Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[ChadS]

+1 dflye. Just because I can't solve a problem all by myself doesn't absolve me of the responsibility to do my share.

There is a whole class of problems - like voting, recycling, any tragedy of the commons - where one individual can't possibly make a difference. But using that excuse to avoid doing anything yourself is the CAUSE of the problem.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Where I can make a change in my use of fossil fuels (directly or indirectly), I'll attempt it, regardless of whether it may or may not have an infinitesimally small percentage effect on climate change; the other benefits not related to climate change have much greater near-term effect, such as improving air and water quality.

+1 dflye. Just because I can't solve a problem all by myself doesn't absolve me of the responsibility to do my share.

There is a whole class of problems - like voting, recycling, any tragedy of the commons - where one individual can't possibly make a difference. But using that excuse to avoid doing anything yourself is the CAUSE of the problem.

I agree with you. I think that everybody should do his best to improve things of his life (environment care included) in a completely independent way with respect to others.
If everybody acted like this maybe that things (environment included) could get better.

 

[EchoDelta]

VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS must certainly be a major factor in climate change.
The Icelandic events of 2010 with 250 million m3 of ash must be the equivalent of XX years of human effects
Can anyone speculate on the relative effect compared to the human effect ?
Just wonder ...

You don't need to speculate as there's plenty of recorded effects of volcanic eruptions in ice cores.
Man made forcings have exceeded this.
CO2 also stays longer in atmosphere than aerosols and ashes.
Volcanic eruptions have a tweak but historically have caused no long lasting inbalance to energy input and output of the planet.




X1188. Sorry if this is terse, sent from my phone.

 

[EchoDelta]

I agree with you. I think that everybody should do his best to improve things of his life (environment care included) in a completely independent way with respect to others.
If everybody acted like this maybe that things (environment included) could get better.

Yes, if the people changing their actions include energy and resource extraction executives, and the actions include stopping making money from externalizing costs to the environment.

You and I living hypothetically zero footprint lives may make us feel more humane, and hopefully be inspiring to others, but will not budge the climate crisis.





X1188. Sorry if this is terse, sent from my phone.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Yes, if the people changing their actions include energy and resource extraction executives, and the actions include stopping making money from externalizing costs to the environment.

You and I living hypothetically zero footprint lives may make us feel more humane, and hopefully be inspiring to others, but will not budge the climate crisis.

You are right. Actually this is a matter that could be better solved by Governments all over the world. But also in this case our behaviour can help to increase the sensibility of Goverments all over the world to the matter of Climate Change and Global Warming.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

To this concern I would like to add a sentence of President Obama:

‎"We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science—and act before it’s too late." —President Obama

meaning to say that we should be happy that somebody at executive level is concerned about the matter of Climate Change and Global Warming.
I would like to hear sentences like this from the President of all Goverments in the world.

 

[mattjn]

And how exactly are we going to "act" before it's too late? What can the US government do to change the climate? Answer, nothing. If China/India and emerging markets don't act the same, it won't make a difference. The way I see it is increasing the cost of power for Americans for little or no benefit at all. It's feel good policy, it won't effect the climate and the ultimate end will be everyone paying electricity prices like those in California.

 

[Zapped]

It's feel good policy, it won't effect the climate and the ultimate end will be everyone paying electricity prices like those in California.

Unfortunately the large corporations are in control. No doubt they will use any excuse to increase your utility bill to offset any extra cost, perceived or otherwise. What ever happen to the Green Credit program.. pollute here, plant a tree there ? How did that work out ? And then there's the user pay extra to offset your personal CO2 emission. (i.e. for your airline flight) Talk about feel good.
Certainly, I completely agree something needs to be done, but the best I can do right now is drive my Model S and use the excess wasted power from the coal fired power plant in my area by charging my car at night.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

And how exactly are we going to "act" before it's too late? What can the US government do to change the climate? Answer, nothing. If China/India and emerging markets don't act the same, it won't make a difference. The way I see it is increasing the cost of power for Americans for little or no benefit at all. It's feel good policy, it won't effect the climate and the ultimate end will be everyone paying electricity prices like those in California.

Of course the global warming matter is a global problem. Actions to work out this problem have to be taken not only by the single Government but also at international level.

 

[mattjn]

Of course the global warming matter is a global problem. Actions to work out this problem have to be taken not only by the single Government but also at international level.

Good luck with that. Tell those countries emerging that are burning coal like it's going out of style that they have to stop. That'll go over good.

 

[EchoDelta]

Mattjn,
The per-country approach is flawed in a globalized world. You can't expect to buy your products made in china at ridiculously low prices and then blame them for not controlling emissions.

It's like me blaming the baker next door for his chimney but buying all his bread in the morning.

I've never seen an honest to goodness country emission analysis, that takes into account where / who demand comes from and assigns the prorated footprint of its supply chains.

Some companies outsource software development to where theres capable folks; others outsource pollution to where there's corrupt or distracted govts.





X1188. Sorry if this is terse, sent from my phone.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Mattjn,
The per-country approach is flawed in a globalized world. You can't expect to buy your products made in china at ridiculously low prices and then blame them for not controlling emissions.

It's like me blaming the baker next door for his chimney but buying all his bread in the morning.

Agree. One way to work out the problem of pollution produced by emerging countries would be to prevent them to sell their goods in Europe and USA if they don't fulfill international anti-pollution standards. Just an idea.

 

[mattjn]

Agree. One way to work out the problem of pollution produced by emerging countries would be to prevent them to sell their goods in Europe and USA if they don't fulfill international anti-pollution standards. Just an idea.

All that would do is hurt the American workers with higher priced items. Can't buy Chinese goods because of pollution, our economy would crash overnight. You aren't going to get the public to pay 2-3 times more for a product made in the US or Europe and tell them that it is because of climate change. You would be voted out of office faster than you could say hope and change.

 

[Robert.Boston]

I understand your sentiment, but please allow me to correct some misperceptions:

Unfortunately the large corporations are in control. No doubt they will use any excuse to increase your utility bill to offset any extra cost, perceived or otherwise.

Your utility charges are subject to strict oversight by state and federal regulators. You may not like the policies imbedded in the rate structures, but they were the outcome of public proceedings, not the nefarious manipulations of evil monopolists.

What ever happen to the Green Credit program.. pollute here, plant a tree there ? How did that work out ? And then there's the user pay extra to offset your personal CO2 emission. (i.e. for your airline flight) Talk about feel good.

This is still in full swing in Europe; the US never had such a policy. Some private companies set up offset programs to assuage the guilt of high-carbon-footprint individuals. My son refers to these as "carbon indulgences" (compare to the indulgences sold by the Roman Catholic church for centuries).

Certainly, I completely agree something needs to be done, but the best I can do right now is drive my Model S and use the excess wasted power from the coal fired power plant in my area by charging my car at night.

There is no such thing as "wasted power". Power output always equals power consumption + losses. Power plants ramp down overnight, using less fuel, to balance power generation and power consumption very closely, in real time. A mere 10kW load, like a Model S, may or may not require the system operator to ramp up some additional power, but for all purposes of discussions and calculations, you should assume that (on average) charging your car requires some power plant to burn more fuel. That's the bad news; the good news is that power plants are so much more efficient than ICEs (and have better pollution control equipment, usually) that driving your EV causes less pollution than driving your ICE vehicle, regardless of the fuel. That's the case in the US, Canada and EU, as well as many other countries, because we don't have coal plants with no emissions controls.

Footnote: A large grid like the US Eastern Interconnection can tolerate slight imbalances between load and generation; flipping on a light doesn't require some generator to change its set point, because the operators can allow the system frequency to tail off trivially to absorb the load. This bit of margin doesn't change the fundamentals, though, that generation equals load.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

All that would do is hurt the American workers with higher priced items. Can't buy Chinese goods because of pollution, our economy would crash overnight. You aren't going to get the public to pay 2-3 times more for a product made in the US or Europe and tell them that it is because of climate change. You would be voted out of office faster than you could say hope and change.

Then another idea would be to tag in a different way goods produced by countries respecting international anti-pollution standards with respect to the goods produced by countries not respecting such standards.
This way the buyer could at least choose among the goods.

 

[mattjn]

Some conscientious buyers might choose the goods from environmentally friendly countries, but the vast majority of everyone on this planet, not only Americans, shops with their pocketbooks. If it's cheaper, they are going to buy it.

 

[eledille]

The per-country approach is flawed in a globalized world. You can't expect to buy your products made in china at ridiculously low prices and then blame them for not controlling emissions. It's like me blaming the baker next door for his chimney but buying all his bread in the morning.

I completely agree. Also agree that international agreements are necessary. So my position is that we should not wait for international agreements, but cut as much as possible as soon as possible while continuing to push for international regulations.

I've never seen an honest to goodness country emission analysis, that takes into account where / who demand comes from and assigns the prorated footprint of its supply chains.

Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air attemps to do that, but it calculates it in terms of energy consumption instead of emissions, and only as a rough estimate. The resulting number is huge, comparable to or even larger than driving a traditional car. It also has references to papers that attempt to do the same.

See "The significance of imported stuff" here and in further detail here.

 

[eledille]

I'll choose better words. I do not believe in global warming because it can not be proven. The evidence makes me believe that it is probable.
I do not need proof to decide to take action based on this evidence. In the case of global warming, we only have one planet with which to experiment. In the case of the bullet, I only have one me, and I do not care to experiment.

I was attempting to dance with "belief", "evidence" and "proof". Waiting for proof that something is going to kill you is most likely going to help you die early.

I'd instead say that "I can't say that global warming is a fact. But science never works that way - you can disprove a hypothesis, but never prove it. When a hypothesis is confirmed again and again by alternative hypotheses being disproved, it is considered to be correct for the time being."

Part of the problem is that scientists know how this works, but ordinary people and politicians don't. The scientists don't adapt their language to their audience. Maybe they should instead state flatly that our current course of action will in the best case lead to widespread war and famine, in the worst case to total devastation.

You can calculate risks and costs, and decide what to do. But I'm also saying that I don't think you need to even argue about global warming because most of the good ideas to "solve global warming" are beneficial without the global warming angle.

I don't think you can convince the fossil industry to pack up and go home because it would be beneficial to society as a whole. I think fossil fuel burning must be banned or taxed out of existence, and to do that, the majority of the voters must realize that business as usual will probably ruin the future of their children and grandchildren.

Some conscientious buyers might choose the goods from environmentally friendly countries, but the vast majority of everyone on this planet, not only Americans, shops with their pocketbooks. If it's cheaper, they are going to buy it.

That's why carbon should be expensive. A carbon tax, the proceeds of which is evenly distributed to all taxpayers would work, I think.

 

[Robert.Boston]

That's why carbon should be expensive. A carbon tax, the proceeds of which is evenly distributed to all taxpayers would work, I think.

Some conscientious buyers might choose the goods from environmentally friendly countries, but the vast majority of everyone on this planet, not only Americans, shops with their pocketbooks. If it's cheaper, they are going to buy it.

One advantage of a carbon tax over other approaches is that it addresses @mattjn's concern. A country can levy the same carbon tax it applies to internally produced goods on imported goods if the exporting country doesn't have a carbon tax (or has a lower carbon tax). At that point, a big exporter begins to think about levying the tax directly so that the tax revenues stay at home, thereby continuing to broaden the carbon tax approach globally.

Politically, carbon tax supporters need to address the concern that the proceeds will just be more dollars for the government to spend. Of course, this is no greater a threat than any other tax, but the "carbon lobby" of big oil, gas, and coal are able to hide their motives beneath the mantle of "no new taxes".

From an economics POV, a carbon tax is extremely efficient and effective. It's also easy to administer and hard to dodge: there are only a few point-sources by which carbon enters the economy (at least as long as you're willing to ignore people cutting firewood privately). It's targeted directly at the problem -- or could be, if the tax picked up other emissions (e.g. methane) on a CO2-equivalent basis. Further, it provides a durable profit incentive for innovation that reduces carbon intensity of everything we do. If we want to harness the power of competitive markets to innovate, we must provide an economic incentive to do so.

 

[VolkerP]

All that would do is hurt the American workers with higher priced items. Can't buy Chinese goods because of pollution, our economy would crash overnight. You aren't going to get the public to pay 2-3 times more for a product made in the US or Europe and tell them that it is because of climate change. You would be voted out of office faster than you could say hope and change.

You are right - price changes gonna hurt somebody. This is inevitable. And every "market action" on this issue will work with price changes.
There are examples of successful implementation of such regulations, e.g. the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty limiting production of ozone harming substances, and the US U.S. sulphur-dioxide cap-and-trade programme.
So I think a carbon tax (not cap'n'trade) system might work, use the mechanisms of market, and can be implemented in a way that allows economic transitions not to strangle the economy. Let's say that in 2040 you pay $1200 for every tonne of CO2 produced for the stuff you use, be it electricity, a car, or Chinese goods. It won't kill you today, but you can plan your life for the years to come.

Yes I am aware that there are poor folks with little choice of economic alternatives. They need help anyway, because prices for fuel and electricity will continue to rise. That's why we have social nets here in Europe. And don't call me a commie on that.