Cap and Trade

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
* The few who write the IPCC reports, yes, pretty much. The examples are legion. The hydrologists are particularly contemptuous of the ignorance shown of the effects of the oceans and water cycles on climate, which are huge, arguably dominant.
** A typical example of distortion by data manipulation. The range and scale are selected to make the graph look steep, when it is not. It also begs the question about what the source of the rise is. The Earth has been warming since the Maunder Minimum, long before human industrial activity was significant, and warming seawater gives up CO2–which has also been rising since long before industrial activity became intense (generally pegged as early WWII, ~1940). With, be it noted, a LAG — it follows the warming by about 9 months. That, despite “feedback loop” double-talk by the alarmists, means it is an effect, NOT a cause. And a typical order-of-magnitude alarmist error: 22% in 50 years is a 0.4% compounding rate, not 4%. Which requires 180 years to double, not 20. Further, the slope of that progression shows no signs of being “compounded” (exponential). It is pretty much a linear progression. And 0.4% linear requires 250 years to double.
Since the IPCC models aren’t competent to predict even 1 year’s climate (actually they have shown no competence to predict at ANY time scale), using them to predict the non-linear climate 20, 175, or 250 years out is outrageous mendacity or ignorance.
*** So full of errors I don’t know where to start. I’ll just satisfy myself by pointing out that a 1% contribution does not = 0.1°/year unless it is a given that the temperature is rising 10°/year, which not even the most slavering Gore-ite claims. This time, the error is THREE orders of magnitude, even granting the other (erroneous) assumptions. 😆
**** Au Contraire!! That C-a-T is going to cost Trillions$ with NO detectable climate benefit is at the very core. Unless, like some of the investment hucksters who are circulating their promo newsletters, you are slavering to get some of that lovely money action–preferably leveraged by owning stock in a company with an inside track, like AlGore! What, exactly, do you think is worth discussing about C-a-T, if not its economic impact? Which is contingent upon its effectiveness–which, I argue, is deeply negative

* Well I don’t actually know how they work at IPCC or any other climate change research center, because I don’t work there, but I would believe that there can be disgruntled employees everywhere. If some scientist was turned down, and is screaming “Global Conspiracy” all over the media, then that is his problem. Otherwise if they are falsifying data, or perpetuating a fraud I don’t see a problem with anyone going to court about it.

** It is really strange to me that you see data manipulation on this chart.
http://tinypic.com/r/2mwidd/4
Whatever the range/scale you select it will stay exponential. Of course you can say that there is some margin or error there, or that data was altered. But then this is EVIDENCE, just take it to court and bye-bye global warming perpetrators.

Edit: Economy is also mostly based on fossil fuels. Is this chart linear as well?
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1254091224089&chddm=493051&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=INDEXDJX:.DJI&ntsp=0

*** I did not try to quote any real numbers here. My only assumption is that the heat is accumulating. And while the temperature is not changing, melting ice can indicate that heat is accumulating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage#2008

**** So do you think it makes sense to discuss Cap & Trade in the context that global warming is a scam? In my opinion if global warming is not real then cap & trade does not make sense, and we can happily burn fossil fuels, well at least until drinking water and oxygen prices are still affordable. Of course free energy (from renewable sources) might sound attractive, but I would love to wait until new technology is available and prices drop instead of paying now for 20 years in advance.

[Phil’s Dad]

On 27 September 2009 at 06:38 PM Breakable posted; “In my opinion if global warming is not real then cap & trade does not make sense…”

There are plenty who do not think cap & trade makes sense either way – including James Hansen and Michael Mann, neither of whom is known as a great AGW sceptic.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:
…
* Well I don’t actually know how they work at IPCC or any other climate change research center, because I don’t work there, but I would believe that there can be disgruntled employees everywhere. If some scientist was turned down, and is screaming “Global Conspiracy” all over the media, then that is his problem. Otherwise if they are falsifying data, or perpetuating a fraud I don’t see a problem with anyone going to court about it.

** It is really strange to me that you see data manipulation on this chart.
http://tinypic.com/r/2mwidd/4
Whatever the range/scale you select it will stay exponential. Of course you can say that there is some margin or error there, or that data was altered. But then this is EVIDENCE, just take it to court and bye-bye global warming perpetrators.

Edit: Economy is also mostly based on fossil fuels. Is this chart linear as well?
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1254091224089&chddm=493051&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=INDEXDJX:.DJI&ntsp=0

*** I did not try to quote any real numbers here. My only assumption is that the heat is accumulating. And while the temperature is not changing, melting ice can indicate that heat is accumulating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage#2008

**** So do you think it makes sense to discuss Cap & Trade in the context that global warming is a scam? In my opinion if global warming is not real then cap & trade does not make sense, and we can happily burn fossil fuels, well at least until drinking water and oxygen prices are still affordable. Of course free energy (from renewable sources) might sound attractive, but I would love to wait until new technology is available and prices drop instead of paying now for 20 years in advance.

*Employees are not involved/the issue. There is no “IPCC research center” as such. These are people with day jobs that just happen to be fat and happy because of AGW alarmism, who submit papers for massaging and editing by the IPCC (WHICH IS A POLITICAL AGENCY of the UN). They do, I suppose, get paid for participation in the IPCC charade, but it’s the long-term economic and political benefits that are “drivers”–plus professional prestige and clout.
** There is no evidence that it is exponential. There are trends in temperature of various durations, and over the longest spans they go up and down like a yo-yo. The “current” temperature rise does not match in pattern or intensity anything to do with human activity (e.g., three decades of cooling immediately after CO2 production took off about 1940). So altering human activity should not be expected to affect the trend in either direction. And, again, and fundamental: 0.4% takes a century or two to double, linear or exponential. And the models have ZERO validity at even fractions of such time spans. So why make hugely damaging and expensive decisions based on them?

As far as economic exponential growth, just wait till FF kicks in. You ain’t seen nothin’, yet!
*** The evidence for melting ice is dubious at best, especially considering the trends in the Antarctic, which is overwhelmingly larger as a non-floating ice store than the Arctic. Temperature trends in the Southern Hemisphere have turned sharply downwards. AND NONE OF THIS IS DUE TO CO2, much less anthropogenic CO2. Wind patterns driving the ice pack out of the Arctic and into the Atlantic were responsible for the bulk of the ice change there so beloved by the AGW alarmists. This is a weather pattern that occurs for unknown reasons a few times every few centuries.
**** Paying now for (non-existent) benefits 20, 50, and 100 years in advance is what C-a-T is all about. The “best case” time lags for even miniscule changes are many decades.
BTW, the most rabid of the AGW activists are demanding 80% reductions in CO2 production by 2050. Without FF, that would take us back to living standards from the 1800s, and probably also population levels from then. Which they’re quite OK with.

[Phil’s Dad]

Breakable – you posted at 24 September 2009 03:55 AM
“…if there is even a remote possibility that by a slight reduction (in) the quality of living a catastrophe can be prevented isn’t it a good idea to take that chance?”
Then at 26 September 2009 07:21 AM
“I do not think its(sic) a good idea to reduce the quality of living anywhere…”

I’ll let you untangle that one. 🙂

(“Its” by the way is the possessive. “It’s” is the contraction of “it is”. Pedantry – sorry.)

You then give two examples to make your point (for which I applaud you by the way)

Shawn Frayne’s invention is years old and Trevor Baylis in the mean time created the wind up radio and lamp that need no external power source and can be found in large numbers on the African continent. This is not the sort of power villages are in desperate need of.

William’s story is as inspirational as it is intended to be and deeply saddening at the same time. I applaud anyone who creates something from no more than their ingenuity and what they find around them. Do though remember this telling line from the write up; “Three years ago I came across a fascinating story of a young man in Malawi who had built a windmill from scratch… Breakable, how many more have been built since?

Africa is home to getting on for a billion people. Only 10% have regular energy supplies. Nor is it evenly distributed. In some African countries 95% go without. Are there enough dumps with enough spare parts to energize a continent in this way?

Instead many spend their time gathering grass, dung and, where available, wood for cooking and heating. Four million die each year from the lung infections that result. W.H.O. figures indicate that this is forty times higher than the number of smoking-related deaths. The greatest effect is felt by women and children.

Without the power to pump clean water, what can be found is carried home, often from distant lakes and rivers. Yes it could be done with wind powered water pumps if the wind blows with the right strength at the right time. But again it will not be done for a billion people from spare bicycle parts. When you start considering “proper” wind turbines the cost is immediately out of reach.

Tainted water and spoiled, unrefrigerated, food cause intestinal diseases that kill another two million annually. These things alone are killing numbers equivalent to the population of London or New York, every year, as a direct result of the absence of practical, affordable energy. Right now “practical, affordable” means hydrocarbons which has its own problems. This is why FF is so important. The cost per kW/hr is within the reach of people for whom $1 can mean the difference between life and death as you put it.

To set this in the context of cap & trade; the most major of the world wide environmental initiatives to date, the Kyoto Protocol, would apparently keep two million people from going hungry by the end of the century. A third of the number that will die, this year, from lack of energy. As I posted earlier there are top evangelists for the environmentalist view who do not think cap & trade will achieve even this much.

Other environmental initiatives have actually made matters worse. In recent years the colossal increase in bio-fuel crops, which effectively put food into cars, drove up food prices. The World Bank states that this has driven at least 30 million more people into hunger.

As a politician I am very much aware that politics is in large part responsible for what I have described above. As such I am clear that we must not make matters worse still with more politics. To those who say we must reduce world energy consumption as a route to reducing CO2; I would ask them to consider that unnecessarily limiting or withholding energy damages peoples’ lives and, in some cases, takes those lives away. By all means let us develop low carbon, high energy economies but please not low carbon, low energy.

In developed nations by all means secure energy supplies by developing local alternatives to imported oil and gas. Do not under any circumstances waste resources. But before suggesting that developed nations reduce their energy usage – please take a long hard look at countries that are low energy today.

It is not sufficient to say “we will do this because of what might happen in the future if temperature goes up 1oC” when we know full well what will happen if we continue energy deprivation. It will be every bit as bad or even worse. To put it harshly, do we let someone die now on the off chance we might save someone later?

Sorry this is so long but you touched a raw nerve. >:-(

Just to tie up a loose end; at 24 September 2009 03:55 AM you say “Consensus is much harder to form when there is nothing to test on.” And at 26 September 2009 07:21 AM “It is much easier to disprove criticism when you can make experiments”.

From your second, perfectly logical, statement (made when well rested) we can form the double negative – it is much harder to disprove criticism when you can not “make experiments”. For all the same reasons it is harder to disprove consensus (i.e. easier to form and maintain) when there is nothing to test on. Or, to take out the double negative, consensus is much easier to form when there is nothing to test on.
You see how that makes much more sense. 🙂

[Breakable]

Phil’s Dad wrote:
Breakable – you posted at 24 September 2009 03:55 AM
“…if there is even a remote possibility that by a slight reduction (in) the quality of living a catastrophe can be prevented isn’t it a good idea to take that chance?”
Then at 26 September 2009 07:21 AM
“I do not think its a good idea to reduce the quality of living anywhere – if properly done carbon tax can instead slow down the speed at which quality of living is improving instead, and its increasing the fastest in developing countries.”
I’ll let you untangle that one. 🙂

After including the full sentence, let me clarify what I tried to mean:
Reducing quality of living to prevent catastrophe is acceptable, and its better to slow down the improvement in quality of living than to reduce it.

Phil’s Dad wrote:
(“Its” by the way is the possessive. “It’s” is the contraction of “it is”. Pedantry – sorry.)

I understand. Still I am to lazy to fix it.

Phil’s Dad wrote:
You then give two examples to make your point (for which I applaud you by the way)
…A third of the number that will die, this year, from lack of energy. As I posted earlier there are top evangelists for the environmentalist view who do not think cap & trade will achieve even this much.

Thank you for the applause, but what kind of power do you think they need?
I agree that they need lighting, refrigeration, clean water, communications. But that can be supplied more cheaply and inexpensively in a distributed fashion, and most of the time with no/minimal/muscle power. There are solutions to most problems:
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/
its just a matter of funding to implement them. And if properly done Cap & Trade can benefit those poor countries, because by not having any fossil fuels to burn they can sell their right to emit Co2 and buy the aid their need instead of putting their countries into debt or relying on foreign help.
The alternative is to build a huge infrastructure with centralized fossil fuel plants (which will be operated as cheap as possible meaning all the unfiltered pollution), and distribution network (lower efficiency), water pipes, water treatment facilities and then tax all the villagers (into oblivion) to support this infrastructure.
One interesting part is that FF is also a non-carbon source, so Cap & Trade legislation can help push this technology in research, development and distribution.

Phil’s Dad wrote:
Other environmental initiatives have actually made matters worse. In recent years the colossal increase in bio-fuel crops, which effectively put food into cars, drove up food prices. The World Bank states that this has driven at least 30 million more people into hunger.
…
It is not sufficient to say “we will do this because of what might happen in the future if temperature goes up 1oC” when we know full well what will happen if we continue energy deprivation. It will be every bit as bad or even worse. To put it harshly, do we let someone die now on the off chance we might save someone later?
Sorry this is so long but you touched a raw nerve. >:-(

Well I agree that when improperly or unreasonably done legislation can cause more harm than good. I never was a supported of bio-fuels, solar panels on other hand is something I like. There are many designs for solar panels, some of them can be homemade, some of them can be cheaper than fossil fuels. Its also a matter of funding to get them into the hand in need. And if you remember FF is still (probably) 10 years away, so why don’t we save someone now?

Phil’s Dad wrote:
Just to tie up a loose end; at 24 September 2009 03:55 AM you say “Consensus is much harder to form when there is nothing to test on.” And at 26 September 2009 07:21 AM “It is much easier to disprove criticism when you can make experiments”.
From your second, perfectly logical, statement (made when well rested) we can form the double negative – it is much harder to disprove criticism when you can not “make experiments”. For all the same reasons it is harder to disprove consensus (i.e. easier to form and maintain) when there is nothing to test on. Or, to take out the double negative, consensus is much easier to form when there is nothing to test on.
You see how that makes much more sense.

Well it is possible this can go both ways, still people like to find things on which to disagree, otherwise we would have a single world religion/philosophy by now.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:

You then give two examples to make your point (for which I applaud you by the way)
…A third of the number that will die, this year, from lack of energy. As I posted earlier there are top evangelists for the environmentalist view who do not think cap & trade will achieve even this much.

Thank you for the applause, but what kind of power do you think they need?
I agree that they need lighting, refrigeration, clean water, communications. But that can be supplied more cheaply and inexpensively in a distributed fashion, and most of the time with no/minimal/muscle power. There are solutions to most problems:
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/
its just a matter of funding to implement them. And if properly done Cap & Trade can benefit those poor countries, because by not having any fossil fuels to burn they can sell their right to emit Co2 and buy the aid their need instead of putting their countries into debt or relying on foreign help.
The alternative is to build a huge infrastructure with centralized fossil fuel plants (which will be operated as cheap as possible meaning all the unfiltered pollution), and distribution network (lower efficiency), water pipes, water treatment facilities and then tax all the villagers (into oblivion) to support this infrastructure.
One interesting part is that FF is also a non-carbon source, so Cap & Trade legislation can help push this technology in research, development and distribution.

Phil’s Dad wrote:
Other environmental initiatives have actually made matters worse. In recent years the colossal increase in bio-fuel crops, which effectively put food into cars, drove up food prices. The World Bank states that this has driven at least 30 million more people into hunger.
…
It is not sufficient to say “we will do this because of what might happen in the future if temperature goes up 1oC” when we know full well what will happen if we continue energy deprivation. It will be every bit as bad or even worse. To put it harshly, do we let someone die now on the off chance we might save someone later?
Sorry this is so long but you touched a raw nerve. >:-(

Well I agree that when improperly or unreasonably done legislation can cause more harm than good. I never was a supported of bio-fuels, solar panels on other hand is something I like. There are many designs for solar panels, some of them can be homemade, some of them can be cheaper than fossil fuels. Its also a matter of funding to get them into the hand in need. And if you remember FF is still (probably) 10 years away, so why don’t we save someone now?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the problems the poor of the world are facing. The techy solutions you suggest are available to them only in small measures at (for them) immense cost. And the most direct routes to improvement of their conditions are explicitly verboten under the anti-CO2 rubric. They have no “carbon credits” to trade with, that’s simply dreaming. One’s saleable “right to omit CO2” is a function of the plant you have in place. If you have none, you’re SOL. A few areas can refrain from cutting trees and get them that way, etc., but for Africans living hand-to-mouth, e.g., there is no base from which to begin.

Many or most Africans themselves regard the prospect of C-a-T as a farcical disaster. They are right.

If you want an example of the kind of practical initiative that can work (nothing to do with C-a-T), check out lutw.org .

[HermannH]

Brian H wrote:
*Employees are not involved/the issue. There is no “IPCC research center” as such. These are people with day jobs that just happen to be fat and happy because of AGW alarmism, who submit papers for massaging and editing by the IPCC (WHICH IS A POLITICAL AGENCY of the UN). They do, I suppose, get paid for participation in the IPCC charade, but it’s the long-term economic and political benefits that are “drivers”–plus professional prestige and clout.
…
BTW, the most rabid of the AGW activists are demanding 80% reductions in CO2 production by 2050. Without FF, that would take us back to living standards from the 1800s, and probably also population levels from then. Which they’re quite OK with.

Brian – I am not going to try to convince you that AGW is real or that too much CO2 in the air and particualrly the oceans can be harmful for a large number of organisms. Nothing short of a Damascus Road Conversion will change your mind. But please reflect on this:

You seem to believe that more than 90% of all climate scientists fall in one of three categories:
A) Either they know that AGW is a hoax and they are milking it for all it’s worth.
B) or they are fools and have no clue what they are doing.
C) or they know that AGW is a hoax, but they are simply to scared to tell the truth; another version of A), really.

No doubt there are some climate scientists that enjoy their fame and the money and job security since GW has become a hot topic; who would not. No doubt there are some individuals that perform sub-par research; every group has a bottom 10%. But accusing 90% of either being fools or willingly compromising their research is a bit of a stretch. Even politicians and lawyers show more integrity than that. People usually don’t become climate scientists because they are lured by money or fame or power.

About the prestige and clout issue: I happen to believe that multinational oil companies and OPEC countries have a bit more economic and political clout than a bunch of windmill and solar cell producers. I wouldn’t be surprised if the net profits of the first group are larger than the total revenue of the second group.

At this time no one can declare with absolute certainty that AGW is a fact but no one can declare that it is a hoax either. If I was a gambler it would put the likelihood of it being real at least at 50% and the likelihood of some kind of worst-case scenario (Greenland melting completely within the next couple of hundred years, ocean acidification killing most corral reefs and a lot of marine life that depends on them, etc.) would be at least 5%. This is assuming that nothing significant is done to stop the growth in CO2 emissions let alone reducing them from current levels. All of the worst-case scenarios also result in large-scale human suffering and the economic cost would be in the trillions.

I don’t know about you, but I pay almost $1000 a year for house insurance alone. I never had a claim in 20 years, so the odds of something really bad happening are less that 5% in a year. Yet I still keep the insurance because the peace of mind of knowing that some disastrous event won’t wipe me out is worth it. And so it is with all insurance, a multi-multi-billion dollar industry: we pay dearly to mitigate the effects of some unlikely but potentially disastrous events. We even have insurance for events that are so remote we won’t even live to collect the money, it’s called life insurance.

So what is wrong with paying something upfront to reduce the probability of a GW catastrophe? Or are you so sure that you are 100% right and the vast majority of scientists that study climate professionally are wrong?

I fully agree with you that reducing CO2 emissions will be very painful for everyone. I also share your aversion to Cap and Trade, it is too complicated and therefore open to too much manipulation; a slowly phased in carbon tax would be much better. Unfortunately any proposal with the word ‘tax’ in it is doomed from the start.

In the end the question is: do we take our chances and delay action and risk the possibility that 10 to 30 years down the road we find out that GW is real after all? At that point we may have set something in motion that cannot be stopped and our children or grandchildren may also end up with living standards of the 1800’s with population densities to match. That is why I am interested in FF. If it worked it would provide a pain-free way to reduce human CO2 emissions; everybody would be a winner (well except oil and coal companies).

[Aeronaut]

The principle reduces to how long you’d be willing to stay in the garage with the car idling. Hopefully it’s an electric car. We don’t know the effects on the climate, but who really cares when we know it’s deadly to hoomons? No further scientific proof needed other than to support stands.

[Brian H]

HermannH wrote:
…
In the end the question is: do we take our chances and delay action and risk the possibility that 10 to 30 years down the road we find out that GW is real after all? At that point we may have set something in motion that cannot be stopped and our children or grandchildren may also end up with living standards of the 1800’s with population densities to match. That is why I am interested in FF. If it worked it would provide a pain-free way to reduce human CO2 emissions; everybody would be a winner (well except oil and coal companies).

Ah, yes, the infamous “precautionary argument”. The problems with it are immense, but the basic one is that the remedies suggested create miniscule effects even in the “cooked” models used by the IPCC, and the cost in human suffering and lives will be far greater from the solutions than from the purported problem.

Please get some historical perspective. There have been eras in human history when temperatures were several degrees C (which are twice the size of degrees F) warmer than are warned about. They were boom times, when great works of art and architecture were achieved, and food supplies were abundant, and populations rose. Cooling periods were times of shrinkage, disease, and suffering.

They happened naturally, and will continue to do so. Fiddling with CO2 around the edges will achieve nothing except transfer immense amounts of money and power into the hands of those promoting the scam.

As for your “consensus” argument, it is beneath scientific contempt. Science is not a matter of consensus. “Most climatologists” are not engaged in the issues, and have no basis for judging the physics and hydrology and biology which are actual drivers, but are taking the IPCC studies “at their word”. And are VERY cautious about expressing skepticism even when they feel it; it results in severe career consequences.

Sample quotes: Dr. Joanna Simpson, first female meteorology PhD: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly.” Formerly of NASA, author of over 190 studies. Rejects the AGW thesis now.

Dr. Kiminori Itoh, award-winning environmental physical chemist, says global warming fears are “the worst scientific scandal in the history [of modern science] … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden: “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly [from promoting warming fears] without having their professional careers ruined.”

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, professor of earth sciences, Flinders University: “I started with a firm belief about global warming — until I started working on it myself.”

The “consensus” is an illusion created to try and override dissent and the actual data. (See above: the FUNDAMENTAL climate-altering change predicted by the models–the warming of the upper troposphere over the tropics, the “Hot Spot”–simply never happened, and shows no signs of developing.)

It’s actually all quite outrageous.

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the problems the poor of the world are facing. The techy solutions you suggest are available to them only in small measures at (for them) immense cost. And the most direct routes to improvement of their conditions are explicitly verboten under the anti-CO2 rubric.

I believe I understand quite well that the problem is money, and there are low tech solutions to most problems.
water transportation
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/Design/q-drum
filtering
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/Design/ceramic-water-filter
refrigeration
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/Design/pot-in-pot-cooler
cooking
http://www.greenpacks.org/2009/04/09/kyoto-box-solar-cardboard-cooker-wins-climate-prize/

I agree that not all solutions can be low tech, and they might not apply for all the situations, but even high tech solutions does not need to be prohibitively expensive:
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Humdinger_Windbelt
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/Design/one-laptop-per-child

And no, i don’t think that power hungry appliances are the most important for quality of living in third world countries.

Brian H wrote:
They have no “carbon credits” to trade with, that’s simply dreaming. One’s saleable “right to omit CO2” is a function of the plant you have in place. If you have none, you’re SOL. A few areas can refrain from cutting trees and get them that way, etc., but for Africans living hand-to-mouth, e.g., there is no base from which to begin.
Many or most Africans themselves regard the prospect of C-a-T as a farcical disaster. They are right.
If you want an example of the kind of practical initiative that can work (nothing to do with C-a-T), check out lutw.org .

Regarding the complications of CAT in different countries, of course there are plenty. Some countries might be in a position where they don’t have anything except poverty. This is where their government (using international aid) should do something about it. If you can plant trees (or other growth) and make money from it, then it might become a profitable business. Of course you cannot plant anything in the desert, but even if you have access to saltwater – there a crops that can grow there.
On the other hand I don’t think it would be fair if the developing countries would be limited to much lower emissions of co2 (per capita) and would not get something in return, but even if that would be the case with recent legislation, it does not mean it can not change in the future.

[Aeronaut]

I saw this on one of those gas pump signs this morning, claiming CAT is going to raise gasoline prices 158%. http://ourenergyvoice.com

The battle is joined.

If nothing else, that web design looks like a great candidate for FFS’s new look. This energy alliance may also be willing to help promote, if not directly sponsor FF.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the problems the poor of the world are facing. The techy solutions you suggest are available to them only in small measures at (for them) immense cost. And the most direct routes to improvement of their conditions are explicitly verboten under the anti-CO2 rubric.

I believe I understand quite well that the problem is money, and there are low tech solutions to most problems.
water transportation
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/Design/q-drum
filtering
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/Design/ceramic-water-filter
refrigeration
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/Design/pot-in-pot-cooler
cooking
http://www.greenpacks.org/2009/04/09/kyoto-box-solar-cardboard-cooker-wins-climate-prize/

I agree that not all solutions can be low tech, and they might not apply for all the situations, but even high tech solutions does not need to be prohibitively expensive:
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Humdinger_Windbelt
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/Design/one-laptop-per-child

And no, i don’t think that power hungry appliances are the most important for quality of living in third world countries.

Brian H wrote:
They have no “carbon credits” to trade with, that’s simply dreaming. One’s saleable “right to omit CO2” is a function of the plant you have in place. If you have none, you’re SOL. A few areas can refrain from cutting trees and get them that way, etc., but for Africans living hand-to-mouth, e.g., there is no base from which to begin.
Many or most Africans themselves regard the prospect of C-a-T as a farcical disaster. They are right.
If you want an example of the kind of practical initiative that can work (nothing to do with C-a-T), check out lutw.org .

Regarding the complications of CAT in different countries, of course there are plenty. Some countries might be in a position where they don’t have anything except poverty. This is where their government (using international aid) should do something about it. If you can plant trees (or other growth) and make money from it, then it might become a profitable business. Of course you cannot plant anything in the desert, but even if you have access to saltwater – there a crops that can grow there.
On the other hand I don’t think it would be fair if the developing countries would be limited to much lower emissions of co2 (per capita) and would not get something in return, but even if that would be the case with recent legislation, it does not mean it can not change in the future.

Since reducing CO2 emissions will achieve nothing except hike costs and reduce local plant fertility, it seems rather brutal to put poor countries through the wringer. Watch India. They will pay faint lip service to the prevailing rhetoric, but will not play stupid C-a-T games. Nor should they.

Did you look up the lutw.org link? That’s actually saving money, resources, lives, and promoting education and independence. That it happens to be green is incidental.

[HermannH]

Brian H wrote:
Since reducing CO2 emissions will achieve nothing except hike costs and reduce local plant fertility, it seems rather brutal to put poor countries through the wringer.

I understand your reasoning about CO2, but I am puzzled by the suggestion of Maximizing CH4 output in your signature. What good does methane do in the atmosphere, except that it acts as a greenhouse gas? Does this mean you believe that the world would be better of if it was a couple of degrees warmer?

[Brian H]

HermannH wrote:

Since reducing CO2 emissions will achieve nothing except hike costs and reduce local plant fertility, it seems rather brutal to put poor countries through the wringer.

I understand your reasoning about CO2, but I am puzzled by the suggestion of Maximizing CH4 output in your signature. What good does methane do in the atmosphere, except that it acts as a greenhouse gas? Does this mean you believe that the world would be better of if it was a couple of degrees warmer?

A couple of degrees warmer than the coming cooling trend will make us!

And personal production of CH4 is both satisfying and suitable commentary. “Beans, beans, the musical fruit!/The more you eat the more you toot,/The more you toot, the better you feel;/So let’s have beans for every meal!” :cheese:

[HermannH]

Brian, I am still confused. You propose that we we maximize CO2 and CH4 output to stop and reverse a global cooling trend that has been going on for centuries. And I understand that you believe the extra CO2 as a side benefit also enhances plant growth.

Let’s put aside for a moment discussions about the reality/severity of the cooling trend and the potential negative consequences of a warmer world.

What I like to point out here is that you imply that the greenhouse effect does work! So how are the climatologists frauds when they predict a couple of degrees global warming due to increased levels of CO2 and CH4?

[Author]

Posts