Climate change

[Gerben42]

Why are we not being honest with countries like Bangladesh and Tuvalu and say: Sorry, we don't care that you will suffer most from climate change. You can make a zillion scenarios saying CO2 output peaks in 2015 or 2020 or 2030. IT WON'T HAPPEN!

 

Most countries are on a 4- or 5-year plan and no politician is going to act on what is way beyond their career. Some will take some feel-good measures that help a little but no one is going to hurt their own economy for the benefit of the World. OK maybe the German government but they are only pretending and in fact moving the wrong way...

 

World energy demand will be increasing for some time from now, and in 2100 we WILL have a couple of degrees more of global warming. The best thing to do is to try to deal with the consequences the best we can.

[cherdano]

Missing premise. We must also know that a carbon tax will affect climate change. That is in doubt.

 

Are you claiming that a carbon tax won't reduce CO2 emissions? If so, we have found a 100% efficient, tax, GREAT!

Oh wait, didn't you say that a carbon tax will cost jobs? If so, I assume that's because it has an economic effect.

Mysterious how it can have an economic effect without reducing the every activity it is taxing.

 

Or are you saying that CO2 emissions won't affect climate change? That would be a very strange thing to say, since it would contradict the scientific consensus on this question. But oh wait, this is the watercooler.

[Gerben42]

Pretty sure mercury is tidally locked(same side faces the sun at all times)

 

True, due to having no atmosphere, there is no mixing of temperatures between the day and night side, however having no atmosphere there is no ambient temperature. In the sun, you are instantly dead, not in the sun you are as cold as you are on the moon when there is no sun.

 

There is no in-between.

 

I'm sorry to be pedantic but in fact Mercury is NOT tidally locked but instead it's in a 3:2 resonance, which means that the terminator moves around the planet with basically walking speed.

 

The best way to colonize Mercury is in fact to build railway tracks around the planet and put a city on the tracks, moving with the sunrise.

[dwar0123]

Why are we not being honest with countries like Bangladesh and Tuvalu and say: Sorry, we don't care that you will suffer most from climate change. You can make a zillion scenarios saying CO2 output peaks in 2015 or 2020 or 2030. IT WON'T HAPPEN!

 

Most countries are on a 4- or 5-year plan and no politician is going to act on what is way beyond their career. Some will take some feel-good measures that help a little but no one is going to hurt their own economy for the benefit of the World. OK maybe the German government but they are only pretending and in fact moving the wrong way...

 

World energy demand will be increasing for some time from now, and in 2100 we WILL have a couple of degrees more of global warming. The best thing to do is to try to deal with the consequences the best we can.

As energy demand is increasing and most of that supply is going to be coal based, I worry more about what the world will look like in 200 years than 90 years.

 

We will have at least a couple of degrees by 2100, I accept that, it will be bad but not the end of the world, well not for many, not yet.

 

Climate is a very slow moving, impossible heavy train rumbling down the tracks to an uncertain future. If we sent it off on a set of tracks that go off a cliff will we see it with enough certainty early enough to stop it?

 

2 degrees by 2100 is the consequence of what we have done. What is the consequence of what we will do(increased demand from China, India) by 2200, another 2 degrees? 4 degrees?

 

This stuff lingers on timescales that we humans do not think in, what does this mean for the temperature in 2500?

[Gerben42]

As energy demand is increasing and most of that supply is going to be coal based, I worry more about what the world will look like in 200 years than 90 years.

 

We will have at least a couple of degrees by 2100, I accept that, it will be bad but not the end of the world, well not for many, not yet.

 

Climate is a very slow moving, impossible heavy train rumbling down the tracks to an uncertain future. If we sent it off on a set of tracks that go off a cliff will we see it with enough certainty early enough to stop it?

 

2 degrees by 2100 is the consequence of what we have done. What is the consequence of what we will do(increased demand from China, India) by 2200, another 2 degrees? 4 degrees?

 

This stuff lingers on timescales that we humans do not think in, what does this mean for the temperature in 2500?

 

Don't worry, the world will survive and life will survive. Moreover, humanity will survive, even though the majority probably won't. The Earth is too far away from the Sun to become like Venus. But at some point the fighting over resources like water and food will start, that won't be pretty. In a 6-degree world, think about 2 billion Indians living in a dry country after the Himalaya glaciers are gone.

[dwar0123]

Don't worry, the world will survive and life will survive. Moreover, humanity will survive, even though the majority probably won't. The Earth is too far away from the Sun to become like Venus. But at some point the fighting over resources like water and food will start, that won't be pretty. In a 6-degree world, think about 2 billion Indians living in a dry country after the Himalaya glaciers are gone.

 

This applies to any glacier fed river system, once they melt the water will run when the water comes down rather then when the glaciers melt.

 

For China's rivers, the three gorges dam may be able to take the place of the glaciers, delaying the water until the growing season. In theory India should be able to do the same.

[billw55]

Are you claiming that a carbon tax won't reduce CO2 emissions? If so, we have found a 100% efficient, tax, GREAT!

Oh wait, didn't you say that a carbon tax will cost jobs? If so, I assume that's because it has an economic effect.

Mysterious how it can have an economic effect without reducing the every activity it is taxing.

 

Or are you saying that CO2 emissions won't affect climate change? That would be a very strange thing to say, since it would contradict the scientific consensus on this question. But oh wait, this is the watercooler.

A carbon tax probably would reduce CO2 emissions to some extent.

 

I am highly confident that a global cessation of CO2 emissions would affect climate change. An incremental reduction in the output of one nation is a different matter, and might have no measurable effect at all. For me this is analogous to the discussion of the role of our military. I do not think we should be the world's police force. Likewise, I do not think we should take up responsibility for the world's environmental problems without the cooperation of other major contributors to said problems.

 

And yes, in theory a carbon tax could quite simply have an economic effect without reducing emissions, i.e. if the emitters just decide to pass on the entire cost as higher prices. Of course in reality, this is unlikely. Probably, they will manage the cost in multiple ways, including both price increases and emissions reductions. Ideally, I would hope that the fossil fuel industry would recover some of the cost by cutting that part of their public relations budget devoted to impugning alternate energy sources. Maybe that's wishful thinking.

 

World energy demand will be increasing for some time from now, and in 2100 we WILL have a couple of degrees more of global warming. The best thing to do is to try to deal with the consequences the best we can.

Agree with the principle of adaptation, as I stated at greater length in earlier posts. Although we can, and should, also help reduce the problem in practical ways. First in line for me is replacing fossil fuel power plants with nuclear plants, and changing most vehicles over to electric rather than gas.

[PassedOut]

Although we can, and should, also help reduce the problem in practical ways. First in line for me is replacing fossil fuel power plants with nuclear plants, and changing most vehicles over to electric rather than gas.

I'm with you there. But how would you effect those changes in the absence of a carbon tax?

[billw55]

There are various ways, but basically by giving incentives for building nuclear. Which isn't that hard, industry would be happy to build them, if the political obstacles are lessened. The political obstacles in turn come from negative public opinion; so perhaps a sustained pro-nuclear information program is a starting point.

 

France is the model. They generate a majority of electricity from nuclear, have had no major accidents, and (as I understand) have a generally positive public attitude toward nuclear. Or has this changed since Fukushima?

[onoway]

http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/04/27/of-carbon-taxes-and-price-elasticities/

One of the things which nobody seems to be looking at in terms of how much fuel usage drops (or not) is what options are available for people who need to get from point a to point b. Even in the cities the public transportation systems are often inconvenient and expensive for anyone living outside core areas, and rural people living even on main transportation arteries are pretty much out of luck.

 

Canada and the US are BIG countries and that seems not to be occurring to anyone. I would guess that both suffer from the same lack of options. I live close to the Yellowhead highway which is a major artery crossing the middle of Canada and cannot get to Saskatoon ( normally a 3 hour drive) for a day trip, but HAVE to spend the night there if I travel by bus. Bus service for me to get to Edmonton would cost me almost three times what it costs me to drive, and that doesn't consider the inconvenience of having to find and rent a vehicle when I get there, nor having to leave sometime after midnight going in either direction. I'd be delighted to take the train but to do so means first travelling 5 hours in the wrong direction before I could start west again. Also, it only runs a couple of times a week.

 

So to ask people if they are using less fuel is a bit of a silly question unless you also ask what options they have to do what they need to do without using their vehicles.

[luke warm]

Missing premise. We must also know that a carbon tax will affect climate change. That is in doubt.

missing premise.. we must also assume those who favor it really care

[hrothgar]

There are various ways, but basically by giving incentives for building nuclear.

 

So, the conservative is now arguing that the proper role of the government is picking winners and losers.

 

The reason that economists prefer a carbon tax is to avoid precisely this issue.

[dwar0123]

missing premise.. we must also assume those who favor it really care

Laugh. That is so idiotic that if I didn't know better I would think you were doing it intentionally.

 

The rock is unaffected by my caring about it.

[Winstonm]

billw55 France is the model. They generate a majority of electricity from nuclear, have had no major accidents, and (as I understand) have a generally positive public attitude toward nuclear.

 

So, the French model for government intervention into energy production is a good thing but the French model of government intervention into health delivery is evil?

[billw55]

So, the French model for government intervention into energy production is a good thing but the French model of government intervention into health delivery is evil?

Why do you think so?

[Daniel1960]

This applies to any glacier fed river system, once they melt the water will run when the water comes down rather then when the glaciers melt.

 

For China's rivers, the three gorges dam may be able to take the place of the glaciers, delaying the water until the growing season. In theory India should be able to do the same.

 

In theory, more precipitation will fall in a warming world. Therefore, lack of water should not be a problem.

 

Of course, there is no indications that the Himalayan glaciers will melt anytime this millenium, so it is really a non-issue.

[Zelandakh]

Of course, there is no indications that the Himalayan glaciers will melt anytime this millenium, so it is really a non-issue.

But the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 - it must be true, I read it on the internet!

[helene_t]

But the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 - it must be true, I read it on the internet!

Classic case of Chinese whipsers - the original text said 2350 but everyone refers to the 2035 quote.

[Zelandakh]

The "original text" is a 1996 paper by VM Kotlyakov, not the IPCC report. The 10 authors of the report all failed to notice the discrepancy!

[Daniel1960]

The "original text" is a 1996 paper by VM Kotlyakov, not the IPCC report. The 10 authors of the report all failed to notice the discrepancy!

 

The 1996 Kotlyakov paper states, "by the year 2350, glaciers will survive only in the mountains of Alaska, ... , the Himalayas, Tibet, ..." So, not only is the year incorrect, but the claim of Himalayan glacier melting is also wrong. Recent papers support this claim that the Himialayan glaciers will survive well into the future. You cannot believe everything you read on the internet (or the IPCC either).

[Al_U_Card]

Here’s the IPCC Quote from Chapter 10 of the Fourth Assessment Report:

 

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

 

Bolding of the "source" is mine. So much for peer-reviewed, in the sense of WWF being an advocacy group, much like all of the CAGW crowd.

[hrothgar]

Here’s the IPCC Quote from Chapter 10 of the Fourth Assessment Report:

 

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

 

Bolding of the "source" is mine. So much for peer-reviewed, in the sense of WWF being an advocacy group, much like all of the CAGW crowd.

 

Given how often you provide completely erroneous information, it seems strange to be kvetching about a typo...

[Cascade]

So, the conservative is now arguing that the proper role of the government is picking winners and losers.

 

The reason that economists prefer a carbon tax is to avoid precisely this issue.

 

 

Don't artificial taxes simply pick winners and losers.

[hrothgar]

Don't artificial taxes simply pick winners and losers.

 

I'd argue that there is a distinction between the two cases.

 

The expression "picking winner's and losers" normally is applied at the micro level, where the government is making a conscious decision to invest in specific project.

 

Carbon taxes are designed to accomplish two specific ends:

 

First, to align the private cost of emitting C02 with the societal cost of emitting C02

Second, to allow the market to optimize around the new prices

 

Its worth noting that carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes were originally proposed by conservative economists to deal with externalities. (Admitted, this was an earlier, saner version of conservatism than what prevails these days)

[Daniel1960]

Given how often you provide completely erroneous information, it seems strange to be kvetching about a typo...

To what typo are you referring? You may want to read the previous posts about this.