Quote:Arrgh sound bytes. Nobody has ever proposed outlawing light bulbs, in the sense that you'd have to live in the dark. Regulating the *type* of light bulbs for energy efficiency is a rather different activity. I don't even know what you're talking about with TV sets.

Quote:As for determining your "proper" carbon footprint, and refusing to "strip peoples freedom and property", what on earth do you say to the electricity producer who tells you he likes his coal power, because it's cheap and plentiful?

Quote:To the Hummer owner who tells you he really enjoys his 100 yard drive to the mailbox?

Quote:To the tar sands oil producer who burns off their sour gas without a care in the world? If you don't *somehow* restrict their activities, their freedom, their property, they'll do what they do naturally - what they're doing right now - and continue polluting.

Quote:I'm all for stopping pollution in the least invasive, most libertarian way possible. But there's no free lunch. You can't get people do do what you want without either a carrot, or a stick, and the carrots aren't free either.

Quote:If we pollute absolutely zero CO2 from this point onwards? We do nothing. We sit back and let the atmospheric CO2 levels drop back down to their natural levels. This isn't a catastrophe at current levels.

Quote:We don't know what caused the "little ice age". The Maunder Minimum seems like a good guess, but the decline seems to precede it, which makes the causality suspect. We don't know if we'd still be experiencing it, were it not for AGW, or what the "normal" temperature would be. Maybe it would be about this warm, maybe not (I would say probably not - our sensitivity estimates would have to be way off.) It's probably a safe bet that the earth wasn't going to continue on a cooling trend forever, but beyond that, it's just a guess, except for what can be modelled (which is a sophisticated guess.)

Quote:It is, so long as you include the "or corroborate" part - which seems to be the part that gets left out, which AGW scientists find infuriating. Even the best work that has come out of the skeptical community has had a strong flavour of "gotcha" about it.

Quote:While purely critical analysis has an important place, much of what is published by denialists, even the stuff that seems to hold water like the McIntyre pieces, seems to confirm the angry accusations of the AGWers when they were circling the wagons: that their critics are not interested in contributing to climate science, but merely with tearing down a theory they find politically inconvenient. Now, a wrong theory *should* be torn down, and in that, I'm in at least philosophical agreement with the critics. I think the AGW scientists failed to appreciate what McIntyre was doing (to say the least), but I don't think they were wrong to suspect that most of their critics loudly demanding data and filing FOI claims were doing so in bad faith.

Quote:First, the earth is not cooler than the AGW models predicted it to be. The current temperature and warming trend are both well within the bounds of the predictions.

Quote:The process of plants returning CO2 to the ground is not that poorly understood. Given that the total forestation of the world is declining dramatically (both adding CO2 to the atmosphere and stopping re-absorption) I wouldn't put all your chips on that particular bet, unless you think vigorous grass growth is going to stop climate change. The planet would restore a CO2 balance eventually with no human intervention, but unless you have Dyson's Diamond Trees, that process takes millennia to produce results. That time frame falls under Keynes' "in the long run, we're all dead." Even if we let it work without interference, a thousand years of climate change is pretty much the definition of an unacceptable solution.

Quote:If there are other negative feedbacks, it would be fascinating to know them. Climate modellers would certainly be interested to hear major areas where their models are lacking. But until we actually have more than a vague hunch about the planet's adaptability, I'd rather not risk our future on it. I'd be thrilled if the planet can take the beating and in some sense, no doubt it can. But I'd rather it not flood the coastlines of the world before settling down.

Quote:This seems plausible to me. I recall last time this thread came up, there was some discussion of the solar cycle, and the reasonableness of measuring everything from 1998 (which, to me, is cherry picking the peak to show a non-robust "decline"). The argument in favour was that the solar cycle is 11 years (presumably, 1998 to 2009 would return us to the same point in the cycle.) But this cycle is very late - we're still essentially at a solar minimum, whereas 1998 was a maximum - which means that measurements taken from 1998 are as deceptive as possible, from the perspective of the solar cycle.

Quote:However, I don't think the link between sunspot activity and warming is well enough established to lean very heavily on that explanation for the current "lull" in warming (not static, but nearer the lower end of predicted warming for the moment.)

Quote:California just passed a law regulating the energy consumption of TV sets. But, here is the model of how some people force the future they want. They say, "Screw your freedom, you will do it our way.

Quote:They say, "Screw your freedom, you will do it our way."

Quote:You regulate smoke stack emissions, since AIR is a public concern.

Quote:Live and let live.

Quote:Again, I don't have as much of an issue regulating emissions since its the public's air we breathe. The liberal perception is warped into thinking SUV's are bad, but vans and trucks (same chassis, engine, etc) are acceptable since they are utilitarian.

Quote:Everything you mention is covered by CAFE standards, and the Clean Air Act. Again, this is covered by existing environmental legislation. I would plug the loopholes, but essentially, between the CAA, and CAFE, 99% of air pollution is covered.

Quote:The CAP and TAX strategy is very, very different. It will drive many producers out of business, and end up pushing the increased costs (non-trivial as well, like 40% or higher) to the consumers.

Quote:Then why all the rush? Let the EPA regulate CO2 emissions, and we can dial it down over the next 20 years.

Quote:Which predictions?James Hansen's 1988 predictions?

Quote:I subscribe to the Yin-Yang theory of environmentalism. Every negative thing done to the environment needs to be counter-balanced with an equal positive.

Quote:I don't think it is so much of missing them, as much as there are so many factors affecting temperature, that modeling the CO2 to temperature rates become a futile exercise in trying to force non-linear equations into a linear space.

Quote:I'm fine with accepting that CO2 has an affect on temperature, however I'm not convinced that it is the ONE factor I need to focus on to regulate Earth's temperature.

Quote:Yes, that's quite right. If people have the freedom to generate negative externalities without cost, then they will generate too many of them. That's just basic economics. The only way to reduce those externalities is to somehow redirect their activities. You either curtail their freedom directly, or indirectly.

Quote:Where'd the freedom argument go? Isn't this exactly what I'm saying? You have to *regulate* these things (ie: reduce freedom) if you want the problem solved.

Quote:I don't think that's "warped". If you use a large vehicle because you have large loads to haul, and there is no more efficient way to haul those loads, then you're using energy efficiently. If you use a large vehicle because you really want to, for trips that could be performed in a vehicle of twice the fuel efficiency, then that's wasteful. Now, there is a calculus here about how often a vehicle is used and for what purpose, but the vast majority of Suburban SUV drivers could get by easily on a car half its size, and rent for the rare occasion when a gigantic vehicle is needed.

Quote:"Covered" in what sense? Obviously, these acts are not being used to meaningfully reduce CO2 pollution, because CO2 pollution is not going down. So, what exactly are these acts doing, relative to this crucial measure of pollution?

Quote:If regulation doesn't stop people from doing the things you don't want them to, then it's not doing anything at all. That's the whole idea of regulation. Without raising the price on emitting carbon, people are not going to emit less carbon - unless you simply ban polluting activities outright, which is needlessly draconian.

Quote:In the end, if what we're trying to change is the *consumption* of emissions-producing fuel, then the only way to really do that is raise the cost to *consumers*, because they're the ones making the decisions to consume. How else, except for an outright ban, can you reduce emissions?

Quote:Obviously not, considering Hansen's landmark 1988 predictions are now way out of date. They don't look too shabby, considering the state of the science at the time, but they have since been superseded by much better studies. Any of the IPCC reports would give a much stronger picture of the current state of predictions. However, that link only gives Hansen's "worst case" scenario, without mentioning that he actually gave a range of predictions for different scenarios:

Quote:The observed temperatures are within the bounds of Hansen's original paper, although near the lower bound.

Quote:I absolutely don't subscribe to this. The environment is not karma. There is no God in the sky tallying up our rights and our wrongs, as if they balance out. Each type of pollution has distinct causes and effects, and the ecology of the earth responds in different ways. There may be some kinds of pollution that are unpleasant to live with, but not ultimately dangerous to our survival. CO2 is the opposite - it has almost no short-term negative effects, but in the long run, it could cause some very serious problems.

Quote:Of course it isn't. Methane is also important. Deforestation is a huge issue, as are other land use changes. But the largest forcing that's in our hands is CO2. We should work to fix all the pollution problems we can - Methane especially would be a good second target, and probably more cost efficient than carbon. Other factors may be relevant, or they may not be, but they're out of our control. We don't control the solar cycle, we don't control the vagarities of our orbit, etc, etc... So unless we get good science showing that these things completely overwhelm all signal from greenhouse gas emissions, I don't think it's wise to shrug this problem off.

Quote:I beg to differ. It's easy. You cut down a tree, then you plant a tree. If you make a mess, then you need to clean it up. Zero sum works for me, when I used to farm, and where I live now. (...) I just think we should do a better job "leaving no footprints" on the world. Back to my Yin-Yang model.

Quote:Great. So, next time you put CO2 into the atmosphere, just be sure to take it out again, and everything will be hunky dory. That would be a hell of a carbon tax - carbon neutral tomorrow!

Quote:Well, yes. I have participated in local University extension ecology programs since I was about 10 years old. Most are carbon offsetting, or pollution clean up efforts. Every arbor day, for example, I go out and plant around 1000 trees in places they are needed. What's the carbon offset of around 40,000 trees?

Quote:However, the big question is not how you personally can be carbon neutral, laudable as that may be. The question is how to make whole countries, and the whole world, carbon neutral.

Quote:The question, then, isn't whether laws forcing environmentally correct behavior should exist, but rather what forms those laws should take. Should those laws ban or mandate specific items and actions, or should those laws simply give incentives (positive or negative) for behavior? How much is necessary? When does it cross the line into intrusive?

Quote:I don't think there are clear cut answers to those questions. The law of unintended consequences is always there, ready to bite the best intentions in the ass. The effectiveness of an action or a policy often cannot be determined until long after, when all the consequences are known.

Quote:However, the big question is not how you personally can be carbon neutral, laudable as that may be. The question is how to make whole countries, and the whole world, carbon neutral. For that, we´d have to plant a hell of a lot of forest. If I recall the guesstimates for a Freeman Dyson solution, we´d have to plant something like the area of Ontario just to get us back to square one - assuming we magically solve all the problems of sequestration.

Quote:Afterthought - what type of trees are you planting? Various analyses give different levels of CO2 absorbtion. I think about 1000 trees would break even for the average American, presuming those trees are there permanently (either they don´t die, or always replace themselves 1 to 1.) After-afterthought: 1000 trees a year, every Arbor Day? That's your share alone? You are one seriously efficient tree planter. That's like one tree every 30 seconds for a full working day.

Quote:I can't solve everyone's problems, but I can actively engage to do my part. I choose to be "earth friendly", but I can't make anyone else do it.

Quote:Usually, pines, and using a spade wedge technique. Yes, it's hard work. We plant them for farmers along roadways to provide wind breaks, two rows, 10 feet apart over about a mile per person. Nothing lasts forever though, so at some point somebody will probably cut them down again. Often jerks who steal a Christmas tree. Now that you mention it, its not one day, but the whole weekend. But, other times we also pick up trash, install water aeration systems, harvest millfoil (to compost), and a bunch of other projects.

Quote:What you can do personally is great. But, contra the hippies, the earth is not going to be saved one person at a time. You could have a million, ten million, a hundred million, even a billion people doing their best to save the environment, and yet still have their efforts more than washed out by pollution elsewhere in the system.

Quote:A solution has to be systemic, or close enough that it doesn't make a difference. If there's someone cutting down forests in equivalence to the ones being planted, then there's no gain. And there's almost always a short-term economic incentive to cut down a forest, be it in British Columbia or Brazil. Until that damage incorporates the costs, people are going to keep doing it. They're doing it now, despite the hippies asking nicely (and not-so-nicely) for decades. You'd need about a thousand Arbor Days a year to match a farmer torching rain forest for grazing land.

Quote:The moment the trees are cut down, or burned, or die, and the land returns to an unforested state, the carbon sequestered there is on its way back into the atmosphere. Only permanent forests sequester carbon. I don't know how rows of windbreaks vs. forested area works in terms of sequestration - I'd suspect it would be lower, since you don't have a large layer of decay sinking down into the soil. But I'm no forest ecologist. I'm sure planting is better than not planting, but I'm really not seeing this as a solution to an entire industrial economy running on fossil fuels for everything from heating to transportation to production

Quote:I have a couple of thoughts here. Leading is best done from the front of the pack, and I want to instill the same values of citizenship into my children. I have tended to question the status quo, but I sense that most (95%) of people do not.

Quote:So teach the children better citizenship, and raise our expectations of what each of us must do to "Save the Planet" and create a sustainable future.

Quote:It would seem the intelligent action would be one where this sustainable future is planned, rather than driven by the profit motive or more primal urges.

Quote:It's hard to influence your children, let alone your neighbor, but the citizens of other nations would be even harder still.

Quote:But, then again, how many people really understand their actual "ecological debt"?

Quote:And there you have it. Perhaps five percent of the people might do the right thing simply because it is right. The remainder will not unless coerced. Five percent do make a difference, but not enough of a difference. So, coercion is necessary. The question is then simply one of what form the coercion should take.

Quote:That's a wonderful idea. It may help greatly to the acceptance (and observation) of laws mandating ecologically responsible behavior. But it will not substitute for those laws as long as self interest exists. But as we've seen from the fisheries, from the timberlands, from the mines, and more recently from the tropical forests, when the choice is between immediate profit and future well being, the immediate wins every time. Your solutions might work if we were speaking of an intelligent species. We're not. We're speaking of humanity, which, at best, has a few intelligent individuals in a population of six billion.

Quote:Especially when the absence of ecological and safety regulations are a large part of their competitive advantage. It is going to take more than "Pretty please, it's the right thing to do" to convince them to give that advantage up. Once again, your words argue for the need for enforced laws.

Quote:I think we've slipped to this level, and in fact been driven down to this level. At every turn in our society, ignorance and ignorant choice is rewarded.

Quote:I agree there need to be a framework of natural protections ( an environmental Bill of Rights per se.) that codify what each of us should instinctively know as a mammal (e.g. don't crap where you eat, smoking is a personal choice so do it when you're alone or only in the company of other smokers, etc).

Quote:I don't wish for anarchy, especially with the environment. However, I believe within the implicit "Natural Laws" theory we might deduce and codify those that would protect the environment rather than exploit it. So, I envision something reasonable somewhere between anarchy and totalitarianism.

Quote:For example, there are times when I have to agree with PETA that clubbing baby seals to death for their fur seems cruel and exploitative.

Quote:And, then others where reasonable methods of managed forestry would actually enhance forests and their ecosystems.

Quote:I'm a city boy and shouldn't be telling you, a farm boy, that many herbivores do indeed crap where they eat. And, since man is the only mammal to have tamed fire, we can't really look to the others for an example of how to use it. But I do agree, in general, with the concept of an environmental bill of rights.

Quote:So is the eating of baby seals by polar bears. That's one of the problems I have with many so-called environmentalists. Baby seals are cute, so they need protection. Sharks aren't, so they don't. The only thing that matters is the impact on seal populations. We've greatly reduced the shark population, so the seals are overpopulated. A reasonable culling is actually good for them, so I guess we could just shoot them and leave them to rot (like we did with the buffalo) or we could give them to the polar bears. Or we could make coats out of them.

Quote:And, again, depends on what you are trying to do. If you want a 'natural' ecosystem and if you consider human intervention 'unnatural', then by definition any 'management' will cause failure. If you want a relatively stable environment which will yield a certain amount of timber per year and maintain a diversity of species at some balanced number, then yes, some management is possible. But it can be a dangerous cycle. As an example, the hunting of the timber wolf led to an explosion in deer population which in turn led to the destruction of a large amount of the new growth. It is not that 'nature' knows best. It is more akin to the advantage of free market -- many small transactions within a complex feedback system which gives rise to a dynamically stable situation which is not perfect for any one individual, but is overall 'best' for the conglomerate.

Quote:Mostly, we should strive for equilibrium where we can be good stewards of what is temporarily under our care.

Quote:Individually, and in total rejection of any plan that involves taxation or regulation beyond what already exists?

Quote:Or is there actually some plan for doing this on a collective basis that you could get behind?