Global Warming Impact on Houston

[Jax]

Climate models with realistic sensitivities simulate surface temperature changes of a few tenths of a degree C in response to plausible climate forcing due to changes in solar radiation over the past few hundred years. The simulations can account for two hundred years of surface temperature fluctuations prior to the industrial epoch (from 1600-1800). The solar-related warming in response to a solar forcing of 0.6 Wm-2 (from 1650 to the present) is calculated globally to be 0.45

[bachanon]

i'm certainly not a scientist either. in fact, based on this discussion, i'll not throw pinatubo around without more information. i think theniche's characterization (of the pinatubo eruption evidence) as "dubious" is wise.

[ricco67]

Well, at this point all anyone can do is theorize. No one person can prove without a reasonable scientific doubt one way or another.

FWIW: Like or hate Al Gore, I have to agree he's not an idiot, but he can be mistaken. It wouldn't be the first time that a very knowledgeable person makes a mistake on a major item.

[KinkaidAlum]

Who is "they?"

If by "they," you mean the Clinton administration, then yes, you are correct.

The Bush administration has merely continued the Clinton admininstration policy re: Kyoto, which is to not endorse the treaty until developing nations such as India and China were no longer exempt.

You were also aware that Kyoto is already "signed" (by the Clinton administration) and merely needs to be ratified by the Senate in order for the United States to join? Were you aware that Kyoto received a 99-0 ass-kicking when it went before the Senate during the Clinton administration? Why is it all of a sudden Bush's responsibility that the United States is not part of this farce?

If there is this much misinformation out there about simple U.S. Constitutional processes, is it really that hard to believe that there is also a lot of misinformation out there about complex climatalogical processes?

Um, nope. I meant the current administration. The Clinton administration actually helped shape the 1997 original although the Republican dominated Senate at the time rejected it in advance.

In 2001, one of the first things Bush did when he took office was to officially renounce the Kyoto Protocol and state that the U.S. would never join it.

And, last time I checked, the Kyoto Protocol didn't take effect until Feb 16, 2005 after Russia finally joined in with 140 other countries in November of 2004. Who was the sitting president then? I do believe it was Bush. As of right now, only the USA and Australia are left on the other side saying they will not ratify the agreement.

Since Russia joined in on November 18th, 2004, countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Haiti, Belarus, Iran, Singapore, Croatia, and Lebanon have signed on.

Bush had ample opportunity to join in if he pushed the issue.

Now, who is full of misinformation?

[CDeb]

Um, nope. I meant the current administration. The Clinton administration actually helped shape the 1997 original although the Republican dominated Senate at the time rejected it in advance.

In 2001, one of the first things Bush did when he took office was to officially renounce the Kyoto Protocol and state that the U.S. would never join it.

And, last time I checked, the Kyoto Protocol didn't take effect until Feb 16, 2005 after Russia finally joined in with 140 other countries in November of 2004. Who was the sitting president then? I do believe it was Bush. As of right now, only the USA and Australia are left on the other side saying they will not ratify the agreement.

Since Russia joined in on November 18th, 2004, countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Haiti, Belarus, Iran, Singapore, Croatia, and Lebanon have signed on.

Bush had ample opportunity to join in if he pushed the issue.

Now, who is full of misinformation?

You.

Still.

Kyoto is a treaty.

The Senate ratifies treaties.

Not the President.

If our Democrat-controlled Senate wants the U.S. into Kyoto, all it has to do is vote on it.

And again, the Clinton administration stated that the U.S. would never join Kyoto as long as India and China were not a part of it.

And they still aren't.

[ricco67]

Um, nope. I meant the current administration. The Clinton administration actually helped shape the 1997 original although the Republican dominated Senate at the time rejected it in advance.

In 2001, one of the first things Bush did when he took office was to officially renounce the Kyoto Protocol and state that the U.S. would never join it.

And, last time I checked, the Kyoto Protocol didn't take effect until Feb 16, 2005 after Russia finally joined in with 140 other countries in November of 2004. Who was the sitting president then? I do believe it was Bush. As of right now, only the USA and Australia are left on the other side saying they will not ratify the agreement.

Since Russia joined in on November 18th, 2004, countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Haiti, Belarus, Iran, Singapore, Croatia, and Lebanon have signed on.

Bush had ample opportunity to join in if he pushed the issue.

Now, who is full of misinformation?

Actually, you don't have quite a bit of the facts behind the decision.

Initially, I was all about the Kyoto Protocol. Then a friend of mine brought up a few points on it that made me actually want to READ the bloody thing (took freakin' forever and went through several highlighters, fell asleep on it a number of times, and I brought out my gun to shoot myself because my eyes took over my brain briefly and wanted to be put out of its suffering), and it's a big jumble of BS.

The biggest problems with the protocol is that the largest (current) polluters, China and India, are *NOT* required to reduce their carbon emissions the way it is written. One of the other things that drove me to the edge of insanity was the fact that you can "purchase" green points from other areas that aren't as polluting.

That's like the wetlands deal here in the states in which you can pave pave over all of Florida's wetlands, but still be okay because you "purchased" an equal amount wetlands spots in Virginia, Idaho, and Washington state. So in other words, clean air will will be a commodity.

Let me repeat that for some of our slower audience members:

If a polluter in say, Bangladesh (remember, China and India are EXEMPT from this, so they can kill all the birds and people with their pollution if they want), but want to be "green", they can say, "hey! I purchased clean air from Norway! I'm good! Pay no attention to the dying flock of birds in that field over there...or that three eye fish in the market. we're green!"

After I read the bloody thing, I had to flush out my eyes profusely and was forced to go on two night binge give my brain a break.

Well, the binge was my idea, the brain went along for the ride, but I did flush out my eyes.

[dbigtex56]

also, since we cannot effectively measure anthropogenic greenhouse gases, we will never be able to rule it out as a factor. ergo, bad science. it's like trying to prove or disprove god.

I suppose the bugaboo is the word 'effectively'.

Surely we have some rough idea as to how much coal has been mined, barrels of oil pumped and cubic feet of natural gas tapped.

There has been a dramatic rise in CO2 levels since humans started using wholesale quantities of fossil fuels. This strikes me as being more than coincidental.

[RedScare]

I stated earlier that this is far too complex an issue for any of us peons to really wrap our arms around, given that career scientific geniuses grapple with the issue as well. My apparent position stems from the approaches some big players take to discredit either side, thereby ensuring that the public will never have a chance to know the truth. A few examples...

Exxon paying bounties to science prostitutes to gin up anti-global warming papers (disclaimer: I own Exxon stock).

Researchers claiming that the 2005 hurricane season was a result of global warming before anyone had even studied the data. Some did it before the season was even over. Global warming may in fact have caused it, but some having called it so soon casts doubt on any future conclusions.

I could go on, but the point is that those with an agenda tend to oversell their position, making it harder to ascertain what is really going on.

I also have a problem with the disingenuous nature of some of the anti-global warming arguments. One of the biggest is that it is not man-made. Well, so what? If the earth is warming, and if warming is bad for humanity, it makes sense to combat all causes of warming. If natural causes account for 75% of the warming, we could still control the 25% that is man-made. A 25% reduction is better than none.

Another disingenuous argument is that anti-warming or anti-pollution efforts hurt the economy. This is the worst argument. It goes that since anti-pollution controls and solar panels, etc. are expensive, so the economy will be harmed. Excuse me? Spending money is bad for the economy? Since when? The CORRECT way to phrase the objection is that massive polluters will lose some profits by purchasing and installing pollution control equipment. That means some of those profits go to another part of the economy. It produces jobs, not the other way around. Anyone that has priced alternative energy knows that there is lots of money in it.

The same argument applies to energy efficiency. Detroit claims they are incapable of meeting fuel efficiency standards that Japan already meets. I take little comfort in knowing that the US produces such poor quality engineers that they cannot do what other countries' engineers already do.

There are so many reasons to address these issues already, that global warming is the least of them. With 80% of the world oil supply controlled by foreign governments, it is an absolute certainty that our military will be fighting wars forever to secure a stable supply. War is the most inefficient means of obtaining oil, as Iraq has shown. Global Warming is an interesting phenomenon, but as far as US policy goes, inefficiency, health and national security are more immediate threats. Many of the same solutions to these threats can help with respect to global warming. Our resistance to addressing these issues will doom the republic before global warming will.

[Jax]

largest (current) polluters, China and India

The level of emissions in India and China may be increasing faster than us, but I'm not so sure they are the largest greenhouse gas emitters right now - at least per capita. Remember these are still developing countries, but they are developing quickly.

Here is a link with some stats. I know everybody is going to hate me because it's Wikipedia but you can verify the numbers from the UN statistics division if you really want to. I'm surprised Canada is higher than the US. I am guessing it's because of the fact that the emissions are high for such a small population. Maybe it has something to do with all of the energy we spend on heating in the winter, or the fact that our economy is pretty decent but we only have a population similar to the state of Texas.

I'd be interested to see the rankings in terms of absolute numbers (not per capita). Anybody have any stats to share or want to factor out the populations? I am guessing China and India will be up there (since their populations are so huge), but I'm not sure if they would be higher than the US and EU.

[KinkaidAlum]

You.

Still.

Kyoto is a treaty.

The Senate ratifies treaties.

Not the President.

If our Democrat-controlled Senate wants the U.S. into Kyoto, all it has to do is vote on it.

And again, the Clinton administration stated that the U.S. would never join Kyoto as long as India and China were not a part of it.

And they still aren't.

I know full well that a Senate vote is needed to ratify a treaty. I know it takes 67 votes to pass.

I also know that a Senate that contains 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent is hardly Democrat-controlled. I also know full well that until Bush's second term, the party with a Senate majority was the Republican.

And, please direct me to a link which shows that it was the Clinton Administration that stated the U.S. would never join Kyoto as long as India and China were not a part of it. The only thing I can find is that Clinton's Admin didn't send the treaty to the Senate to be ratified. But, why would you when the Senate had taken a vote (it was 95-0, not 99-0 as you posted incorrectly earlier in the thread) stating the U.S. wouldn't ratify the Protocol until rapidly developing nations such as China were forced to limit emissions?

Frankly, trying to blame the Clinton Administration for the failure of the U.S.A. to ratify the Kyoto Protocol makes as much sense as blaming Kucinich for the War in Iraq.

[CDeb]

I also know that a Senate that contains 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent is hardly Democrat-controlled.

That is certainly enough to bring the issue to a vote. And we've all seen numerous times that neither party is above bringing useless causes to vote in order to grandstand on an issue.

I also know full well that until Bush's second term, the party with a Senate majority was the Republican.

Gosh, there were NINETY-FIVE Republicans in the Senate in 1997?? (Please forgive my earlier error, as 95-0 is much less legitimate than 99-0)

And, please direct me to a link which shows that it was the Clinton Administration that stated the U.S. would never join Kyoto as long as India and China were not a part of it. The only thing I can find is that Clinton's Admin didn't send the treaty to the Senate to be ratified.

With pleasure:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/

Specifically:

Gore, who often serves as the administration's point person on environmental issues, said the U.S. intends to press for "meaningful participation by key developing nations." Until that happens, the administration will not seek a ratification vote in the Senate, Gore said.

"As we said from the very beginning, we will not submit this agreement for ratification until key developing nations participate in this effort," Gore declared. "This is a global problem that will require a global solution."

................

In another development, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) says he doubts that the agreement will go to the Senate for ratification in 1998.

"We have until 2012 to meet Kyoto ... and it doesn't make sense" to take it to the Senate until there is "participation of developing nations," Lieberman said.

While not mentioning India and China by name, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which "key developing nations" are being referred to.

Frankly, trying to blame the Clinton Administration for the failure of the U.S.A. to ratify the Kyoto Protocol makes as much sense as blaming Kucinich for the War in Iraq.

I'm not trying to blame anything on anyone. Just merely pointing out that the Bush administration and the Clinton administration have the same policy in regards to the ratification of Kyoto.

[TheNiche]

I stated earlier that this is far too complex an issue for any of us peons to really wrap our arms around, given that career scientific geniuses grapple with the issue as well. My apparent position stems from the approaches some big players take to discredit either side, thereby ensuring that the public will never have a chance to know the truth. A few examples...

Exxon paying bounties to science prostitutes to gin up anti-global warming papers (disclaimer: I own Exxon stock).

Researchers claiming that the 2005 hurricane season was a result of global warming before anyone had even studied the data. Some did it before the season was even over. Global warming may in fact have caused it, but some having called it so soon casts doubt on any future conclusions.

I could go on, but the point is that those with an agenda tend to oversell their position, making it harder to ascertain what is really going on.

I also have a problem with the disingenuous nature of some of the anti-global warming arguments. One of the biggest is that it is not man-made. Well, so what? If the earth is warming, and if warming is bad for humanity, it makes sense to combat all causes of warming. If natural causes account for 75% of the warming, we could still control the 25% that is man-made. A 25% reduction is better than none.

Another disingenuous argument is that anti-warming or anti-pollution efforts hurt the economy. This is the worst argument. It goes that since anti-pollution controls and solar panels, etc. are expensive, so the economy will be harmed. Excuse me? Spending money is bad for the economy? Since when? The CORRECT way to phrase the objection is that massive polluters will lose some profits by purchasing and installing pollution control equipment. That means some of those profits go to another part of the economy. It produces jobs, not the other way around. Anyone that has priced alternative energy knows that there is lots of money in it.

The same argument applies to energy efficiency. Detroit claims they are incapable of meeting fuel efficiency standards that Japan already meets. I take little comfort in knowing that the US produces such poor quality engineers that they cannot do what other countries' engineers already do.

There are so many reasons to address these issues already, that global warming is the least of them. With 80% of the world oil supply controlled by foreign governments, it is an absolute certainty that our military will be fighting wars forever to secure a stable supply. War is the most inefficient means of obtaining oil, as Iraq has shown. Global Warming is an interesting phenomenon, but as far as US policy goes, inefficiency, health and national security are more immediate threats. Many of the same solutions to these threats can help with respect to global warming. Our resistance to addressing these issues will doom the republic before global warming will.

I agree in principle with Red's comments, but would take issue with the notion that converting over from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources would not harm the economy. At its most basic, a combination of factors of production (land, labor, and capital) are utilized to produce goods for which there is effectively no limit to demands. Factors of production are finite, and a decision to use them to produce output of one good/service results in less production of some other output good/service (i.e. opportunity cost). In perfectly or monopolistically competitive markets, the economic cost to produce goods is equal to their price, yeilding at or near zero economic profit.

Although the price of alternative energies have come down in the past couple decades, they are still more expensive than are traditional fossil fuels. The expense reflects that it takes greater amounts of the factors of production to go green than it does to stay traditional. When society opts to use more alternative fuels at a higher cost, that higher cost is reflective of an opportunity cost to society because society is using the same amount and the same kind of electricity but is sacrificing more productive factors to acquire it that could've been allocated towards producing something else. Perhaps the large opportunity cost is offset by environmental benefits, but to say that there aren't adverse consequences to the economy from having society switch to higher-cost green energy is perposterous.

------------

If the above is too theoretical for you, think about the impact of a law that requires that Exxon invest in more 'green' technologies. If it were profitable to do so, and they were managed well, they'd already have done it. If a law is passed that wasn't duplicative, then, Exxon will be forced to make a poor investment in order to continue its otherwise-profitable business operations. You are a stockholder in Exxon. If they aren't as profitable as they would've been otherwise, then you are poorer for it...at least temporarily. Ultimately, as the whole industry adjusts, the costs just get passed along to the consumer.

Certainly, whatever industry is producing the 'green' widgets is going to be making more money, but green industries are only producing because the government told Exxon that Exxon had to buy it, not because it was going to be a profitable investment. But that means that green industries expand, employ more productive factors for themselves than they otherwise would have, and thus take those productive factors away from every other kind of industry that could otherwise have used them. So rather than manufacturing workers building computers and machinery, they're building 'green' widgets. That causes the prices of factors of production to be bid up, which does mean higher wages, but since the extra costs are just passed back to consumers in the form of higher prices, the effect of higher wages is wiped out. What we're left with is more costly gasoline...or whatever product it was that put Exxon in the category that was affected by the regulations.

[TheNiche]

The level of emissions in India and China may be increasing faster than us, but I'm not so sure they are the largest greenhouse gas emitters right now - at least per capita. Remember these are still developing countries, but they are developing quickly.

I'd seen in a Time magazine about a year ago a chart that compared the aggregate CO2 emissions divided by dollar-equivalent of GDP for these countries, and China was outrageously high compared to most first-world countries. I wasn't surprised about the rankings, but I was surprised at the sheer differences.

[KinkaidAlum]

That is certainly enough to bring the issue to a vote. And we've all seen numerous times that neither party is above bringing useless causes to vote in order to grandstand on an issue.

Gosh, there were NINETY-FIVE Republicans in the Senate in 1997?? (Please forgive my earlier error, as 95-0 is much less legitimate than 99-0)

With pleasure:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/

Did you even bother to read the link? Clinton didn't even come close to saying what you claim. In fact, he hailed the creation of the Kyoto as a great starting point. I can find you plenty of links from 2001 where Bush is quoted saying the exact things you are claiming Clinton did...

[CDeb]

Did you even bother to read the link? Clinton didn't even come close to saying what you claim. In fact, he hailed the creation of the Kyoto as a great starting point. I can find you plenty of links from 2001 where Bush is quoted saying the exact things you are claiming Clinton did...

Did you even bother to read my posts?

I never said he did.

I said it was his administration's policy, and Gore's comments bear that out. Did you even bother to read the entire article??

In addition to the Clinton administration, every Democrat in the Senate who bothered to vote also agreed with this position on Kyoto.

This is well-established fact outside the "blame Bush for everything crowd."

So why are we still blaming Bush?

Bush's administration deserves criticism in many areas. This isn't one of them.

[gto250us]

A sure sign of a Junk Science is when politics get injected into the conversation. It only took a couple of posts before it showed up in this discussion.

Global Warming going on without a doubt. The question is, Is it natural or induced by Man? I vote for the natural.

[jgriff]

I grew up thinking I was going to be living in an Ice Age so I tend to be a little skeptical of politicians who tell me that the world is going to end in a few years and that all I have to do to stop it is hand over control of the economy and what kind of car I drive to them.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html

[Jax]

Not that anybody is going to believe me or care, but you're comparing one "Time Magazine" article to decades worth of research on Global Warming.

[jgriff]

Not that anybody is going to believe me or care, but you're comparing one "Time Magazine" article to decades worth of research on Global Warming.

I guess it must not be more than three decades of research. The scientific "consensus" 3 decades ago was the exact opposite of the "consensus" of global warming zealots today. The point is that just because you read a few articles on the internet and a politician tells you the world is ending doesn't mean it's true. The scientific community has been wrong in the past and it will be wrong in the future. I have a feeling that people will be studying this 100 years from now in history class and Al Gore will be mentioned in the same vein with the witch hunts in Salem. People are no different today than they were back then. It's amazing how entire communities can still sucumb to mass hysteria.

I would be much more inclined to beleive global warming "experts" if they didn't always come up with solutions that require handing over money and control to giant government bureaucracies, or solving technical problems with social engineering. Build me a $50 billion dollar solar array in space and I'll be on-board with you. Tell me to stop driving my sports car or SUV and you start sounding like a communist to me. I'd rather live with global warming than communism.

[Jax]

What do you mean consensus? There was no consensus about global cooling in the 70s, only a few articles in the popular press and a one scientific papers published (that I know of) on the issue. That doesn't mean there was a consensus.

How about you go search some journals and tell me how many articles you can find on global cooling, then do the same thing for global warming, and tell me which subject has more of a scientific consensus, which has more papers published? I seriously doubt you'll actually do that though because most people who post on this forum fail to do their own research on these issues.

I'd rather see you attack modern climatology than cite an old article (which is not even in a scientific journal) as evidence of a scientific consensus, which is supposed to invalidate the current scientific consensus. That's like saying that because the scientific consensus in the 1800s was that light behaved like a wave, that the current wave particle duality theory of light must be wrong.

just because you read a few articles on the internet and a politician tells you the world is ending doesn't mean it's true

What do you mean I've just read a few articles on the internet? I am a regular reader of multiple scientific journals (I'm a Rice grad student). That doesn't make me an expert climatologist, but I am insulted that you assume I've only read a few articles on the internet. How many articles on this issue have you read outside of the popular press and media? Which journals do you subscribe to?

P.S. I'm not a Communist.

[TheNiche]

What do you mean consensus? There was no consensus about global cooling in the 70s, only a few articles in the popular press and a one scientific papers published (that I know of) on the issue. That doesn't mean there was a consensus.

How about you go search some journals and tell me how many articles you can find on global cooling, then do the same thing for global warming, and tell me which subject has more of a scientific consensus, which has more papers published? I seriously doubt you'll actually do that though because most people who post on this forum fail to do their own research on these issues.

I'd rather see you attack modern climatology than cite an old article (which is not even in a scientific journal) as evidence of a scientific consensus, which is supposed to invalidate the current scientific consensus. That's like saying that because the scientific consensus in the 1800s was that light behaved like a wave, that the current wave particle duality theory of light must be wrong.

What do you mean I've just read a few articles on the internet? I am a regular reader of multiple scientific journals (I'm a Rice grad student). That doesn't make me an expert climatologist, but I am insulted that you assume I've only read a few articles on the internet. How many articles on this issue have you read outside of the popular press and media? Which journals do you subscribe to?

P.S. I'm not a Communist.

The scientific community has excruciatingly endured several major paradigm shifts through the ages. It is in my mind highly unlikely that we've seen the last one. ...not saying that GW will be 'it'. Only that scientific consensuses aren't invulnerable to attacks of extreme reason and logic...and of course their extreme counterparts.

[jgriff]

Global cooling was taught as fact to me in jr. high in the 70s. That's what I mean by "consensus". I put the consensus in quotes because global cooling was no more of a consensus then than man made global warming is now. Yet it was still referred to as fact in the Time article as well as to 12 year old kids that were scared witless for no reason.

As soon as environmentalists stop focusing on energy conservation and start focusing on energy production then I'll beleieve that their motives are sincere.

The fact that India and China are largely left out of the Kyoto protocol shows that the environmentalist lobby is more about taking from the rich and giving to the poor than it is about the environment. Under Kyoto the U.S. would be punished more than any other nation yet it is the U.S. that has lead the world on environmental issues. Do you remember in the 70s when we were all required to get cataylitic converters? Europe went on for years without them. They still have not gotten their domestic market automobiles up to U.S. pollution standards.

It's funny how environmentalists beleive that man is so powerful that we can damage the entire planet but all the plans they come up with to fix are passive and involve us getting by with less. If we are so powerful why don't we build giant nuclear powered plants to remove C02 from the atmosphere all over the world? If an environmentalist suggested that I might be more inclined to belevie he's serious about the problem. I guess that doesn't fit in with the "everything man does is evil" belief of modern environmentalists.

[Jax]

The global cooling thing may have been taught as a current event (ie: reading newspaper articles), but I am almost positive it was not a part of the curriculum. Maybe your teacher just wasn't a good enough teacher to tell his students that there wasn't a widespread consensus on this issue, only a few articles in the popular press / media. Just because your teacher made you think there was a scientific consensus, that doesn't mean that there was.

I agree that any environmentalist who believes in 100% conservation and 0% production is stupid, but I've never met an environmentalist with that type of view. We couldn't support our growing population without any new energy production anyways. There may be some extremists out there who think we should abandon modern technology altogether and live in caves, but I don't know of any. I also agree that there's no reason to be wasteful or excessive. I don't drive an SUV, and I try to walk when I have the time and I don't have too far to go.

I think most people from all ends of the political spectrum can agree that we should spend more money researching new forms of clean renewable energy (and not only for environmental reasons). If all environmentalists believe that "everything man does is evil", then why do so many of them support scientific research into better forms of energy? Nobody wants to abandon modern conveniences, they just want to make them cleaner and more efficient. That comment about environmentalists almost makes you seen like more of an extremist... but I'll take for granted you just have a weird sense of humor.

Don't forget that current nuclear energy doesn't solve all of our problems unless we can figure out what to do with the waste.

[bachanon]

i would love, more than anything, to get off "the grid".

anyone notice the huge, propeller looking things heading up I-45 on a regular basis? those babies are for wind farms in central texas. alternative forms of energy are gaining ground in many sectors. my opinion is that even energy companies are interested in cleaner (profitable) forms of energy. everyone has kids and grandkids. no one really wants a polluted planet. global warming or not, people want less "ugly" types of energy.

[Jax]

Nice, we've found some common ground! =)

[TJones]

I find it utterly AMAZING that this big liar,

WINS the Nobel Prize over this superhero woman ?

Irena Sendler

Somebody please stop the world and let me off !

[CDeb]

I find it utterly AMAZING that this big liar,

WINS the Nobel Prize over this superhero woman ?

Irena Sendler

Somebody please stop the world and let me off !

It's a political award nowadays. Nothing more, nothing less.

[memebag]

I would be much more inclined to beleive global warming "experts" if they didn't always come up with solutions that require handing over money and control to giant government bureaucracies, or solving technical problems with social engineering. Build me a $50 billion dollar solar array in space and I'll be on-board with you. Tell me to stop driving my sports car or SUV and you start sounding like a communist to me. I'd rather live with global warming than communism.

If you've got a solution to global warming that doesn't involve giant government bureaucracies or social engineering and lets us keep driving sports cars and SUVs, bring it on. The problem is in what economists call "externalities". The total cost of using fossil fuels isn't currently reflected in the market costs. If you can figure out a way to move that cost into the market without taxation or regulation, I can guarantee you a Nobel prize for economics.

[Subdude]

If you can figure out a way to move that cost into the market without taxation or regulation, I can guarantee you a Nobel prize for economics.

That's largely what taxes are for, to impose costs for what are perceived as negative externalities.

[memebag]

That's largely what taxes are for, to impose costs for what are perceived as negative externalities.

Yeah, but jgriff seems to think there's a way out of this that doesn't involve taxes or regulation.

The best idea I've heard is a global carbon tax. Any carbon removed from the ground gets taxed at the first sale. The cost is absorbed by the entire market. The tax starts off low and ramps up to match the cost of removing that carbon from the atmosphere. The taxes are used to develop alternative technologies, but even if they aren't, they move the market in that direction.

It will never happen, but it's still the best idea I've heard so far.