunity), you might end up with child slavery and prostitution as was the case in Vietnam when Nike pulled out.
Do you/I have a right, or even a responsibility to make that decision for someone else? And if so, where does that stop?
In March the biggest climate conference of the year took place in Copenhagen. Last week, the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress was handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen in Brussels. Denmark will host the decisive round of negotiations on the new climate protection agreement this coming December. The Synthesis Report is the most important update of climate science since the 2007 IPCC report.
One interesting item was the reports position on where the CO2 concentration needs to be stopped at in order to stablized at 2 degrees centigrade above where it would otherwise be absent any human based effect.
Second, with respect to the agricultural impact, the table below shows the projected climate change impacts on agricultural production in 2030, expressed as a percentage change relative to 1998-2002 average yields. Pink, green and blue indicate a “hunger importance ranking” of 1 to 30 (more important), 31 to 60, and 61-94 (less important), respectively. Dashed lines extend from 5th to 95th percentile of projections, boxes extend from 25th to 75th percentile, and the middle vertical line within each box indicates the median projection. Region codes are: CHI – China; SAS – South Asia; SEA – Southeast Asia; WAS – West Asia; WAF – West Africa; SAH Sahel; CAF – Central Africa; EAF – East Africa; SAF – Southern Africa; BRA – Brazil; AND – Andean Region; CAC – Central America and Caribbean
Ok, so we’re already beyond the stabilization point for 2 deg c? Thats a tough one.
Question. Are the areas included above chosen for their proximity to the equator? Or for their economic status?
For perspective, does it mention what percentage of global production the areas in these charts account for?
Ok, nevermind, I see the link now, I’ll get off my lazy butt and look myself…….grumble grumble. 😉
My guess is that that those areas are the ones that won’t see a statistically significant increase in yields. You know the UN, let’s just leave off the data which doesn’t support our conclusions…
I’ll say this. The Synthesis Report is a tad more worrisome than the one that I summarized by the U.S. This is understandable in some ways, given that it has to take into account those areas that will be most affected.
My spidey “this is politics” sense tingles a little bit however. Note especially the “2 degrees Celsius which is really 1.2 degrees Celsius because we’re counting from the beginning of the industrial revolution” goal.
Yeah, I started going through the report, the writers of the report seem to be oblivious to anything other than the CO2 goal, going as far as giving examples of the types of legislation that will be REQUIRED to achieve the goals, with zero concern for the ramifications of that the legislation, basically chalking it up to being good little global citizens and eating our carbon tax “vegetables”. I worry about any report or recommendation that isn’t willing to consider the unintended consequences and whether they might be worse than the problem they’re intended to fix.
I’m sure you guys are aware of these new per capita statistics.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/11/2683439.htm?section=justin
Thanks Gus, I had heard something about Australia, but not really seen any raw numbers. I still get bothered when they refer to CO2 production as “pollution”. It’s really not. Unless every breathe we exhale is pollution and if all plants NEED pollution to survive, it’s just silly.
That being said, the people quoted in the report also downplayed the value of a per capita statistics as not being particularly useful, and even as confusing the issue of the total global carbon budget.
One of the guys mentions that you could completely shut down the Australian economy and still only reduce the global carbon footprint by less than 2 percent. While China could make much smaller changes and get a bigger effect on global CO2 levels, which is exactly the point I was making earlier. Which would be better for the earth? For Chinese populations to reduce their per capita CO2 production by 15 percent? Or for Australia to shut down their entire economy? Which would be better for people? China could achieve greater global gains with vastly smaller per capita reductions than Australia ever could, even considering Australia has similar technological capability to the US.
CO2 may not be a pollutant. However, scientists agree that warming is manmade once CO2 levels are over 350ppm. We currently sit at 387ppm. The highest level to ever exist while not being in an ice age or some other form of global chaos. Australia and China are linked. China is mining the hell out of Australia for every bit of iron ore. Australia would not have become such an example without China. Why not sanction China through an international group that stands for improved global sustainable standards like the Kyoto Protocol? Then both Aussies and Chinese are held to their levels with one stone. Regulation does not have to be difficult while allowing economic progress. Actually, economic progress is going to need its own new paradigm shift as well. Due to certain pollution-spewing practices of the world usually related to manufacturing of raw materials and energy, the regulation of those practices will in turn change the consumption habits of every person on the planet by default. No more fully air-conditioned Mcmansions as far as the eye can see, no more traffic jams needing 4 lane highways, and no more desert golf courses for the well-to-do sucking water from the drying regions of the world. The positives? We can still raise a family with one child in peace and harmony knowing the standards of life dictated through regulation ensures fewer social inequities and respect of the planet comes to mean respect for every one on the planet.
Here is another symptom: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/a-triumph-for-man-a-disaster-for-mankind-1786128.html
Uncharted waters, metaphorically, is where we’re headed. Our chilly summer this year has been the North pole melting and dissipating its cool water vapor, thereby allowing new trade routes, thereby more disturbance in previously untouched parts of the world. Humans are frontier-minded, this was bound to happen. Like the resignation of Van Jones, this is not a good thing.
Reading that article, I can’t help but think of this Monty Python clip.
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who…
“CO2 may not be a pollutant.”
It’s not.
“However, scientists agree that warming is manmade once CO2 levels are over 350ppm.
Actually, “scientists” don’t agree. Not at all.
I even read about scientists going along with the IPCC conclusions because they feared for their jobs if they spoke out.
This guy finally got up the nerve….
“The mythical global warming ‘consensus’ continues to crumble as a top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Turns on the IPCC and calls warming fears the “Worst scientific scandal in the history.”
Dr. Kiminori Itoh, award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist specializing in optical waveguide spectroscopy at the University of Tokyo…..
He writes of “inaccurate temperature measurements,” including chapters that call man-made global warming fears “the worst scientific scandal in the history.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski
“We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3%), were arbitrarily rejected. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine,nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time. From among this treasure of excellent data (ranging up to 550 ppmv of measured CO2 levels), the founders of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (Callendar 1949, Callendar 1958, and Keeling 1986) selected only a tiny fraction of the data and doctored it, to select out the low concentraions and reject the high values—all in order to set a falsely low pre-industrial average CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv as in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century. This manipulation has been discussed several times since the 1950s (Fonsel et al. 1956, Jaworowski et al. 1992b, and Slocum 1955), and more recently and in-depth by Beck 2007.”
“http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.htm”
“One point apparently causing confusion among our readers is the relative abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere today as compared with Earth’s historical levels. Most people seem surprised when we say current levels are relatively low, at least from a long-term perspective – understandable considering the constant media/activist bleat about current levels being allegedly “catastrophically high.” Even more express surprise that Earth is currently suffering one of its chilliest episodes in about six hundred million (600,000,000) years. ”
“…there is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years, so why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now? ”
The answer: Politics and Money
Al Gore is a perfect example of the people who are looking to get rich by pushing the “green” movement.
“Regulation does not have to be difficult while allowing economic progress.”
That sounds suspicious to me. Poorly thoughtout (like cap and trade) regulation could lead to a nightmare scenario of economic meltdown (gloomy?). Now, I don’t necessarily think it will, but nor do I think a couple of degrees will kill the planet. Nor do I buy into the 350ppm line in the sand.
And Van Jones leaving is a Godsend. Don’t even get me started on that guy.
Get rich by the green movement? Ha. You mean a hippie-minded movement is going to take over the world? The scientists unaffiliated with a political movement or an energy company have nothing better to do than to spoil the party for everyone because all the fortunes awaiting their “green boon” are too important. I don’t buy that. Scientists like James Lovelock are the reason we even have scientific regulation of our atmosphere. Originally inventing the aerosol can in the 30’s, he invented the diode particle detector in the seventies, ultimately causing a moratorium on his own invention forty years later. James Lovelock is one of the most respected scientists in the world with his gaia theory. Consequently, his genuine, unwaivering expertise has been leading the awareness effort of the imminent trainwreck ahead. There is not a single expert you can produce that is more qualified to make crazy doomsdayer-like claims than him. I respect Jared Diamond as the ultimate puzzle-piece architect in my favorite field of anthropology. He is very good at putting together all the pieces into a cohesive, workable picture. James Lovelock and his Gaia theory, in my mind, deserve the same respect. Mr Lovelock, by the way, is a recluse in England, completely separated from the monetary incentives you claim the Green revolution has its roots. Who would fear for their jobs if they just did science without an agenda? Corporations have the money to fund such research to support their position. I would trust academe and actual scientific hard evidence before I care about a dissenting corporate opinion. If you collect data over time, then what is co controversial in making some conclusions on that data? Data does not know party affiliation and the data is going to support many theories until a prominent theory is agreed upon in the scientific community. Ironically, if people were to get rich from the green movement, isn’t that ok. Isn’t that the argument from the right? No jobs in the green movement?
Even more express surprise that Earth is currently suffering one of its chilliest episodes in about six hundred million (600,000,000) years. ”
Not in the last ten years. The eleven year solar flare cycle is emerging from its dormancy. Trade routes are opening that have never existed in the Arctic, because its so chilly. Sure. Pollution acts as a protectant from the imminent solar radiation that could be our demise. Its as if we have a volcano spewing, all the time. The catch twenty-two of improving our air emissions may give us more to worry about. Global mitigation may be our future. I don’t know.
…there is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years, so why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now? ”
It is critical because 6 and half billion people depend on making sound decisions that effect us all. A hundred years ago with 1 billion on the planet, climate issues definitely would have impeded “progress” and no one would have possessed a global consciousness that now exists everywhere. Sooo, scientific data collected over time, becomes very important in determining an energy/agricultural paradigm that is healthy for everybody.
Ultimately, I don’t believe scientists whose conclusions are contrary to what I read (although I admit an environmental bias), and contrary to what I see. New trade routes means something, doesn’t it? When politicians do begin to care how we treat the planet, it is too late. “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness.” Twain
CFC’s were regulated to control the ozone hole and it worked. The same science that fixed the ozone layer is used to support the global warming theory. Why is the science that has worked in the past now viewed with such skepticism? I think it is the same distrust found in the creationism/evolution debate, except creationists are just making up another mythology without support and calling it a competing theory with natural selection. People don’t like to think that what they were originally taught might be wrong. Coming to terms with our own omniscient egos is the most humbling yet rewarding hurdle of our lives. I am proven wrong all the time. I am proven wrong less with the things I aspire to know. I am humbled by the climate debate, but I know I’m getting closer to a satisfactory answer the more I see my assertions evolve. The evolution of my assertions allow me debate with confidence in my sources. We are all looking at a different part of the elephant trying to describe what we see.
“Get rich by the green movement? Ha. ”
I’m not talking about recluses in England, or the hippies. I like hippies. I’m talking about people like Al Gore, envirobullies, who clearly don’t give a darn about their OWN environmental impact, all the while, righteously preaching that we all need to do exactly that. “Do as I say, not as I do”. I’m no fan of George Bush, but you should read that little comparison floating around of his house vs. Al Gores mansion and see who is the person walking the walk.
Fact and fiction are sorted out here.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
I like people like you, who seem to practice what you preach, but I despise the politicians who seize on a popular topic and try to hijack it for their own ends, particularly when they bend and twist around the truth the way Al Gore did in his “documentary” and his speeches. The guy’s made nearly 100 million $ and his charitable donations are a pittance. Limousine liberals make no sense to me. And what makes even less sense, is how democrats actually vote for these people.
Dick Cheney, a man the left loves to hate gave something like 80 percent of his income to charity.
“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117686685252673734.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries”
I’m not saying the green movement is just a money grab, I’m saying that certain unscrupulous individuals have tried to use it as such. And the yellow journalism that is rampant today has latched onto it because global warming fears sells papers. (Well, nothing seems to be selling papers, but they sure seem to think it will)
“Not in the last ten years.”
Ok, so now we’re debating climate patters based on 10 years of data? That doesn’t sound very scientific to me.
“The eleven year solar flare cycle is emerging from its dormancy.”
Yes, and a year late. As many scientists are predicting a weakened cycle as not, but still well within the norm. The “intense cycle 24” news is dead. It’s looking to be pretty normal.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html
But I’m glad you mention it because I think things like the solar cycle have a vastly greater impact on our global weather than a few ppm of CO2. This is something that has interested me for a long time and I don’t know why it doesn’t get more attention. I suppose because it doesn’t help to have something effect weather that we can’t use to legislate peoples actions in one direction or another.
In addition to opening of shipping lanes, at least other one positive side effect associated with Melting Ice Caps.
Ha Ha. Satire works well even with climate change. The Onion proves, once again, that both sides of any debate should be able to laugh.