07-08-2009, 03:46 AM
Your second link starts with the phrase "We face a problem of anthropogenic climate change" and it deals with concerns regarding high CO2 emissions. This means you now think that human contribution to the global levels of CO2 is *not* minute in comparison to the entire global carbon cycle?
I can agree with some things in that piece. Instead of a 'silver bullet' approach, they suggest a 'silver buckshot'. In other words, try to deal with all problems at once, at all possible levels. Their explanation for the stated failure of Kyoto is a bit shaky, though. They basically say that measures that worked for the Ozone layer, or to restrict sulphur emissions, couldn't work for CO2 because climate change is a "wicked" problem. I think they are confusing complex economic cost-analysis calculations with the actual problem, there. They also refer to Zen architecture twice, for some reason. I read the book about motorcycle maintenance once, but fail to see the connection.
The sequel suddenly states that all effort should go into improving the efficiency of energy production and reducing economic costs. No more buckshots there, and back is the bullet, this time nicely polished. I wonder how that efficiency improvement will help, if it means that we will start wasting energy even more (Jevons Paradox). A mentality change is needed far more as any technological advancement, imo.
They also seem to think that governments should more freely use taxpayers money to cover the expenses, instead of burdening industries with it. I would have thought that to be socialist thinking, and not societal.
"Accordingly, a switch to public intervention in this area, where governments are well capable of directing public finance to stimulate research, development and deployment of innovations that work to reduce the costs of alternatives to fossil fuels, is prescribed."
I can agree with some things in that piece. Instead of a 'silver bullet' approach, they suggest a 'silver buckshot'. In other words, try to deal with all problems at once, at all possible levels. Their explanation for the stated failure of Kyoto is a bit shaky, though. They basically say that measures that worked for the Ozone layer, or to restrict sulphur emissions, couldn't work for CO2 because climate change is a "wicked" problem. I think they are confusing complex economic cost-analysis calculations with the actual problem, there. They also refer to Zen architecture twice, for some reason. I read the book about motorcycle maintenance once, but fail to see the connection.
The sequel suddenly states that all effort should go into improving the efficiency of energy production and reducing economic costs. No more buckshots there, and back is the bullet, this time nicely polished. I wonder how that efficiency improvement will help, if it means that we will start wasting energy even more (Jevons Paradox). A mentality change is needed far more as any technological advancement, imo.
They also seem to think that governments should more freely use taxpayers money to cover the expenses, instead of burdening industries with it. I would have thought that to be socialist thinking, and not societal.
"Accordingly, a switch to public intervention in this area, where governments are well capable of directing public finance to stimulate research, development and deployment of innovations that work to reduce the costs of alternatives to fossil fuels, is prescribed."