Stop Global Warming ?

[Mister P-Mosh]

Actually p-mosh ... in Ron's Jupiter thread you claimed that your belief was "mainstream" ... so that made me wonder if it was mainstream here. I don't believe this bill is a Republican idea ... Bush promised a veto .. but McCain and Obama both are in favor, so this should not be a real big politics issue.

I'm not a big fan of using polls to determine science, since in the past the right-wing would murder scientists who said the world was round or that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and kept the public believing wrong things. However, since you specifically want to see if belief in "global warming" is real or not, you can easily find polls such as this one, which basically says that only 11% of people don't think we are threatened by "global warming."

As far as saying that the bill is a Republican idea, what I was trying to say is that it seemed like a nonsensical idea that the Republicans would come up with. I know both parties are pushing for stuff like this, but I don't think you can successfully enact social change by enacting taxes.

I'm not sure why you say the poll makes no sense ... this is the solution Washington is coming up with ... how do you stop CO2 production if the government is not involved?

Washington is not coming up with good solutions. The reason being is that Americans need to change our way of life drastically. They are saying that we are nearing the end of the middle class suburban lifestyle where everything you own is imported from other nations. Experts predict that we're going to see the middle and upper classes living in cities, while the poor live in the suburbs. This is already happening in many places, so it's not too surprising. What also is starting to change is the shipping of food. People are making a lot bigger deal out of locally grown food, and with gas prices rising (especially diesel which is insane) you'll see locally grown food be financially competitive with big agribusiness. Our ancestors weren't able to eat mangos and kiwis year round, and I don't think we will be able to in the future either. It would probably be healthier for us to change our eating habits to match our local climates anyway. Plus, meat will get a lot more expensive, and we'll go back to eating a more sane amount of it rather than what we get now. This trend is happening as a result of society, and not the government.

So what can the government do? There are a few simple things. The first is to offer money to go towards things like building better public transportation, building more nuclear power plants, investing heavily in research for clean technologies and making existing technologies more efficient. This would reduce our pollution, create jobs, and allow us to become a world leader again in the economy because we would be able to export the new things we come up with. Investors are already preparing themselves for the "green" boom, and smart people have already been buying up stock for companies that do things like wind energy and organic grocery stores. The job of the government is to help shape the nation for the will of the people. If they already know the trends and what people want, they need to set the goals and give us the policies to get there. The free market itself doesn't work without government intervention as we learned in the 1920s, and are re-learning today.

I should have included ... "No tax, man made CO2 is a problem, but the government should not try to stop it" or some such. It seemed clear to me that if you believed man made CO2 is destroying the planet, you would want our government to in some way tax it to prevent it, so I didn't think of that.

It is a problem and the government should do something about it. However, there seems to be some sort of right-wing idea that any attempt to solve a problem is of equal merit to another attempt. There are right ways and wrong ways of doing things. I think taxation is the wrong way.

Though it does seem many companies have voluntarily acted to reduce their "carbon footprint", partly for PR reasons. But they are also largely moved by fear that if they do not act, some draconian laws will be passed, like what is proposed now.

The PR reasons you are referring to is what environmentalists call "greenwashing." I agree that the proposed law is bad, but if the government did take steps to do things like I listed above, it would create a booming economy. I also don't think we need to raise taxes to do it, since we are wasting billions of dollars in Iraq. Some of that could easily be redirected to a better cause such as making more energy efficient technology or maintaining our nation's infrastructure.

So basically, I know anthropomorphic climate change is a real threat, and I don't think taxes or carbon credit trading or any of that stuff is a good idea or a real solution to the problem.

[rhino]

Thanks P-Mosh ... for making many good comments.

I'd like to tap in on the grown local trend, though I really don't think transportation costs are quite as great as portrayed ... still ... why not help the local economy more?

I think the CBS poll is misleading ...( imagine that.)

Nearly half of Americans believe global warming is having a

serious impact

now — up 14 points since 2001. Another third think the impact of global warming will be felt some time in the future.

Few think it won't have a serious impact.

Three-quarters think the weather in the past few years has been stranger than usual, with global warming cited as the biggest cause.

IS GLOBAL WARMING HAVING AN IMPACT?

Now

Yes, now

49%

Will in the future

36%

Won't have an impact

11%

First, the poll said "having an impact" and 49% said yes. It did not say SERIOUS impact. And it certainly did not say what you said ... that people feel "threatened". Also, I don't trust CBS at all. Who did they poll?

How can they say the Dem's are going to provide the US with the energy we need, when they are the ones blocking all the new exploration. Looks like another biased poll from cBS. Plus the news of catastrophe sells well, and many are caught up in the "psycho-drama" of the tidal wave pouring over New York.

Nuke plants, better public transportation yes ... but it seems there is a radical push to squeeze out fossil fuels, when we still have 300 years of coal and oil remaining. Maybe some incentives for cleaner tech, but a radical move could snap our economy, especially considering the current state.

AGW seems just a tool for pushing a radical left agenda ... we conservatives haven't killed scientists much of late. Science is good, but not "Silent Spring" type activist science, which killed millions.

[Mister P-Mosh]

Thanks P-Mosh ... for making many good comments.

I'd like to tap in on the grown local trend, though I really don't think transportation costs are quite as great as portrayed ... still ... why not help the local economy more?

Thanks. Transportation costs are greatest when you talk about some things that are not grown in the U.S. Banana prices, for example, are transported pretty far away so the huge rise in diesel prices (which have far outpaced gasoline prices) are threatening to cause problems. Of course, food prices have been adjusting upwards as a result, but it could reach a point where it is no longer feasible to import food.

I think the CBS poll is misleading ...( imagine that.)

I'm not going to defend it because I didn't do it, and just found it via a google search. However, pretty much all the polls done show that the majority see it as a problem.

Nuke plants, better public transportation yes ... but it seems there is a radical push to squeeze out fossil fuels, when we still have 300 years of coal and oil remaining. Maybe some incentives for cleaner tech, but a radical move could snap our economy, especially considering the current state.

Maybe we have 300 years of coal, but I don't know anyone in the business claiming we have that much oil left. The most pessimistic estimates are that we already reached peak oil a while back, and even the most rosy estimates I've seen recently show us running out within my life time. Right now I work with natural gas so I am not as up on the status of oil as I was when I worked for Ch*vr*n but I still hear some bad things about it from people in the business. There are even rumors spreading of OPEC refusing to give us more oil because they over-inflated the size of their oil fields. I think that's a conspiracy theory, but it's not completely impossible.

In any case, I don't think a radical move like you are worried about is even possible. Let's say the Democrats somehow get a super-majority in Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court. You still won't see a sudden change like that because it's simply not possible.

AGW seems just a tool for pushing a radical left agenda ... we conservatives haven't killed scientists much of late. Science is good, but not "Silent Spring" type activist science, which killed millions.

I think part of the problem is that the media, in their quest for ratings, generates hysteria and always presents science incorrectly for their own gain. Their view of anthropomorphic climate change is not the one scientists have been stating. That is why I get annoyed by people expecting to notice a difference instantly. The media's presentation of it is a joke, and a radical ratings-generating agenda. I don't think anyone but them benefit from it. The scientists and the left certainly don't benefit by having their words twisted by the media and made into a laughing stock for the right to attack. The right doesn't benefit because they see only a twisted view of the problem through the eyes of the media.

As far as the book Silent Spring, I have a hard time saying that it is responsible for the deaths of millions. A woman raised some questions about the effects of DDT, and that was it. I think it's a good thing to look at the negative points of things as well as the positive, and know as much as possible to make a logical decision. If the hysteria against DDT went too far, it's not Carson's fault. It's the fault of people who probably didn't even read her book but jumped on the media bandwagon, and made emotional decisions. Knowledge is a good thing, and I don't buy into the biblical view that knowledge brings sorrow.

[rhino]

Yeah .. the hysteria is the problem. But that is what works to get people to vote for things. Maybe Rachel Carson wasn't directly responsible for getting DDT banned, but the hysteria was unstoppable. Science showed no harm from DDT, but that no longer mattered, there were birds to save. But that was bad science. So malaria killed millions that may have been cheaply saved.

AGW seems similar ... people "know" Gore's film ... so something has to be done ... NOW.

Lotsa coal, I hear we are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Oil ... I don't know ... current known reserves seem to grow ... and all this shale oil that we haven't even started to tap. And we haven't even started to pump off our coasts, not to mention ANWR. But of course conservation and clean air are important.

[Mister P-Mosh]

Yeah .. the hysteria is the problem. But that is what works to get people to vote for things. Maybe Rachel Carson wasn't directly responsible for getting DDT banned, but the hysteria was unstoppable. Science showed no harm from DDT, but that no longer mattered, there were birds to save. But that was bad science. So malaria killed millions that may have been cheaply saved.

This was before my time, so I haven't looked into it that much. Still, I think that it's bad when science is distorted. Rachel Carson's claims are things that can be tested and determined if they are valid or not within the confines of science. The banning was done by politicians who probably listened to lawyers rather than scientists.

AGW seems similar ... people "know" Gore's film ... so something has to be done ... NOW.

The difference here is that the top scientists are the ones informing Al Gore. I see Gore as just a messenger, but the real people behind the research, such as James Hansen, are the ones providing the data. There are enough scientists who have provided research and data supporting the idea that mankind is changing the environment for the worse that I have no problem with their data. Of course, in the media, you never get to see the studies, graphs, or anything scientific. Most Americans have never heard of James Hansen, for example, despite the fact that he was the nation's top climatologist. Part of this may be due to the fact that the Bush administration severely censored his work. All you hear about on the news are people like Al Gore or celebrities who tell you to buy a Prius and use one square of toilet paper to wipe up.

Lotsa coal, I hear we are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Oil ... I don't know ... current known reserves seem to grow ... and all this shale oil that we haven't even started to tap. And we haven't even started to pump off our coasts, not to mention ANWR. But of course conservation and clean air are important.

There is more oil in the ground, but it might be running out soon in the middle east, and what's left is not as easy to get to. For example, there is a huge oil reserve around some of the former soviet nations, but you'll probably never see it in the U.S. because it's too expensive. Even in the U.S. we have oil sands and other things that we know about but it has been cost prohibitive to gather it and process it so far. What this means is that oil and gas prices will have to continue to increase quite a bit before those become useful. Even then, infrastructure has to be built, and it can take years and years to build infrastructure. At my current employer, we are working on a natural gas pipeline that will be along the gulf coast. It should be finished in about 10 years, and we already have contracts with utility companies that will use it (if we didn't have those contracts, we wouldn't have build it.) I imagine things like building refineries in addition to pipelines is even more time intensive. There are also lots of issues around getting oil out of the gulf of Mexico, because there are decent sized oil fields underwater that are also cost prohibitive as well as off the coasts of nations that don't want to share with us. It's a very complex issue, but there are many factors that will continue to drive prices up, rather than down. Prices could go down, but it's a lot less likely than them going up.

A good thing I've noticed is that while you and I disagree on man-made climate change, you do see to be against pollution and against wastefulness. I guess this means that while we might argue over some of this stuff, we probably live similar lifestyles of not being wasteful and living closer to the land than a lot of people.

[rhino]

Even in the U.S. we have oil sands and other things that we know about but it has been cost prohibitive to gather it and process it so far. What this means is that oil and gas prices will have to continue to increase quite a bit before those become useful. Even then, infrastructure has to be built, and it can take years and years to build infrastructure. At my current employer, we are working on a natural gas pipeline that will be along the gulf coast. It should be finished in about 10 years, and we already have contracts with utility companies that will use it (if we didn't have those contracts, we wouldn't have build it.)

Part of the problem with such long term planning, is not knowing how much a barrel of oil will bring in five years, when maybe shale oil could be coming more on line. (I'm just guessing on years and numbers) But my understanding is that shale oil is feasible now, and technology will improve, but if oil drops back under sixty, three years of investment might be "wasted". And technology will improve on extraction and processing of shale oil and coal and all ...

As you note, another problem is countries like Russia not exporting. I was just reading "Turning off the Taps" about the countries that used to export, but now import.

Mexico provides about 14% of the oil the U.S. imports. On any given day that makes it either the #2 or #3 leading source for U.S. oil imports after Canada and Saudi Arabia. Given that the U.S. currently imports close to 70% of its oil needs, the Mexican oil is critical.

But here’s the thing. Using straightforward ELM calculations, Jeffrey Brown is confident that Mexico will ship its last barrel of oil to the United States -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- about 6 years from now, in 2014

So we do need a plan ... I'm thinking we need to push our shale oil projects now ... and ANWR ... but this CO2 tax is completely wrong headed. We don't need to shut down exploration and development of these fuels that work. Coal could be important, and about a thousand nuclear plants could be sarted right now.

If countries start to starve from lack of oil or food, things may get real interesting real fast. This AGW talk will go right out the window if another leg down happens in dollar stability, or recession, or any number of fronts. At least I can fuel my wood burner from the woods, and grow some food.

Yeah ... clean is good ... but I don't see that we need to be 10 times cleaner than everyone else. And we need more CO2 so we can grow more crops. :)

[Jim]

Part of the problem with such long term planning, is not knowing how much a barrel of oil will bring in five years, when maybe shale oil could be coming more on line. (I'm just guessing on years and numbers) But my understanding is that shale oil is feasible now, and technology will improve, but if oil drops back under sixty, three years of investment might be "wasted". And technology will improve on extraction and processing of shale oil and coal and all ...

That is exactly the problem. Saudi crude still only costs $2 a barrel to produce. And there's still enough in the ground that they'd drop the price short-term to destroy any serious competition. I think the only possible way to invest in shale oil and the new fields in North Dakota is to tax oil imports if they drop below the long-term costs of developing our own resources. If it is profitable to produce oil from our resources at $80 per barrel and foreign oil fell below that price, we'd have to impose a duty on the difference. This would take incredible political courage, something we've kinda lacked in the last 50 years.

Saudi's are selling their crude for $120+ per barrel because they can. Their society is corrupt, supporting thousands and thousands of "princes" flying around in their private jets while breeding hate and violence towards the west. The quicker we can stop paying their extortion, the better.

As to Algore, he's made of the same cloth as Wierwille. Instead of standing up and thumping the Bible and shouting "It's the Word, People", Algore tells us it's carbon. Both are/were religious hucksters.

Damn, the coffee seems strong this morning...

[Caveman]

Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.

If this is the result of global warming, it can't be stopped.

[Jim]

Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.

If this is the result of global warming, it can't be stopped.

Wouldn't global warming be the result of it rather than vise versa?

In any case, are you suggesting we should sit on our hands and nod "God's will be done"? Sorry, not me.

[jen-o]

well....

we can't stop "global warming" anyway...

unless you kill off a bunch of people, um, reduce the population (if you believe man is the cause of "global warming")

but if you believe that global warming is the result of solar activity...

there ain't a dang thing you can do about that!

and if you think that global warming is merely a description of the earth's temperature as it comes out of the little ice age...

well, ya can't do nothing about that either...

as far as rev. 16:8 goes, that is one of the bowl judgements...

IF rev. 16:8 has anything to do with global warming (and i'm not saying it does)...

but if it did, the judgement would be the cause of gw, not the result of it...

oops... heehee... i guess that's what you already said, jim... just in 'nother words, i.e. gw would be the result of rev. 16:8... :)

which i guess if ya think about it... means that rev. 16:8 can't be global warming (as we know it) because we are not in the midst of the bowl judgements right now...

peace,

jen-o