Climate change

[PassedOut]

Good question! Perhaps because it is pretty tough to decide what should be done! But I am an economist by training and by profession, and I think if there are wider negative impacts from greenhouse gas emissions then the best way of achieving some sort of proportionality between different actions taken is to find mechanisms for putting a cost on those emissions, ie a carbon tax in some form or other. To be useful, this would have to cover as high a proportion of emissions as possible, otherwise untaxed emissions may simply replace taxed ones. I think it is very hard to know at what level such a tax should be set at the moment, but I am happy with the idea that the balance of evidence suggests a positive cost of emissions and therefore a positive tax should be set. If we discover in 50 years time that non-manmade climate change is actually moving towards the next ice age and the risk is that the world will get too cold rather than too hot we can always switch to a negative carbon tax.....

I agree strongly with these thoughts.

[Al_U_Card]

And now for something...somewhat different (pay attention to the "proviso" at about 1 minute in) :lol:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkDvqQKGgDA#t=80

[WellSpyder]

I agree strongly with these thoughts.

Hey, I thought we were having an argument :). Mutter, mutter.....

[PassedOut]

This is probably the only comment you have made since I joined in this discussion with which I completely disagree...

I don't mind disagreement: Even Constance and I don't agree on everything (although she should really do better on that).

 

However, after looking back on the wording you disagreed with, I find that I don't agree with it myself! Thanks for prompting me to take a second look.

B-)

[PassedOut]

The IPCC Working Group 2 approved the final draft of its report yesterday in Japan. You can find the full report as well as a summary here: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability

 

Of course every news organization has its own take on the report. This is from the New York Times: Panel’s Warning on Climate Risk: Worst Is Yet to Come

 

“Throughout the 21st century, climate-change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger,” the report declared.

 

The report also cites the possibility of violent conflict over land or other resources, to which climate change might contribute indirectly “by exacerbating well-established drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks.”

 

The scientists emphasized that climate change is not just some problem of the distant future, but is happening now. For instance, in much of the American West, mountain snowpack is declining, threatening water supplies for the region, the scientists reported. And the snow that does fall is melting earlier in the year, which means there is less meltwater to ease the parched summers.

 

In Alaska, the collapse of sea ice is allowing huge waves to strike the coast, causing erosion so rapid that it is already forcing entire communities to relocate.

 

“Now we are at the point where there is so much information, so much evidence, that we can no longer plead ignorance,” said Michel Jarraud, secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization.

 

The experts did find a bright spot, however. Since the group issued its report in 2007, it has found growing evidence that governments and businesses around the world are starting extensive plans to adapt to climate disruptions, even as some conservatives in the United States and a small number of scientists continue to deny that a problem exists.

 

“I think that dealing effectively with climate change is just going to be something that great nations do,” said Christopher B. Field, co-chairman of the working group that wrote the report, and an earth scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, Calif.

 

Talk of adaptation to global warming was once avoided in some quarters, on the grounds that it would distract from the need to cut emissions. But the past few years have seen a shift in thinking, including research from scientists and economists who argue that both strategies must be pursued at once.

Hard to argue with that last point.

[kenberg]

At some point it is time to stop discussing and start doing. Such a decision does not mean that it is inconceivable that the decision is wrong, it's a fact of life that we make decisions before we can be absolutely certain. But it does seem to be time to get moving. We go with the best evidence we have.

[mike777]

Actually the markets are doing something.

 

The amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.

 

 

 

 

Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-co2-emissions-year.html

[billw55]

Actually the markets are doing something.

 

The amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.

 

Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide ...

To my surprise, a post by Mike that I both understand and agree with.

 

I would add that the EU has also substantially reduced emissions over the same period. Yet global emissions continue to rise. More indications that prevention may be futile, and hence that adaptation is essential.

[hrothgar]

More indications that prevention may be futile, and hence that adaptation is essential.

 

The sad thing about this is that adaptation is much much expensive than prevention.

 

Oh well, we can comfort ourselves in the fact that its mainly brown and black people that will end up suffering.

[PassedOut]

The sad thing about this is that adaptation is much much expensive than prevention.

 

Oh well, we can comfort ourselves in the fact that its many brown and black people that will end up suffering.

And most of them are people who had no role in creating the problem...

:(

[mike777]

Ok so this thread is really about racism, ok.

[hrothgar]

Ok so this thread is really about racism, ok.

 

Maybe not consciously. However, any time people make arguments that its cheaper to "adapt" to climate change or that cutting carbon emissions will hurt economic "growth" too much, what they're really saying is

 

"We don't bear most of the costs of these policies. They're being paid by Bangladesh and India and Africa.

Why should I cut back on my consumption for that lot over there on the other side of the world?"

[WellSpyder]

The sad thing about this is that adaptation is much much expensive than prevention.

How confident are you about that?

 

The thing that has always worried me about prevention is that is impossible. Whatever measures we take, they are never going to prevent CO2 concentrations rising. (As I pointed out a few posts back, even if the UK eliminated ALL net emissions, it would still only delay the inevitable by two years.) So adaption is, and always was, going to be required (as has always been the case in the past, too, as the climate has changed). Obviously that doesn't mean that there is no point in some measures to reduce emissions alongside some adaption, but putting all the focus on the former has diminished the credibility of climate change activists in my opinion.

[billw55]

The sad thing about this is that adaptation is much much expensive than prevention.

 

The thing that has always worried me about prevention is that is impossible. Whatever measures we take, they are never going to prevent CO2 concentrations rising.

Agree with WellSpyder. This is a point I have ventured previously, if slightly less directly.

 

For prevention to be less expensive, it has to work. If it does not work (which it likely will not, IMO, under prevailing conditions), then any investment is mostly wasted.

 

Perhaps we could further argue that such waste is racist, harming "brown and black" people by failing to apply resources in a way that would actually benefit them. I think this makes at least as much sense as claiming that adaptation efforts are racist.

[kenberg]

Charging racism is something of an all purpose bludgeon as the above remarks show. It's true that I care more about what happens in the U.S. than I do about what happens in Bangladesh but I also care more about what happens in the U.S. than what happens in Australia or France, or even in Canada. This is partly because I live here, and partly because I simply know more about it. Maybe there are some saints somewhere who have equal and deep interest in the well-being of everyone on the planet, but I don't think I have ever met any. It is, I think, reasonable to hope that we take a responsible view of the world, and it is probably in our self-interest to do so, but if we designate everyone as a racist who has more interest in his own welfare than that of others, we are going to have a lot of name calling.

 

 

Anyway, back to what should be done.

We are thinking of putting a patio in our back yard. We will think about what we want, then we will contact people that we trust and we will largely follow their advice. They know how to do this, I don't. I would hope for a similar approach with the much more complex problem of climate change. I don't understand the science, I expect Obama doesn't either, and in my view neither of us is supposed to. What is needed is good judgement about who can be trusted on this. Some folks are ideologues, they just can't help themselves, others are very knowledgeable and can be trusted in doing their very best to get it right. Obama, and other leaders, are supposed to be able to judge people well enough to be able to tell the ideologues from the serious folks. There will be differences of opinion, the subject is too complex to expect unanimity, but we can probably get widespread agreement among the open minded in the scientific community. Some mixture of prevention and adaptation might well be their conclusion. Then we do it.

[blackshoe]

What's harming the third world here is not racism by the first world, but the third world's desire to/insistence on "catching up" - which to them means spewing CO₂ into the atmosphere because, after all, they have to industrialize to catch up, and they can't afford all this fancy "clean" energy. I suppose one "solution" would be for everyone in the first world to voluntarily divide his wealth into two piles, and then just give one of the piles to the third world. Human nature says that's not gonna happen. Not racism, just "protect me and mine first" and "I earned it, I'll keep it". So not a solution after all. What's the next idea? Take from the first world by force? Good luck with that too. "We have a Hulk". B-)

[Daniel1960]

Agree with WellSpyder. This is a point I have ventured previously, if slightly less directly.

 

For prevention to be less expensive, it has to work. If it does not work (which it likely will not, IMO, under prevailing conditions), then any investment is mostly wasted.

 

Perhaps we could further argue that such waste is racist, harming "brown and black" people by failing to apply resources in a way that would actually benefit them. I think this makes at least as much sense as claiming that adaptation efforts are racist.

 

I assume you are referring largely to the continent of Africa. In this regard, prevention would be considered more "racist" than adaption. Prevention is aimed at stemming the growth of traditional power generation, which would hit areas like Africa hardest. Should global temperatures rise another 1 degree, Africa would feel this effect least. First off, the greatest prediction temperature rises would occur in the polar regions and least in the tropical regions. Second, any sea level rise associated with rising temperatures would have a negligible impact on the continent, as much of Africa is a plateau, with very little coastal areas (population or agriculture) in harms way. Third, rising ocean temperatures tend to increase rainfall in the major growing regions, spurring increased food production - Lord knows they need it. Historically, the Sahara has expanded during cooler epochs, and diminished during warmer one. Africa is not known for their storms, so any effect, positive or negative, will not be felt.

While local effects may differ, adaptation would better serve the peoples of Africa.

[Winstonm]

....Obama, and other leaders, are supposed to be able to judge people well enough to be able to tell the ideologues from the serious folks. There will be differences of opinion, the subject is too complex to expect unanimity, but we can probably get widespread agreement among the open minded in the scientific community. Some mixture of prevention and adaptation might well be their conclusion. Then we do it.

 

The change in thrust of the comments above and below Ken's makes it appear that the sheep costumes are slipping from the wolves. :P It really looks now as though the deniers were only spewing political beliefs and trying to pass them off as scientific doubt.

 

This is one group we do not need to listen to.

[hrothgar]

I assume you are referring largely to the continent of Africa. In this regard, prevention would be considered more "racist" than adaption. Prevention is aimed at stemming the growth of traditional power generation, which would hit areas like Africa hardest. Should global temperatures rise another 1 degree, Africa would feel this effect least. First off, the greatest prediction temperature rises would occur in the polar regions and least in the tropical regions. Second, any sea level rise associated with rising temperatures would have a negligible impact on the continent, as much of Africa is a plateau, with very little coastal areas (population or agriculture) in harms way. Third, rising ocean temperatures tend to increase rainfall in the major growing regions, spurring increased food production - Lord knows they need it. Historically, the Sahara has expanded during cooler epochs, and diminished during warmer one. Africa is not known for their storms, so any effect, positive or negative, will not be felt.

While local effects may differ, adaptation would better serve the peoples of Africa.

 

Quoting from the introduction to Africa Regional report from the IPCC Fifth Assessment

 

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap22_FGDall.pdf

 

Africa as a whole is one of the most vulnerable continents due to its high exposure and low adaptive capacity

Climate, ecology and political boundaries in Africa vary across the continent. Since the African Union, together with

its Regional Economic Communities (RECs), are encharged of the adaptation policies we have used these divisions

for regional assessment within the chapter.

 

Furthermore

 

Of nine climate-related key regional risks identified for Africa, eight pose medium or higher risk even with

highly adapted systems, while only one key risk assessed can be potentially reduced with high adaptation to

below a medium risk level, for the end of the 21st century under 2°C global mean temperature increase above

pre-industrial levels (medium confidence). Key regional risks relating to shifts in biome distribution, loss of coral

reefs, reduced crop productivity, adverse effects on livestock, vector- and water-borne diseases, undernutrition, and

migration are assessed as either medium or high for the present under current adaptation, reflecting Africa’s existing

adaptation deficit. [22.3.1, 22.3.2, 22.3.4, 22.3.5, 22.6.1.2] The assessment of significant residual impacts in a 2°C

world at the end of the 21st century suggests that even under high levels of adaptation, there could be very high

levels of risk for Africa. At a global mean temperature increase of 4°C, risks for Africa’s food security (see key risks

on livestock and crop production) are assessed as very high, with limited potential for risk reduction through

adaptation. [22.3.4, 22.4.5, 22.5, Table 22-6]

[PassedOut]

So adaption is, and always was, going to be required (as has always been the case in the past, too, as the climate has changed). Obviously that doesn't mean that there is no point in some measures to reduce emissions alongside some adaption, but putting all the focus on the former has diminished the credibility of climate change activists in my opinion.

Many effects of climate change are already irreversible for the foreseeable future and so adaptation will be forced. I don't know of any dispute about that. Sea levels are going to rise substantially, for one thing, but the adaptation will be less painful if the rate of that rise is slowed. The need to adapt requires no advocacy; it will be a necessity.

 

On the other hand, the need to institute a carbon tax does require advocacy. Irresponsible people often use the requirement to adapt as an excuse to evade our need to institute the tax.

[Daniel1960]

Quoting from the introduction to Africa Regional report from the IPCC Fifth Assessment

 

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap22_FGDall.pdf

 

 

 

Furthermore

 

A few other quotes: "Greening is especially pronounced in dry areas like the Sahel region of Africa, where satellites show a big increase in green vegetation since the 1970s. The decline of famines in the Sahel in recent years is partly due to more rainfall caused by moderate warming and partly due to more carbon dioxide itself: more greenery for goats to eat means more greenery left over for gazelles, so entire ecosystems have benefited."

 

"And, according to the World Bank, the growth of agricultural GDP in sub-Saharan Africa rose from 2.3 percent per year in the 1980s to 3.8 percent annually from 2000 to 2005 — a 65 percent jump. Contrary to what the media and charities report, fewer Africans face famine now than at any time since the world began counting. In Uganda and the 15 countries of West Africa, food production now outpaces population growth. In Ghana, for instance, farm output has jumped 5 percent every year for the past 20 years, while the poverty rate has fallen in half. Even Malawi and Ethiopia, infamous for food insecurity in recent years, now grow record amounts of crops, exporting surpluses."

 

"The [sahel] region has undergone multicentury droughts, most recently from 1400 A.D. to 1750 A.D.," during the depth of the LIA.

 

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba796

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

http://phys.org/news159111684.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greening_Sahel_1982-1999.jpg

[hrothgar]

A few other quotes: "Greening is especially pronounced in dry areas like the Sahel region of Africa, where satellites show a big increase in green vegetation since the 1970s. The decline of famines in the Sahel in recent years is partly due to more rainfall caused by moderate warming and partly due to more carbon dioxide itself: more greenery for goats to eat means more greenery left over for gazelles, so entire ecosystems have benefited."

 

"And, according to the World Bank, the growth of agricultural GDP in sub-Saharan Africa rose from 2.3 percent per year in the 1980s to 3.8 percent annually from 2000 to 2005 — a 65 percent jump. Contrary to what the media and charities report, fewer Africans face famine now than at any time since the world began counting. In Uganda and the 15 countries of West Africa, food production now outpaces population growth. In Ghana, for instance, farm output has jumped 5 percent every year for the past 20 years, while the poverty rate has fallen in half. Even Malawi and Ethiopia, infamous for food insecurity in recent years, now grow record amounts of crops, exporting surpluses."

 

"The [sahel] region has undergone multicentury droughts, most recently from 1400 A.D. to 1750 A.D.," during the depth of the LIA.

 

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba796

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

http://phys.org/news159111684.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greening_Sahel_1982-1999.jpg

 

All quotes are not created equal

 

As a practical example, your first quote comes from Matt Ridley, a well known climate change skeptic who is infamous for

 

1. Inheriting control of Northern Rock from daddy

2. And then driving into the dirt

 

Since then, he's taken his trust fund and started boviating about climate change.

 

I give less credence to his pronouncements than I do to your own, and that's saying something given that I consider you a sociopathic piece of excrement.

[Daniel1960]

All quotes are not created equal

 

As a practical example, your first quote comes from Matt Ridley, a well known climate change skeptic who is infamous for

 

1. Inheriting control of Northern Rock from daddy

2. And then driving into the dirt

 

Since then, he's taken his trust fund and started boviating about climate change.

 

I give less credence to his pronouncements than I do to your own, and that's saying something given that I consider you a sociopathic piece of excrement.

I could say the same about yours from pseudo-scientific beaurocrats. However, the scientific research (to which I linked) supports my statements.

[hrothgar]

I could say the same about yours from pseudo-scientific beaurocrats. However, the scientific research (to which I linked) supports my statements.

 

Last week you asked why I didn't seem to be able to direct posts at you without resorting to insults...

 

The last ***** that you've been spewing is a perfect example why.

 

You've invented your own pathetic little parallel reality with its own fake science and irrelevent authorities and then get confused people call you an idiot.

You may have quoted finding, but they are completely irrelevant to the discussions at hand.

 

Why should I give a damn that you can cherry pick a specific location and a very limited time period and claim that this is relevant to long term trends or findings. When don't you crawl back into your parent's basement and leave us in peace?

 

Oh, that's right, you get a twisted perversion in trolling bridge sites and pretending that complaints mean that people care about you and your opinions... At least you and Al have you're little circle jerk going on.

 

Thank god most people are able to differentiate between attention and approval starting about age eight...

[Daniel1960]

Cherry-picking? The research contains data spanning the last millenium, and the prime agricultural areas. All showing greater instances of drought associated with cooler temperatures. This includes increased rainfall and greening since 1980. This is based on published scientific research, to which you refer to as "fake" and "irrelevant."

You may choose to continue your belittling attempts. However, I believe that most people here can tell what statements are supported by scientific research and which are just rhetoric. Resorting to name-calling is typically a desperate attempt by someone who cannot defend their position through reason or logic. Good luck with that.