The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[noggin]

Another question that I don't have a clear answer to, is whether it would be useful, or counterproductive, to think of a specific vision of a society based on sustainable living and aim towards it. If everyone were able to broadly agree on one, it would be an excellent idea, but the problem is the likelihood of different people having conflicting views on what the vision should be.

Some extracts from my link a few posts up......

the "World Meteorological Office, with it's 188 members covering the globe and as a lead sponsor of the World Climate Research Programme, has the experience and strength to facilitate a mechanism to bring together under one umbrella the climate forecast centres around the world. With their pooled expertise, the world will be better able to respond to global challenges created by climate variability and change."

...."having access to short-, mid- and long term rainfall and temperature forecasts makes it possible for better planning of crop growth, water use, energy production and in many other areas".

It all comes across as eminently sensible and gets my vote in being a rational and sensible way forward. Much better than the hysteria with which we have been bombarded for many years from some quarters.

Edit...here's the link again..... http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press.../pr_808_en.html

Edited February 17, 2008 by noggin

[stewfox]

Also, even if AGW is generally overestimated as an issue, 'no action' probably won't prevent a recession, it will probably just delay it, and increase the chances of it being severe once it does happen. This is because fossil fuels- the resource we're dependent on- are finite, and already passing peak production. Thus, if we continue as we are now, the fossil fuels will become scarce, forcing prices through the roof, and thus forcing a move to cleaner, more efficient energy resources. If we've taken 'no action', that implies less effort to develop clean alternatives in the meantime- and expensive fossil fuels, plus poorly developed alternatives, equals extreme draconianism being necessary, and a sharp recession being very probable.

There is of course 'action now' we are not ignoring it or spending '£0' and wont do in the future

However its how much you spend to prevent something that we may or may not be causing thats the issue

[wysiwyg]

However its how much you spend to prevent something that we may or may not be causing thats the issue

Hence the reason why we need to get the balance right as opposed to not taking action. IMO the actions we take will be driven by our current and projected investments and the risks posed by climate change per se.

'Clean' energy will come primarily because we recognise that it will get harder and more expensive to extract and process FF thus we will reach a point where the balance tips in favour of renewables and nuclear power.

Investment in mittigating the outcomes of climate change will come as a result of better understanding of the likely financial and humanitarian impacts of potential extreme weather events regardless of who/what is responsible for them. As an example - the river Thames has always been at risk of flooding in its lower reaches - so we build a flood control barrier - not because of global warming or climate change but to protect the huge invetments already made in higher risk areas that are prone to this type of flooding.

Throwing all the eggs in one basket and tackling just CO2 emissions is not a wise course of action IMO. Our pollution of the planet and our understanding of how we protect ourselves against extreme weather events, whilst always linked, require seperate strategies to deal with each.

With reagrds to recession as a result of whatever we spend the money on - bear in mind that in the presentation it's a worse case scenario. My feeling is that the rate of change towards spending to mittigate risk is driven by the economy and not the other way round. Change will happen at a rate that the economy can adjust with and therefore sudden crashes and economic doom will not solely be because we spend a fortune on wind farms and flood defences. Just like the climate there are many more factors that affect the global economy than just natural causes. (lol - reverse of GW argument methinks )

Wysi

[Thundery wintry showers]

Much sense in the above- I too think it's dangerous to put all of our eggs in one basket and tackle just the CO2 aspect- it is, after all, a multi-faceted and complex problem, and I don't think there's a particularly ideal "catch-all" solution here. Also agree that we need to be careful not to go overboard in addressing the issue- it won't be much good stopping AGW if we do it in a way that condemns us all to very primitive lifestyles.

I don't personally like the idea of relying upon the economy to dictate changes- firstly, it dooms us to the scenario "we won't make any significant effort to do anything until it becomes non-economically viable to use fossil fuels, which could be several decades into the future". Also I fear that because of the short-term profit drives of economics, the lack of long-term planning may mean we hit a situation where fossil fuels become scarce and highly expensive, with any effort to develop clean alternatives being "too little too late" because up until that point it was likely to offset profit margins in the short term. Thus, a rather nasty transition period between leaving fossil fuels behind and getting economically viable alternatives into circulation.

The other one is that recreation would be the biggest loser. Popular economists' wisdom is that the only things that are necessary in life are work (for sustaining a living and contributing directly to the economy) and having a house to live in and a nice family. Thus, one popular argument runs, we should cut out driving for pleasure because it's non-essential from an economics perspective, but work-related driving is fine because we all have to work. You can extend that argument to most activities that involve pollution, e.g. suggest that we should crack down on 'unnecessary' recreational use of computers like computer gaming and going on social networking sites, and encourage computers to be used only for work. Thus, ironically (considering the generally left-wing tendencies of most environmental groups) AGW could, if addressed via economics alone, lead us towards more work and less recreation.

But again, that's probably just another specific case of relying upon the one solution (relying upon the economy, as opposed to relying upon cutting CO2 emissions). The economics situation can be used to our advantage but if we're to avoid undesirable outcomes like in the above two paragraphs we may need other, humanitarian, approaches as well as economic ones.

[Bobby]

I've said it before, but there is one absolutely massive factor that will affect our future climate that virtually everyone is completely clueless about, including governments, environmental groups, the IPCC etc. That is that there is simply not enough fossil fuels in the ground to raise CO2 levels as much as the IPCC and others think, excluding possible feedback events. There is also the issue of economic hardship caused by these limited supplies lowering CO2 emissions even further.

This really guarantees cuts in our CO2 emissions in the future. The IPCC seems to think there are virtually unlimited coal, gas, oil to burn. I posted a thread about a study by James Hanson that took this into account and showed much less warming and much lower CO2 levels than even the most optimistic IPCC scenario. Is still there lurking in the archives somewhere if anyone wants a look.

There are feedback events though that could still cause rapid warming so may not be saved anyway.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Magpie

[cheeky_monkey]

im not expert on global warming or co2 emissions..but how long does co2 that we pump into the atmosphere remain there for..is it months years or decades??

[VillagePlank]

I've said it before, but there is one absolutely massive factor that will affect our future climate that virtually everyone is completely clueless about, including governments, environmental groups, the IPCC etc. That is that there is simply not enough fossil fuels in the ground to raise CO2 levels as much as the IPCC and others think, excluding possible feedback events. There is also the issue of economic hardship caused by these limited supplies lowering CO2 emissions even further.

This really guarantees cuts in our CO2 emissions in the future. The IPCC seems to think there are virtually unlimited coal, gas, oil to burn. I posted a thread about a study by James Hanson that took this into account and showed much less warming and much lower CO2 levels than even the most optimistic IPCC scenario. Is still there lurking in the archives somewhere if anyone wants a look.

There are feedback events though that could still cause rapid warming so may not be saved anyway.

Indeed, putting the atmospheric physics aside for a moment, as the demand increases, and supply reduces, the price will increase, which will limit usage. I am fairly certain, being that necessity is the mother of all invention, that we will, somehow (I know that's vague) find a way. As the price of fossil fuels increase, so the 'so-called' uneconomic solutions start to look more attractive because the ratio difference between, say, solar panels, and a barrel of oiil substantially reduces.

The question, though, that remains, is that 'Is there enough in the ground to produce the tipping point?'

e.g. suggest that we should crack down on 'unnecessary' recreational use of computers like computer gaming and going on social networking sites, and encourage computers to be used only for work. Thus, ironically (considering the generally left-wing tendencies of most environmental groups) AGW could, if addressed via economics alone, lead us towards more work and less recreation.

How about the irony of grid computing activities, such as running GCM's as a screen saver on millions of computers? Better to ask them to use power-saving modes, perhaps?

Edited February 19, 2008 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

I've said it before, but there is one absolutely massive factor that will affect our future climate that virtually everyone is completely clueless about, including governments, environmental groups, the IPCC etc. That is that there is simply not enough fossil fuels in the ground to raise CO2 levels as much as the IPCC and others think, excluding possible feedback events. There is also the issue of economic hardship caused by these limited supplies lowering CO2 emissions even further.

This really guarantees cuts in our CO2 emissions in the future. The IPCC seems to think there are virtually unlimited coal, gas, oil to burn. I posted a thread about a study by James Hanson that took this into account and showed much less warming and much lower CO2 levels than even the most optimistic IPCC scenario. Is still there lurking in the archives somewhere if anyone wants a look.

There are feedback events though that could still cause rapid warming so may not be saved anyway.

You on about peak oil?

There are masses of reserves in the middle-east and I believe new reserves are being discovered in Russia and China.

[VillagePlank]

You on about peak oil?

There are masses of reserves in the middle-east and I believe new reserves are being discovered in Russia and China.

Do you expect the price of oil to fall on that basis, then? To what level? $50/barrel? You effectively have a stranglehold on supply, even if there are huge, as yet untapped reserves, with respect to OPEC - an organisation which should be phased out, quickly, in my opinion.

I notice, even with my own behaviour, that the cost of fuel is changing what I do. I've bought a small 1.25l Fiesta to commute the 50 miles to work each day (instead of the Renault 2.2dCI tank I used to commute in) I am quite happy to sit at under the speed limit in the inside lane, overtaking the occasional lorry and so on and so forth ....

Economy, and leveraging utility (or the perceived lack of it), is the way to modify behaviour. It is, and should be, mostly subtle. In the case of the environment is should be done at source. If you tax the bo££ocks of the suppliers of fossil fuels they'll simply pass the increase cost onto the consumer. No need for a fuel escalator, no need for complex home-grown tax regimes, no need for particular consumer targeted green policies.

The government is repsonsible for providing a framework in which a market economy works. This one, of course, isn't very good at that - it can't provide an effective framework for it's own engine (the fiscal markets) I think that governments should cede a levy (collected from fossil fuel suppliers) that, perhaps, goes to the UN (or something better) to help those in trouble as and when it occurs. If a particular country doesn't sign up to collect the levy, then the rest of world could issue trade embargoes (so it makes financial sense to sign up because you lose more if you don't) and that levy could be offset against voluntary charitable contributions that a country makes in a big disaster, such as the Boxing Day Tsunami.

At least then you'd have the beginnings of a global framework of agreement.

I'm all for, in principle, a flat level of taxation - say 10%, with other revenues being collected from the supply end of the spectrum. The consumer can then really, and absolutely make a choice, then, being that we can, effectively, vote with the cash in our pockets (not as easy as one might expect under the current socialist NuLabour regime) If you tax-less where is the money? It's still there, it's just that you and I directly get to choose where to spend it, and not Gordon Clown, and his darling, Darling. The government will get it's cut from CT and other revenues such as, perhaps, increased VAT.

EDIT: Giving consumers more cash in their pocket would also reduce the compulsion for wage increases (making the standard Brit competitive again with, say, EU economic migrants) and would start to stop this excess of liquidising paper equity to fund the economy.

EDIT 2: It also makes possible, a notion called Free Banking - where there is no central interest rate set.

Edited February 19, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

im not expert on global warming or co2 emissions..but how long does co2 that we pump into the atmosphere remain there for..is it months years or decades??

Havent got a clue CM, but I think would be, for discussion purposes, quite an interesting point to look at.

Anybody any ideas?

[Red Raven]

im not expert on global warming or co2 emissions..but how long does co2 that we pump into the atmosphere remain there for..is it months years or decades??

Its about 20 years, although some souces say between 6 months and 20 years. But it wil depend on how well the natural sinks are working - if full then 20 years could become much longer.

Sorry made a typo its 200 not 20 - soucre: IPCC Scientific Assessment (1990)

Edited February 19, 2008 by Red Raven

[laserguy]

You on about peak oil?

There are masses of reserves in the middle-east and I believe new reserves are being discovered in Russia and China.

What's the difference between peak oil and peak demand? As populations explode,demand follows - can't get the stuff out of the ground quick enough to satisfy established countries let alone growing ones. New reserves in Russia and China? The very people who are experiencing the most rapid growth whilst the worlds greatest economy America goes down the pan and struggles for supply security. I freely admit I know nothing about world finance/economics etc but I can't see Russia and China sharing their new found black gold with America. AGW 'campaigners' may have seperate agendas but this I believe is the heart of governments pursuit of AGW and the need at almost any cost to reduce FF consumption and the desperation to find alternatives. Again,world war 111,anyone?

Edited February 19, 2008 by laserguy

[wysiwyg]

I don't personally like the idea of relying upon the economy to dictate changes- firstly, it dooms us to the scenario "we won't make any significant effort to do anything until it becomes non-economically viable to use fossil fuels, which could be several decades into the future". Also I fear that because of the short-term profit drives of economics, the lack of long-term planning may mean we hit a situation where fossil fuels become scarce and highly expensive, with any effort to develop clean alternatives being "too little too late" because up until that point it was likely to offset profit margins in the short term. Thus, a rather nasty transition period between leaving fossil fuels behind and getting economically viable alternatives into circulation.

A well thought through response TWS. I think I wasn't that clear in my overall assessment of the 'economy-driven' model. I agree totally with you that the danger here is one of "do nothing until it's worth it". It is a worrying scenario but I think that in reality there is enough drive amongst the R&D community and local 'borough' planners certainly to develop new and cheaper alternatives to FF, hardier foodstock that will cope with colder and/or drier climate and long-term projects that protect against floods, tidal variations and storm surges. With regards to FF replacement, the scenario you envisage, whilst possible I think will be smoother - my reasoning - the technology will already be available and the only work required will be to upscale it to become a viable replacement.

So whilst I share your concerns about economy-lead change not being ideal I feel that things will change and progress much more smoothly than we anticipate in worst-case scenarios.

Wysi :o

[Bobby]

There are masses of reserves in the middle-east and I believe new reserves are being discovered in Russia and China.

Depends on what you mean by "masses". Most of the world's major producers have already peaked, we are now consuming about 5 barrels of oil for every one we find (gap is widening too) and discoveries have been declining since the swinging sixties. Supply has already been pretty much flat for 3 years.

[laserguy]

CO2,hockey sticks,sun cycles,Al.Gore etc etc. You name it,it's in here:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

[rob48]

So all those bottle-bank trips, low-energy light-bulbs and carbon-footprint guilt serve only to make trendies feel more comfortable with themselves: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008...atechange/print

[laserguy]

So all those bottle-bank trips, low-energy light-bulbs and carbon-footprint guilt serve only to make trendies feel more comfortable with themselves: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008...atechange/print

That's right! I've said before that the average Briton (ie me) isn't in a position to do anything different to what they do now that could make a difference to anything,let alone the ludicrous idea of manipulating climate. Still,if it makes those with three cars having to put up with only two,having one less tropical holiday a year or downgrading from a 4 litre behemoth to a paltry 2.8 feel better with themselves and elevates their moral pedestal makes them feel better and more righteous...

[HighPressure]

That's right! I've said before that the average Briton (ie me) isn't in a position to do anything different to what they do now that could make a difference to anything,let alone the ludicrous idea of manipulating climate. Still,if it makes those with three cars having to put up with only two,having one less tropical holiday a year or downgrading from a 4 litre behemoth to a paltry 2.8 feel better with themselves and elevates their moral pedestal makes them feel better and more righteous...

I agree with this statement entirely, although I would say these people are being carefully herded by their shephards and one day they will be lead to the slaughter house.

When the Commons car park is full of Smart cars my drive will have one, when MPs put out 2 wheelie bins a week so will I?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I struggle to see how taking action towards sustainable development is "manipulating the climate" and maintaining the status quo isn't, when the status quo involves pumping large amounts of gases into the atmosphere. Surely the whole argument is that the current situation potentially involves significant manipulation of the climate, and that sustainable development reduces the extent to which we may be manipulating the climate?

I often think that the AGW issue is merely one of many negative side-effects of the negative aspects of the non-sustainable ways that the developed world operates within. If we just continue as we are, at some point the fossil fuel reserves are going to become very scarce forcing price rises- and the high petrol prices at the moment are a sign of things to come in that respect. There are many reasons for moving towards a more sustainable pattern of development and living, not just potential anthropogenic climate change. Note I'm talking about sustainability here, rather than token measures to try and look green while cheesing off all of the motorists and achieving little else.

That article is a person's opinion, which may or may not be near the mark, but it's not gospel truth. It seems to me that some just want to keep things as they are, and avoid making changes that might be uncomfortable, and so latch onto any opinion that happens to preach that idea as being gospel truth.

Sorry, but if we're faced potentially with a doom and gloom scenario, I can't see how the attitude of "accept that it's unavoidable, and therefore do nothing about it, thus making sure that it's unavoidable because we'll oppose any global co-operation to tackle the problem, therefore making us right and everyone else wrong" etc. is the best one to take. Of course, mitigation will be needed- it's suicidal to face potentially serious climate change and not take measures to protect ourselves- but action doesn't have to be all mitigation and no prevention, or vice versa, it can be some of both.

Edited March 2, 2008 by Thundery wintry showers

[Devonian]

That's right! I've said before that the average Briton (ie me) isn't in a position to do anything different to what they do now that could make a difference to anything,let alone the ludicrous idea of manipulating climate. Still,if it makes those with three cars having to put up with only two,having one less tropical holiday a year or downgrading from a 4 litre behemoth to a paltry 2.8 feel better with themselves and elevates their moral pedestal makes them feel better and more righteous...

Why do you see trying to stop, or reducing, our impact on climate as so wrong? Why do you misdescribe that as manipulating? I simply don't understand how anyone can see reducing our emissions of greenhouse gasses as anything other than reducing our interference in the climate. I've tried to understand this oft repeated cry, but I can't, honestly I can't . It's so simply, greenhouse gasses have climate changing effects, we've added to that effect by our emissions of them, if we reduce our emissions our effect on climate will reduce. Why don't very intelligent people get this???

I really sickens and saddens me to have people like me so misrepresented - but it's gone on for years and I see no end to it . All the time I've understood the basics of the issue of anthro climate change (several decades now) it's been my desire to see us interfere less in the climate that has motivated me. Why is that so wrong?

I struggle to see how taking action towards sustainable development is "manipulating the climate" and maintaining the status quo isn't, when the status quo involves pumping large amounts of gases into the atmosphere. Surely the whole argument is that the current situation potentially involves significant manipulation of the climate, and that sustainable development reduces the extent to which we may be manipulating the climate?

...

Exactly what I'm trying to say...

Edited March 2, 2008 by Devonian

[HighPressure]

I am not anti action on CO2 emissions, its simply that I cannot understand why seemly intelligent people can allow governments and industry to get away with blaming the end user? Millions of people worrying about their lightbulbs or the car they drive will have a tiny impact on CO2 emissions, you know that? So what's wrong with saying to those in power make car producers provide lower emission cars, make industry accountable for its energy usage, make goods importers responsible for where it was sourced, because at the moment they are having a hay day. I can shut my factory down in the UK import from China and get a pat on the back for doing it, we should not be accepting this or be hoodwinked into meaningless measures.

Surely that makes sense, and does not make me anti does it?

If BMW can produce the 5 series with the same emissions as a Mini then so can everyone else, simply make em or stop their production, don't blame the driver!!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Personally I tend to think of it as an inter-linked system- one the one hand you have the industries developing pollutive stuff for their userbase, and manipulating the public's choices, then on the other you have the public providing the demand for the stuff. If there was no demand, the companies couldn't get away with it (which is one of the main economic arguments behind the "it's mainly our fault" viewpoint) but on the other hand, if there was no supply, it wouldn't be used.

This gives rise to one of my main arguments against relying solely upon economics and the free markets to solve the problems- this is, in essence, a catch 22 supply-demand problem that is unlikely to be sorted until either 1. sufficient incentivising is applied, or 2. fossil fuels become uneconomical. Thus, unless we are happy to be doomed to scenario 2, we're best off incentivising in some way, which involves interfering with the free markets to some degree.

I reckon that we're going to need to tackle all aspects of the problem- the end user and the producers. One issue with incentivising re. the producers is that it must be done in a way that encourages them to clean up their act, rather than simply staying "as is" and passing any extra costs/limits down to the consumer. But just blaming the consumer tends to result in the public being hammered and offered precious little alternatives to their current pollutive choices.

Where I certainly agree is that in policymaking at the moment there's a lot of short-term electioneering and precious little consideration of the wider picture. It's no good implementing token measures that serve to inconvenience the end user and, at best, slightly address one small aspect of the problem in one country.

[Devonian]

I am not anti action on CO2 emissions, its simply that I cannot understand why seemly intelligent people can allow governments and industry to get away with blaming the end user? Millions of people worrying about their lightbulbs or the car they drive will have a tiny impact on CO2 emissions, you know that? So what's wrong with saying to those in power make car producers provide lower emission cars, make industry accountable for its energy usage, make goods importers responsible for where it was sourced, because at the moment they are having a hay day. I can shut my factory down in the UK import from China and get a pat on the back for doing it, we should not be accepting this or be hoodwinked into meaningless measures.

Surely that makes sense, and does not make me anti does it?

If BMW can produce the 5 series with the same emissions as a Mini then so can everyone else, simply make em or stop their production, don't blame the driver!!

We're all in on this.

I watched 'Tropic of Capricorn' last night. For part of the time the presenter was in Paraguay. Huge, and I mean huge, areas of forest have been cleared to grow soya. Now, I'm a farmer, and I feed animals with food that undoubtedly has such soya in it. As such I do see my self to be, in a small way (and, to defend myself (only partly), a smaller way than it used to be), to be to blame for that forest being grubbed up. But then so are those who eat meat, those who make use of such soya, all of us....

Now, it seems to me you would blame just the soya growers. But they are only satisfying a demand - a demand for cheap protein.

Until we ALL realise we are all to blame and we all need to act we'll continue the excuse of blaming others for inaction. Me, I need to find another kind of gainful employment.

Edited March 3, 2008 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

No govt. will really moot what is necessary to deal with AGW (for whatever reasons) but they'll fight for plastic bags, patio heaters and all the rest of the silly, virtually inconsequential measures that make them look like they care. 3rd runways, motorway planning, coal fired power stations etc are closer to the point and does OUR Govt. give a chuff about theses?

The leaders of the old Soviet Union had no wish to break up. The people did.

We must all strive to do what we must for our own consciences sake and not look to be blindly led like sheep (I'll do it when they do it.....bah,bah,bah)

[laserguy]

Why do you see trying to stop, or reducing, our impact on climate as so wrong? Why do you misdescribe that as manipulating? I simply don't understand how anyone can see reducing our emissions of greenhouse gasses as anything other than reducing our interference in the climate. I've tried to understand this oft repeated cry, but I can't, honestly I can't . It's so simply, greenhouse gasses have climate changing effects, we've added to that effect by our emissions of them, if we reduce our emissions our effect on climate will reduce. Why don't very intelligent people get this???

I really sickens and saddens me to have people like me so misrepresented - but it's gone on for years and I see no end to it . All the time I've understood the basics of the issue of anthro climate change (several decades now) it's been my desire to see us interfere less in the climate that has motivated me. Why is that so wrong?

I too am fed up with being misunderstood,but hey I'm used to it now. Nope,there's nothing wrong and everything right about reducing our terrible impact on this world,as I have always,but always maintained. All I want to know is where does climate and it's relationship with CO2 come into the equation? All these millions upon millions of tonnes of the stuff we've released over the decades and we've (allegedly) seen less than a 1C rise in temps over a hundred years. And today,when emissions are higher than ever,what do we see? No further rises and very strong possibility of a cooldown.

TWS: where is the climate changing in ways we deem out of the ordinary? It's doing nothing of the sort. There's no script for it to follow,only the rules some of us have dreamed up ever since 'global warming' was invented. If we're manipulating it now,what is it that we hope to manipulate it into by 'taking action'? Yep,cleaning up our act and stopping being so bloody easy come,easy go and just downright greedy and selfish would go a long way to curing a lot of modern ills,but won't have a bit of effect on climate.

GW: Governments don't give a monkeys about climate change,hence their actions or inactions as you wish to see it. You're the sheep,they are the herdsmen. Do whatever you see fit to sate your conscience,mine is just fine as it is.