Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[EchoDelta]

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.



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.



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

You have good points-my 0.02:


Scientists are not marketers and asking them to put together a compelling message that changes behavior of people is misguided.

As a matter of fact most scientists are profoundly unscientific when asking how to get the message out. There is more evidence that facts don't influence consumer behavior and policy. Keep the scientists in the lab and get a PR company to create demand for the welfare of our grandchildren with a proper budget, campaign etc.

There is plenty of historic and current evidence that we are not rational species when it comes to crisis. I don't trust a democratic system which allows 5% of the world population to vote on representatives with only a tenuous influence on an industry that sees regulation as an obstacle towards economic goals. How's it working so far?


Carbon tax is the scheme proposed by some agencies and pioneers of global climate actions (eg Hansen, etc). I like it- are there precedents of adoption?

Also you have to wonder when nations and individuals more vulnerable to warming will take unmitigated emissions as an act of war and retaliate against countries, companies and facilities demonstrably hurting their future.




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

 

[Robert.Boston]

Australia has implemented a carbon tax. It's so unpopular that it could bring down the government. Australia loves its cheap, dirty coal....

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Australia has implemented a carbon tax. It's so unpopular that it could bring down the government. Australia loves its cheap, dirty coal....

Because of the seriousness of this matter I think that an International Committe has to be established in order to give directions to Goverments all over the world useful to work out the global warming problem. This way single Governments would be free from unpopular decisions and could better contribute.

 

[Doug_G]

Politically, carbon tax supporters need to address the concern that the proceeds will just be more dollars for the government to spend.

A few years ago, the Canadian federal Liberal party tried to run on a platform of introducing a carbon tax, and that really helped hand power to the Conservatives.

Mind you, they were not very credible IMHO. They went on and on about it being revenue neutral - they would cut income taxes etc. to compensate. Great. Then they shot themselves in the foot when they claimed that they'd spend some of the revenue on social programs, and that would still be "revenue neutral". The media didn't pick up on it, and so I don't think the general populace really understood this, but many still had a visceral negative reaction to the whole concept.

The point is, as logical as a carbon tax would be, the current political climate makes it very unattractive to implement.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

The point is, as logical as a carbon tax would be, the current political climate makes it very unattractive to implement.

That's why an International Committe is needed. This way any action took by the single Governments to work out the global warming problem would also be independent from political trends.

 

[brianman]

I have less faith in global politicians than I do in national politicians. Unchecked power, for example.

 

[richkae]

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.

I think you are overreaching here. The American economy will not crash without Chinese goods. Alternative products will be available and they may cost more, but I doubt they are 2-3 times higher. The cost advantage enjoyed by poisoning the environment is large but there are also big advantages to our own economy to buying local instead.
The reality would be somewhere between your doomsday and consumers buying slightly fewer disposable trinkets.

 

[Robert.Boston]

China is already losing its edge as the cheap manufacturer to the world. Consider that Apple is bringing back some manufacturing jobs to the US; also, Vietnam and other developing economies are moving up.

Like @brianman, I'm very skeptical about entrusting some global government to make the right calls about environmental policy. Far more has been accomplished at local and state levels, in large part because there are many energy efficiency and similar steps that generate local economic benefits. The further removed decision-makers are from the local level, the greater the ability of large corporations and other multi-national parties to sway the outcomes.

 

[Doug_G]

Some things made in China are crazy cheap. Other things aren't all that worthwhile to make there. The shipping costs neutralize much of the advantage, there's a lot more hassle, and the more automated manufacturing facilities here are pretty efficient.

 

[brianman]

Like @brianman, I'm very skeptical about entrusting some global government to make the right calls about environmental policy. Far more has been accomplished at local and state levels, ...

For me, it's not just about environmental policy. Centralized unchecked power is trouble.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

For me, it's not just about environmental policy. Centralized unchecked power is trouble.

In my opinion an International Committe ruling only for environmental problems and representing the will of democratic States all over the world would be free from the risk of centralized unchecked power. Just my opinion.

 

[brianman]

In my opinion an International Committe ruling only for environmental problems and representing the will of democratic States all over the world would be free from the risk of centralized unchecked power. Just my opinion.

And if they said "all vehicles that run on petroleum should immediately be impounded" that would be ok? Just to pick a random example.

"Representing the will" is very loose. You'd need something with more teeth to actually be a check on such power.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

And if they said "all vehicles that run on petroleum should immediately be impounded" that would be ok? Just to pick a random example.

"Representing the will" is very loose. You'd need something with more teeth to actually be a check on such power.

Then the International Committe could only give directions to the Governments leaving them free to respect such directions or not.
I think that in this case Governments fulfilling international anti-pollution standards should at least be rewarded with a bonus.

 

[brianman]

Then the International Committe could only give directions to the Governments leaving them free to respect such directions or not.
I think that in this case Governments fulfilling international anti-pollution standards should at least be rewarded with a bonus.

Ok, now I'm curious. What kind of bonus?

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Ok, now I'm curious. What kind of bonus?

I don't know exactly. Something to make the bad boys understand that it is better to get with the good boys and to respect the international anti-pollution standards.

 

[EchoDelta]

China is already losing its edge as the cheap manufacturer to the world. Consider that Apple is bringing back some manufacturing jobs to the US; also, Vietnam and other developing economies are moving up.

Like @brianman, I'm very skeptical about entrusting some global government to make the right calls about environmental policy. Far more has been accomplished at local and state levels, in large part because there are many energy efficiency and similar steps that generate local economic benefits. The further removed decision-makers are from the local level, the greater the ability of large corporations and other multi-national parties to sway the outcomes.

+1

There is no such thing as global government, either. UN and other treaties are consortiums, venues, not governance mechanisms.

I have spent too many hours in UN meetings big and small to have any faith left in that mechanism. It's just political posturing and the main result is documents legitimizing frameworks to support back room deals.

Also the costs of not having sustainable environmental policies tend to be observed locally (eg CO2 is invisible, but river pollution, soot, water table poisoning, etc cause more local pain)

I have more faith in attaining change by supporting concerned citizens of <town with coal power plant> than in any shenanigans from the global level.





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

 

[EchoDelta]

Ok, now I'm curious. What kind of bonus?

Heh.

(Interesting to see this pattern appear in this conversation every time. A talk of climate crisis highlights a gap in governance and current economic models; folks propose changes to one or both, discussion becomes about preference towards the proposed models, in the abstract. But I have to admit this is one of the few forums where the focus stays longer on 'but will it work' not 'do I like it' )

For those in this thread looking for fun inspiration for global governance shifts accelerated by technology, I recommend the near-term sci-fi books Daemon and Freedom(tm) by Suarez.
Of course those discussing this topic may enjoy also the climate policy related novels 40 signs of rain, 50 degrees under, 60 days and counting. And years of salt and rice. I consider the books optimistic. May we be blessed with climate shocks that jolt global action before we cross some invisible no-return thresholds.

Disclaimer- I am not an authoritarian; and that is not just because I don't happen to like current authorities

There has been an analysis of cultures of different countries that quantified many variables - including 'power distance' (a measure related to how citizens perceive the distance to bosses, leaders etc) and capacity for long term planning & execution. Unfortunately for my worldview the hundred-something countries in the survey didn't have one sole example of long term planner that also had a horizontal power structure. I.e. the countries with best ability to do long term stuff (eg china) turned out to be the most culturally authoritarian.

I'm on my phone but I'll see if I can dig up the links one of these days, the authors have a good couple of books. Of course the analysis may not apply- we are living through the gauntlet era of long term aware execution. We have exactly zero experience as a species with omnicide.





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

 

[brianman]

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

Sorry, but this cracked me up. That's a pretty non-terse phone post.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

But I have to admit this is one of the few forums where the focus stays longer on 'but will it work' not 'do I like it'

Thank you. Most important thing is to make any possible effort to work out the problem of global warming regardless of the fact that one single person likes a proposed change or not.

 

[neroden]

Australia has implemented a carbon tax. It's so unpopular that it could bring down the government. Australia loves its cheap, dirty coal....

It didn't bring down the government. And you know what? The next government is gonna keep the carbon tax, whichever it is. It's hard to add a tax, but it's harder to remove a high-revenue tax, especially once the industry has gotten used to it. And the Greens are likely to hold the balance of power in the Senate again, which will give even a Coalition government an excuse to do nothing.

Gillard pulled off an impressive set of political maneuvers around the carbon tax. I can't understimate how important it is that Australia has proportional representation in its Senate though; without the swing-vote Greens this would be a much less stable thing.

- - - Updated - - -

I understand your sentiment, but please allow me to correct some misperceptions:
Your utility charges are subject to strict oversight by state and federal regulators.

Are you sure about this? State regulation, yes, certainly, but I don't see any federal regulation of utility charges. Federal policy has been to discourage regulation of utility charges, hasn't it? This is what allowed for the mess in California when state "deregulation" was mismanaged.

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.

In the old days, certain thermal plants would be left burning (due to the costs of startup / shutdown) with the electrical generators disconnected and the energy going to waste heat. Are you saying we've managed to stop doing that? If so, good.