Global Warming...is it really a problem?

  • #52
    Quote from bighaben
    Correlation does not equal causation and that is about all there is to connect humans and climate change. It can easily be explained as natural occurrence unlike an uptick in lung cancer.

    The earths climate cycles, if we as a civilization can adapt to it we will gain a lot toward very long term sustainability, let's work toward the goal without screaming bloody Mary and placing the blame on ourselves when there may not actually be a real problem.


    You should seriously look at some peer-reviewed material before you start spouting off stupid **** like "BUT CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION" ; You know very little of what you're talking about. The general consensus among very recent research points all fingers towards AGW. We're helping it along. Whether or not that's a problem is a completely different issue; and the point of this thread.

    I find it funny that you have a big 'SAY NO TO FOX NEWS' thing in your sig, and yet you sound EXACTLY like the 'experts' that speak on the topic on that very news channel.
  • #53
    consensus means a group of people of like mind got together and agree on something.
    consensus on things more so in science change. more so when new information is presented.
    most recently there was a consensus on the string theory. that now has been replaced by the M theory or ribbon theory.

    That is how real science works. real science does work by bullying other scientists. which is why climatology has gotten a bad name and it's
    credibility as far as public concern has gone downhill.

    The general consensus among very recent research points all fingers towards AGW.


    this has been the case in many scientific studies only to change when more information is available.
    Just as last year they have found that the PDO and AMO have major affects on climate.

    In fact more than what they thought.

    yes there is a reason to be skeptic of an organization who's head has a vested interest in TERI and use to serve as head of the board and still has a major stake.

    TERI if you do not know is a global massive carbon trading company.

    That is why i stated early until there is a completely independant panel that is free of any outside influence to go back and redo all of the research and data to get to the bottom of it and include all factors this will continue to be a skeptical field of study.

    which i think is bad for that part of science in general.


    Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
    Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
  • #54
    Quote from "LogicX" »
    Quote from "Bighaben" »
    Look I agree that global warming has been blown heinously out of proportion. Humanity can and will be able to adapt to combat this sort of climate change, particularly given its gradual nature. Ecosystems will change, resources may become scarce in some areas, but the earth will manage.
    I just wanted to highlight the types of posts that really irk me on this issue.

    Once again, people feel completely qualified to make completely speculative statements on a scientific subject they have no training in, and they make these statements with such immense confidence that it is just mind boggling.

    You wouldn't presume to tell a physicist about quantum mechanics, or a neurosurgeon about proper technique, but when it comes to climatology, everyone is an expert. And everyone seems to feel qualified to make wild statements which they just happened to make up after googling something, but are really contrary to the scientific consensus. Oh really, AGW is overblown? Based on what criteria? Or did you just pull that out of nowhere, based only on a gut feeling?

    If I had a nickel for every time some random layman declared their confidence in AGW being nothing more than natural cycles, or gave their unsubstantiated opinion that they just know that the earth will be able deal with increased CO2 emissions, I would be a rich man.

    We get it. In your non-expert opinion, you have come up with what to you sounds like a reasonable opinion. To those of us realists out there though, you'll have to forgive the fact that we also get the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about.

    /endrant

    The post you quoted was mine.

    Back on topic, why do you think it silly to find global warming overblown? I've watched programs where climate scientists talk about how if we don't act within the decade we'll pass some point of no return. Before what though? Mostly they just talk about severe weather and rising ocean levels. That stuff is bad, but to treat it like some apocolyptic doomsday scenario seems extreme.

    Note I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be adopting green technology and the like. I do have enough sense though to see that these dire warnings are being embelished (not the projections, but how they're presented) to add urgency to something people normally would be slow to act on.

    Quote from "Mad Hat" »
    A 100% accurate model is a contradiction.

    F = ma seems to be a pretty accurate one. I dunno if model applies to equations though. Any scientists who can help me out on this one?

    Quote from "Mad Hat" »
    What sort of R&D are you talking about? Do you think this optimism is warranted, that technology will find a solution for everything? This is basically blind hope for a miracle.

    More efficient technology, on everything from light bulbs and appliances to batteries and car fuel efficiency (and i'm not talking just extra regulations, support their R&D to enable such regulations to be more quickly met). Look into new technologies to capture CO2, and even better to find industrial use for it.

    Some of these ideas are probably a little optimistic, yes, but I think that an equal number of them could be developed and produced cheaper with incentives from the government (once again, not necessarily regulations, but possible tax credits or grants.) I'm firmly convinced that industry and innovation will play a much larger role than government if global warming is to be combatted. Political will is important, but without the technology to implement it in a sound fashion that will means nothing (and consequentially won't happen, because many necessary actions will likely be unpopular if too expensive).

    Quote from "Mad Hat" »
    You have to consider the thermodynamics of this. Fossil fuels are the fundaments of the industrial revolution and all its advances the past two centuries. There is no other energy supply on this planet that can compare to it other than perhaps nuclear fuels - cf. the carbon footprint concept. And nuclear energy has its own problems.

    I'm no expert on nuclear power, but if the steam produced is released (and I'm reasonably sure from those smokestacks that it is) then nuclear is just trading one greenhouse gas for another (water vapor is also a greenhouse gas), which really doesn't solve the issue (unless technology to recapture the steam was developed).

    On that note, with enough investment, geothermal could very well be a viable source, so long as the steam is recycled properly. Tidal power on the coasts and hydro electric are also locally good options to consider. You're right that fossil fuels will probably still be important for many decades to come no matter what happens, but they and nuclear are hardly the only options.

    Quote from "Mad Hat" »
    The concept of global warming has everything to do with politics. In essence, it's the discovery of a new externalized cost. The classic approach to internalizing costs has been government imposing some sort of regulation. As the cost to be internalized with global warming is enormous, there was no way this would not become a very contentious issue. Don't forget that there are still people out there denying other externalities, like the negative effects of CFC's or asbestos fibres.

    The intriguing question here is why American politicians have become so quick to deny the science of Global Warming, whereas politicians in other countries tend to take a different approach (mostly ignoring it as much as possible). This isn't just about Global Warming: think of the controversies surrounding evolution and CFC's.

    Fair point, I didn't really think about it that way. As an aside, I really do find your second point intriguing. I wonder if it has to do with our two party system, as one party always will try to run counter to the other to spread its support base. It's certainly intriguing to consider.

    Quote from "Torm" »
    You should seriously look at some peer-reviewed material before you start spouting off stupid **** like "BUT CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION" ; You know very little of what you're talking about. The general consensus among very recent research points all fingers towards AGW. We're helping it along. Whether or not that's a problem is a completely different issue; and the point of this thread.

    To be fair, when anybody claiming that it isn't a problem is called stupid or uninformed, that doesn't exactly encourage healthy discussion which, as you say, is the whole point of this thread.
    "Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate

  • #55
    F=ma is a law, not a model. I believe his point was that any mathematical model or computer simulation of a natural process will necessarily have inaccuracies because of irreducible complexity and stochastic effects.
  • #56
    Quote from Quirkiness101

    F = ma seems to be a pretty accurate one. I dunno if model applies to equations though. Any scientists who can help me out on this one?


    It is actually F = dp/dt or even more appropriate F * dt = dp and it begs the question, what IS a force and what is mass and momentum? You can describe their properties, but what are they? Also, it is incomplete since it doesn't solve the idea of inner torques.
    Truth has a liberal bias.
  • #58
    Quote from Torm
    You should seriously look at some peer-reviewed material before you start spouting off stupid **** like "BUT CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION" ; You know very little of what you're talking about. The general consensus among very recent research points all fingers towards AGW. We're helping it along. Whether or not that's a problem is a completely different issue; and the point of this thread.

    I find it funny that you have a big 'SAY NO TO FOX NEWS' thing in your sig, and yet you sound EXACTLY like the 'experts' that speak on the topic on that very news channel.


    I never claimed to be a global warming denier, hell it's quite obvious it's going on. Whether it's human caused, or not, I believe, is still up to debate.

    I'm also all for pushing green technologies. I just remain skeptical on all the "hype".

    Either way I established I recognize global warming as occurring. I don't recognize it as a significant disaster in the making. I'd love to see some of this "recent research" as it's something I'd be interested in learning.

    I think too many people have read my posts as "he doesn't believe global warming is occurring, and thus is ignorant" rather than "He's just a little skeptical of cause, and still is for addressing the problem as if it is occurring."

    This video explains my last point well. However, even without climate change I'd want environmental regulations just because I like clean air, and nature.

    "I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
  • #59
    Oh boy, this thread is an amusing read. As a major of science and engineering I forget sometimes how the general public views this issue.

    To be honest the general media has a very simple view of it, but in the scientific community there is a lot of debate on the subject... After all, it was Freeman Dyson who said that the theories behind Global Warming were full of fudge factors and didn't begin to describe the real world.

    P.S: Being against the theory of Global Warming is not the same as being anti-Earth/Green/etc. There have been one too many scientists who were misquoted and lost all funding for having any views opposing any small aspect of the popular belief of Global Warming. It's kind of sad when a scientist has a very real fear of talking to anyone about his work because of past issues on the topic.
  • #60
    Quote from mystery45 »
    That is why i stated early until there is a completely independant panel that is free of any outside influence to go back and redo all of the research and data to get to the bottom of it and include all factors this will continue to be a skeptical field of study.

    "Completely independent", "free of any outside influence", "redo all the research" and "include all the factors"?

    Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Why not build an earth in space while we're at it, were we can experiment with the greenhouse effect? It's like you're trying to be a caricature of obstructionism.

    Quote from quirkiness101 »
    Back on topic, why do you think it silly to find global warming overblown? I've watched programs where climate scientists talk about how if we don't act within the decade we'll pass some point of no return. Before what though? Mostly they just talk about severe weather and rising ocean levels. That stuff is bad, but to treat it like some apocolyptic doomsday scenario seems extreme.

    Disturbances, ocean acidification, rising ocean levels, extinctions, migrations, war and conflict.

    We know of past cases of invasive species that the impact can be enormous. As local climates change, the odds increase. Never mind the costs of a drought, the costs of adaptation.

    More efficient technology, on everything from light bulbs and appliances to batteries and car fuel efficiency (and i'm not talking just extra regulations, support their R&D to enable such regulations to be more quickly met). Look into new technologies to capture CO2, and even better to find industrial use for it.

    This will only lead to the paradox of Jevons: efficiency increases, but net use goes up. This is not a sufficient solution. Regulation is required to counteract the workings of the market, either through government or through private enforcement (e.g. consumer organizations and lobbying).

    I'm no expert on nuclear power, but if the steam produced is released (and I'm reasonably sure from those smokestacks that it is) then nuclear is just trading one greenhouse gas for another (water vapor is also a greenhouse gas), which really doesn't solve the issue (unless technology to recapture the steam was developed).

    Water vapor is not comparable to other GHG's like carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide or fluorocarbons. As concentrations go up because of emissions, it will condense and eventually rain down. Its concentrations can only increase if other variables of the system change, such as temperature and pressure.

    The other (and problematic) GHG's have no liquid equilibrium at these system states, so they can only be removed through chemical reaction (like dissolving in water or oxidation).

    The problems with nuclear are the costs associated with its waste and gathering its feedstock, as well as its need for large amounts of coolant. There is the cost of dealing with decommissioning. And, of course, from the chief three nuclear accidents that have happened throughout its history, we know that the costs of such an accident are gargantuan and irreversible.
    "If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger, but not a happier or better population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be stationary long before necessity compels them to it."
    - John Stuart Mill, 1857
  • #61
    Quote from "Viricide" »
    F=ma is a law, not a model. I believe his point was that any mathematical model or computer simulation of a natural process will necessarily have inaccuracies because of irreducible complexity and stochastic effects.

    Okay, I did use the wrong word then, my mistake. As an aside, my initial point regarding models was in response to Solaran's claim that global warming was not 100% proven, and I pointed out that without a mathamatic model (or formula) you can't 100% prove anything, and for something as complicated as global warming that was impossible. So I wouldn't my overall point still stand despite wrong terminology?

    Quote from "Mad Hat" »
    Water vapor is not comparable to other GHG's like carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide or fluorocarbons. As concentrations go up because of emissions, it will condense and eventually rain down. Its concentrations can only increase if other variables of the system change, such as temperature and pressure.

    Whoops, forgot about that XD
    Steam capture would probably still be good for dealing with water costs.

    Quote from "Mad Hat" »

    Disturbances, ocean acidification, rising ocean levels, extinctions, migrations, war and conflict.
    We know of past cases of invasive species that the impact can be enormous. As local climates change, the odds increase. Never mind the costs of a drought, the costs of adaptation.

    Difficult, but not exactly apocalyptic. Additionally most of these changes are relatively gradual, leaving plenty of time for adaptation (at least on the human side).

    Quote from "Mad Hat" »
    This will only lead to the paradox of Jevons: efficiency increases, but net use goes up. This is not a sufficient solution. Regulation is required to counteract the workings of the market, either through government or through private enforcement (e.g. consumer organizations and lobbying).

    I would think that's an automatic consequence of population growth. The catch though is, if that is the case, the growth is largely happening in countries that really have problems more immediate than a decade or two away ecological issue. I mean how do you convince developing countries to limit their population and cut emissions. Additionally the green technology can be exported as well, and if it's replacing polluting technology elsewhere isn't that advantageous?

    I guess I understand what you mean about the need for regulations, I just don't see the need to enforce them until technology is there to allow them (thinking mostly of increased fuel efficiency standards).

    Quote from "Mad Hat" »
    The problems with nuclear are the costs associated with its waste and gathering its feedstock, as well as its need for large amounts of coolant. There is the cost of dealing with decommissioning. And, of course, from the chief three nuclear accidents that have happened throughout its history, we know that the costs of such an accident are gargantuan and irreversible.

    Reactivating fuel rods can take care of the feed stock issue to a degree. As for the waste, this is largely a nimby issue. The waste, properly sealed, isn't that much of an issue. The funny thing is that countries like France have been getting 80+% of their power from nuclear for decades, and haven't had a single disaster (plus I don't exactly consider three mile island a major disaster).
    "Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate

  • #62
    Quote from Quirkiness101
    I would think that's an automatic consequence of population growth. The catch though is, if that is the case, the growth is largely happening in countries that really have problems more immediate than a decade or two away ecological issue. I mean how do you convince developing countries to limit their population and cut emissions. Additionally the green technology can be exported as well, and if it's replacing polluting technology elsewhere isn't that advantageous?

    That's one problem. Another is that those in power in developed countries have no concern whatsoever for any issue that is two decades away. Free-market capitalism has been eroding our sense for long-term sustainability for decades now.

    I guess I understand what you mean about the need for regulations, I just don't see the need to enforce them until technology is there to allow them (thinking mostly of increased fuel efficiency standards).

    But it's not just about efficient technology. It's about reduced consumption as well. That's the problem with the paradox of Jevons, which is not a problem of population increase but a problem of externalized costs. If we make fossil fuel use more efficient, people are just going to use more of it as the true costs still remain externalized.

    Reactivating fuel rods can take care of the feed stock issue to a degree. As for the waste, this is largely a nimby issue. The waste, properly sealed, isn't that much of an issue. The funny thing is that countries like France have been getting 80+% of their power from nuclear for decades, and haven't had a single disaster (plus I don't exactly consider three mile island a major disaster).

    I question whether the waste is really not that much of an issue, but I can't say much about it as I haven't studied it very well. What I do know is that the time spans are enormous and thus so will be the costs of safekeeping. Low cost forms of safekeeping also have an increased risk, as the mitigation methods in case of a problem become more restricted.

    People are being happy that we've had nuclear power for about 5 decades with 'only' 3 serious accidents (and many more not very serious). Two of those were in the former Sovjet Union and one happened in the aftermath of a serious earthquake and tsunami. But it's not like unexpected incidents like this (natural disaster, construction error or human error) can ever be ruled out. We should be wary of technological optimism.
    "If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger, but not a happier or better population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be stationary long before necessity compels them to it."
    - John Stuart Mill, 1857
  • #63
    Quote from mystery45

    Other government mandates is making it more expensive for people to buy things than before. the new CAFE restrictions here in the US are going to be huge. affordable cars are going to be a thing of the past to meet the new standards. more so if you have a family and need a larger vehicle.
    .



    Nearly all 1st world nations have much higher emission standards for newly build cars and we still buy cars.


    Yes its a restriction but one for the better.
    Compared to the 80s when there was a lot of "acid rain" and the air quailty in some cities was really bad, the introduction of higher emission standards brought the development of better engines, better filter systems and most important, better air quality.

    Of course the car is a bit more expensiv, but face it, in todays world, America can´t be the land where everything is super cheap, when the rest of the world is paying 30% (some cars we build here and ship to the US to sell them cheaper there Frown )- 250% (gas/petrol) more.
    These days are slowly going to end.
  • #64
    @Quirk: Indeed I believe your point would still stand. I just saw the "need a scientist" line and decided to respond to that part. Smile My main point was that the argument that "such and such model isn't 100% accurate" is essentially meaningless by itself because no model will ever be 100% accurate. That doesn't mean no model is ever useful, but it does mean models need to be evaluated by some metric other than 100% accuracy.
  • #65
    Quote from Mad Mat
    People are being happy that we've had nuclear power for about 5 decades with 'only' 3 serious accidents (and many more not very serious). Two of those were in the former Sovjet Union and one happened in the aftermath of a serious earthquake and tsunami. But it's not like unexpected incidents like this (natural disaster, construction error or human error) can ever be ruled out. We should be wary of technological optimism.

    Only three major ones I know of are Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

    Three Mile Island (1979) was relatively minor, very well contained, and actually beneficial in that it led to the voluntary exchange of ideas among US nuclear operators that drastically improved safety in ways government regulation could only dream of. Right now, TMI-2 is permanently decommissioned and TMI-1 has just had it's license extended to operate into 2034.

    Chernobyl (1986) was a man-caused fault because they screwed up a test they were running on the facility. They were trying to find a way to have the reactors safely endure the first 60-75 seconds of a catastrophic power failure to the plant. It is speculated that a lot of mistakes happened during the procedure (the operators conducting the procedure all died during the meltdown), which led to the melt down.

    Fukushima Daiichi (2011) was the combination of a few problems. The biggest one was insufficient safety features built into the reactor by the company that made it (GE).

    All three nuclear accidents involved very old reactor designs. Modern nuclear reactors now have safety features in them that would have prevented all of these disasters from happening (at least the ones made by my company). Using a nuclear accident such as Fukushima Daiichii to criticize all nuclear power safety today is akin to using the 1971 Ford Pinto to criticize the modern automotive industry's safety abilities.

    A lot has changed in the industry in the 41 years since that reactor was commissioned.
    I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
  • #66
    Quote from Solaran_X
    Only three major ones I know of are Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

    Third was the incident at Mayak.
    "If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger, but not a happier or better population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be stationary long before necessity compels them to it."
    - John Stuart Mill, 1857
  • #67
    Quote from "Mad Hat" »
    People are being happy that we've had nuclear power for about 5 decades with 'only' 3 serious accidents (and many more not very serious). Two of those were in the former Sovjet Union and one happened in the aftermath of a serious earthquake and tsunami. But it's not like unexpected incidents like this (natural disaster, construction error or human error) can ever be ruled out. We should be wary of technological optimism.

    True, but at the moment people still seem convinced that there's some sort of silver bullet energy solution that will be safe cheap efficient, accessible and easy. Really though, at least at this point, the world doesn't have those options. Sometimes you do have to pick between the lesser of two evils, and if the threat of climate change is seriously a lesser threat than nuclear power, I'm not that concerned anymore.

    Quote from "Viricide" »
    @Quirk: Indeed I believe your point would still stand. I just saw the "need a scientist" line and decided to respond to that part. My main point was that the argument that "such and such model isn't 100% accurate" is essentially meaningless by itself because no model will ever be 100% accurate. That doesn't mean no model is ever useful, but it does mean models need to be evaluated by some metric other than 100% accuracy.

    Cool, then we're in agreement after all ^.^

    Quote from "Mad Hat" »
    That's one problem. Another is that those in power in developed countries have no concern whatsoever for any issue that is two decades away. Free-market capitalism has been eroding our sense for long-term sustainability for decades now.

    Fair enough, but if the developed world makes this major effort without there being anything to incentivize the developing world to do the same, aren't we just kicking the can down the road a few decades before the problem comes back? Fossil Fuels are far cheaper and more efficient than their alternatives, so developing countries will be hard pressed to build infrastructures around anything else unless better green or efficient technologies are produced.

    Quote from "Mad Hat" »
    But it's not just about efficient technology. It's about reduced consumption as well. That's the problem with the paradox of Jevons, which is not a problem of population increase but a problem of externalized costs. If we make fossil fuel use more efficient, people are just going to use more of it as the true costs still remain externalized.

    Okay, so in other words, regulations would be placed on companies so that the cost of pollution (with pollution being the externalized cost) is internalized in the form of taxes and fees to negatively incentivize the companies to get rid of the pollution to remove the added tax/fee burden?
    "Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate

  • #68
    Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Why not build an earth in space while we're at it, were we can experiment with the greenhouse effect? It's like you're trying to be a caricature of obstructionism.



    We don't need to which is why your statement is ridiculous. We can however conduct science and redo the assumptions without the outside pressure that now is forced on this field.

    it is not ridiculous to have an independent group of scientists with no politcal or money ties peer review what is being done.

    The only reason you would argue against something like that is because you are afraid of the results.

    That there is a possibility that man is not the main driver of GW that climate change is a natural phenominon that can last for decades to centuries.

    Chernobyl (1986) was a man-caused fault because they screwed up a test they were running on the facility.


    That and the reactor should have never been brought online. they skipped a whole ton of safety requirements. it was a disaster just waiting to happen.


    Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
    Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
  • #69
    Quote from Quirkiness101
    True, but at the moment people still seem convinced that there's some sort of silver bullet energy solution that will be safe cheap efficient, accessible and easy. Really though, at least at this point, the world doesn't have those options. Sometimes you do have to pick between the lesser of two evils, and if the threat of climate change is seriously a lesser threat than nuclear power, I'm not that concerned anymore.

    You're not alone in this thinking. I'm on the fence about nuclear (as evident about my posting, but I'm gonna drop it now as it's very off-topic).

    Even if you accept nuclear, the question is whether you will use it to facilitate the transformation into a sustainable society or if you will continue to press for growth. Nuclear energy is depletable as well.

    Fair enough, but if the developed world makes this major effort without there being anything to incentivize the developing world to do the same, aren't we just kicking the can down the road a few decades before the problem comes back? Fossil Fuels are far cheaper and more efficient than their alternatives, so developing countries will be hard pressed to build infrastructures around anything else unless better green or efficient technologies are produced.
    You're looking at it the wrong way. Fossil fuels are far cheaper and more efficient because of externalization. A green technology will never be its equal, because then the costs are automatically internalized.

    But this problem does exist and is very difficult to adress. Developed countries have gotten this far at the expense of fossil fuels and other natural capital. Right now, they want developing countries to not make the same mistakes, either because that would really suck for everyone or because it keeps them down (classic example: deforestation in Amazonia). Developing countries then say that, if they are not to be making the same mistakes, developed countries have to pay compensation for their past benefits. But nobody wants to pay: it's far easier to ignore the problem or deny it. It's also difficult to design a system where these compensations are actually put to good use and not abused, or to design a system where the value of these compensations can be determined. What's the Amazonian rainforest worth to the world? Or not burning one Deepwater Horizon's GHG equivalent of oil?

    Okay, so in other words, regulations would be placed on companies so that the cost of pollution (with pollution being the externalized cost) is internalized in the form of taxes and fees to negatively incentivize the companies to get rid of the pollution to remove the added tax/fee burden?
    That's the capitalistic theory. There are more systems than just taxes though, and it's also relevant what happens with the revenue of these taxes.

    It's also very hard to quantify the cost of pollution and virtually impossible to accurately compensate those who are damaged by it. In a very specific and blatant problem as an oil spill, it's doable. Not so with GHG emissions.

    PS: the name is not Mad Hat.
    "If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger, but not a happier or better population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be stationary long before necessity compels them to it."
    - John Stuart Mill, 1857
  • #70
    Quote from mystery45
    We don't need to which is why your statement is ridiculous. We can however conduct science and redo the assumptions without the outside pressure that now is forced on this field.

    it is not ridiculous to have an independent group of scientists with no politcal or money ties peer review what is being done.

    The only reason you would argue against something like that is because you are afraid of the results.

    That there is a possibility that man is not the main driver of GW that climate change is a natural phenominon that can last for decades to centuries.


    Hey guys, I am going to decide that all of physics is suspect and only advanced under political motivation. You guys need to go back and retake all the data from the past 2000 years and restart physics from the beginning because I said so, and god forbid any of you make money from someone who wants to see physics proven right.
    Truth has a liberal bias.
  • #71
    I think the way we frame the efficiency debate is too esoteric for most Americans, it might work for Europeans and some other more collectivist nations. The issue comes down to cutting costs and decreasing dependency on foreigners. At the rate between efficiency and more drilling, we're going to be exporting again as a nation.

    Pushing harder on the efficiency end would've pushed the metrics a bit faster, which was one of Bush's failures. That and tax credits for stupid stuff like SUV's which were just wasteful and helped aid to Detroit's degeneration.


    Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.

    Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.

    Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.

    Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.


  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes