Global Warming: What do YOU think?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John D on December 1, 2009 at 4:13pm

Ha ha... I guess I will start as the "token" representative of uncertainty. I will make a few broad claims and see how it bounces around.

1) The climate system is very complex. My claim is that computer models of climate change are likely to be full of errors, especially in predicting changes in many years to come. These errors multiply as we project into the future. My supporting evidence... a) complex computer models are a recent invention, b) many scientists change their predictions of the degree of warming and this happens frequently, c) there is an agreement amongst many scientists that predictions are hard to make.

2) The cost of changing our economy to reduce CO2 is fairly high. To me, this is simple economics. The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce the use of fossil fuels. All alternatives to current fuels are more expensive. (If solar, wind, bio, were cheaper, we would already use it... it's called the free market). It is a good story to think we can easily switch to other fuel sources.... but this is just a good story. There is no vast oil conspiracy that prevents us from using more electric cars for example.... electric cars are just much worse than gas powered cars (when measuring cost, speed, range, comfort, safety etc.)

3) Many people think we should "preserve" the earth by reducing warming. They feel that the "environment" is pristine and should not be affected by us mere humans. I do not subscribe to this philosophy. Humans are what is important. We should use reason to weigh the pluses and minuses to changes in the environment. For example: saving a rare species like a Panda is important, but it is not as important as maintaining an environment where humans can survive.

So - my opinion is that we should not act aggressively to reduce CO2. We need to improve the science behind climate prediction and concentrate on more important things.... (like reduction of population growth, or elimination of slash and burn farming for example)

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on December 1, 2009 at 7:25pm

John, if you get busy working to aggressively reduce human population growth, that will aggressively reduce CO2 emissions growth. To a very large degree, overpopulation and anthropogenic global warming are the same problem. There are non-population-reduction approaches to fighting AGW, which will be needed for reasons Adrian states, particularly in the short run, but limiting population growth is a key piece.

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on December 6, 2009 at 6:07pm

Interesting you should raise that I've been in a short discussion on another site about a population reduction org that is offering contraceptive climate change offsets to go to developing nations.

My take was by itself I consider it a bit distasteful considering people in developing countries have carbon footprints that are a fraction of those in the developed world.

Having said that I agree with what one poster said that even if we make cuts and they continue to increase their populations we are still in trouble.

So it isn't just about population, everyone in general should reduce or stabilise theirs, but also those in the developed have to drastically cut their energy and resource use. It is also unethical to expect the developing countries to stay in poverty so the have can continue to live in luxury even if it is a 'green' lifestyle. So not must we cut back but share what we have, otherwise why should the developed world just do what we did and pollute their way to wealth and we can all go down the drain together?

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on December 6, 2009 at 6:59pm

I agree that whatever we do should be equitable, and by that standard, the developed world really needs to lead on combating climate change and not worry so much about shoving standards down the throats of developing countries. As the developed nations work out new technologies and achieve economies of scale, the developing nations will switch to those as they develop anyhow because they'll be cheaper and more efficient. But it really is perverse for the nations that caused the climate crisis to complain that developing nations shouldn't be given an unfair advantage in any climate deal. That's just adding insult to injury: "We stole your environmental quality in order to raise our standard of living, but we don't want you stealing our environmental quality to raise your standard of living." Nice.

All countries should work toward population stabilization or reduction. The primary way that has been achieved to date has been by attaining modern standards of living thru industrialization (China being the only exception that I know of, with its one-child policy). The problem now is that further industrialization should be achieved using greener tech than in the past. We shouldn't keep anybody from improving their standard of living, but we should work toward less damaging ways to attain that goal.

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on December 8, 2009 at 12:29am

Not hard to see that but many won't have a bar of responsibility for past actions.

Overall I agree, but I don't think we will have the resources for them to develop anywhere near our current standard of living or rely on that to cut birth rates. I'm right behind the peak oil crowd, I don't think we will sustain todays current industrial lifestyle.

Get ready to power down.

Permalink Reply by Limber Lightfoot on January 29, 2010 at 8:30am

I have to admit that I find it a little unsettling that you feel the need to use inverted commas for the words preserve and environment.

My feeling is that if the developed countries can't lead the world in refining and improving non-fossil fuel sources of energy, to the extent that they *become* economically viable then we are screwed in the long term. If, however, it's just always about a political party making popular short term decisions to ensure they make it through the next election cycle then yes we have to stick to the more economically workable and traditional fossil fuels.

I'm in Australia and we are all about coal exports but how counter intuitive is it to keep expending energy digging the stuff up and shipping it around the world to get burned whilst simultaneously scratching our heads about ways to reduce our CO2 emissions?

We need someone with a brain co-ordinating this.

Permalink Reply by John D on January 29, 2010 at 9:21am

Ha ha - I agree Limber... I am not sure why I decided to put those words in quotes. I think it was so that there was emphasis on the word preserve.

The free market will decide what technologies and energy sources produce energy in the future. Politics and government policy will have an impact, but it is the economy that will drive the energy production of the future.

If we want to limit CO2 emissions I guess we can. The world governments just have to tax the stuff that makes CO2. I think this is a bad idea... but... if the world goes this way I am sure I will just have to live with it. I only hope that China and India have to pay the tax too. It doesn't make sense to me to give those countries a free ride. This is just my thinking on it of course. Others will argue that it is more fair to give China and India a free ride and I understand their point... I just disagree with it.

We are not screwed in the long term, except that we will probably live on a planet that is warmer. This is something that is coming. I am not convinced anyone is certain what this warmer world will really look like. I suspect we will just deal with it as it comes.

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on January 29, 2010 at 11:36am

You keep talking about the free market deciding things. I am curious did you have a problem with the government helping the auto industry out during this economic recession?

Permalink Reply by Rayray on January 29, 2010 at 11:41am

Oh boy, Susan, your opening up a can of worms here...

Permalink Reply by sinisterpictures on January 29, 2010 at 11:55am

I'd have let them and the banks all go tits up myself.

Permalink Reply by John D on January 29, 2010 at 1:43pm

Way to try to change the subject! Isn't this thread long enough already... ha ha. I am not saying that I believe in a more active or less active role for government. If you want to change the subject and discuss this I would be happy to. Perhaps you should start another post for this as it is a long and complex topic.

All I said was that I do not favor CO2 reductions... and... if the governments and people of the world decide they want CO2 reduction, I will live with it. I also hope that China and India are involved if taxes or restrictions are implemented for the sake of fairness.

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on January 29, 2010 at 2:25pm

John, can we at least agree that it is insane to continue subsidizing the ridiculously profitable oil industry, as done in the US Energy Policy Act of 2005? Of course, that's a drop in the bucket compared to the amount the US government spends to ensure access to foreign sources of oil via military, diplomatic, and foreign aid expenditures.

Alternative fuels will never be competitive with oil if we continue to artificially reduce the price of oil. If you really think free markets are a panacea (I don't), the first step must be to acknowledge the full price that we pay for the less desirable commodities. Even without fully integrating the environmental costs of fossil fuels, if you fully account for the billions the government throws at the fossil fuel industry every year, it doesn't look so cheap after all. I've never met a free marketeer who acknowledges or even seems to want to talk about full accounting for traditionally off-the-books issues.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 54
• Next ›
• Page