There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her only prophet...

[kandrathe]

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.

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."

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?

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

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

Live and let live. I think it's a waste of money, but then most luxuries seem to be a waste of money to me. 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. The SUV is really taking a pickup truck, and getting rid of the bed.

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.

Everything you mention is covered by CAFE standards, and the Clean Air Act.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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

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.)

The issues I see with the models are that there are only semi-predictable patterns to those factors external to earth's atmosphere (sun, moon, other stars). While we have some good theories about them, we don't have those patterns nailed down either. Then you get to the very complex carbon cycle on the earth, where if you miss one little thing (like forgetting that different soils can absorb CO2 at different rates), then you miss out on a significant portion of the model.

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.

Which is part and parcel to publishing an article, would be that other people get to repeat the work and corroborate or debunk your finding.

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.

I agree that many skeptics of AGW have a vested interest in the outcome, however, weak science needs to be crushed lest we waste time and money following a wrong rabbit trail.

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.

Which predictions? James Hansen's 1988 predictions?

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.

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. This is not happening, so the systems get out of balance.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Well, you have a lot of factors to try to explain like solar output, earth wobbles, lunar drift, nearby stars, atmospheric composition, super volcanoes, asteroid impacts, albedo, sequestration, etc.

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.)

It seems reasonable to focus on three factors; the sun, the earth, and the atmosphere. The first two produce heat, the third traps heat. If the producers are variable then that needs to be factored into your measurements. The debate is about the insulation, which is about the most complicated thing to measure on the planet.

[eppie]

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.

From that article '''''Starting in 13 months, new TV sets will have to meet energy-efficiency standards that slash the amount of electricity they consume. The regulations also will lower owners' monthly electric bills.'''''


HOW COULD THEY....THE HORROR!!!!!!


I just decided to visit the lounge to see what was going on (I was reading something about the Red Khmer reign of terror) and I was shocked when reading this.
I am not ashamed to say that I even shed a few tears. How will all those people continue to live their lives?

[Jester]

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

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.

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

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.

Live and let live.

Except for smokestacks?

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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.

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?

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

The rush would be because, at the current rate of regulatory effectiveness, the CO2 problem will be solved approximately never. If existing legislation is supposedly adequate to deal with this problem, then why are CO2 emissions still increasing? The current *level* is not sustainable, let alone the *rate of growth*. Once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, it isn't coming out for hundreds or even a thousand years. The more we throw up now, the harder it will be to stabilize at any given level in the future - and the more money we sink into non-green industry and infrastructure now, the harder it will be to fix in the future.

Which predictions?James Hansen's 1988 predictions?

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

It doesn't seem futile to me. But we shall see as time marches on.

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.

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.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

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.

Or, you they fight you. War is a human response to people attempting to control externalities. Please don't make the error of wishing it away. You are a good enough student of economics and history to know that resource battles/struggles/disputes inform the motives for war as often as anything else does.

War may be a tonic to the climate problem, for all the wrong reasons. Kill off enough people, and the climate change engine may be curtailed, or reduced. That will show the microbes who's in charge!:P

Occhi

[kandrathe]

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.

There is a difference between saying, "Don't damage the environment." and "Don't use coal." or "I'm going to put a 300% tax on your use of coal." Take the freedom of driving for example. There is a difference between saying, "You must be >17 and pass a test." and "You can only drive on Saturday." and "I'm going to bill you 2$ per mile driven." I hope you understand the nuance between regulating for the public good, curtailing freedom arbitrarily, and justifying a new way to separate people from their money.

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.

Here is where our nanny saviors, will come to save us from our own stupidity. You don't need a 4 wheel drive vehicle for a few dozen snowy days. You only haul stuff on weekends, so you shouldn't have an SUV to do both car/truck things. Wear seat belts. Child booster seats for anyone under 4' tall, or under 80 lbs. Helmets for motorcyclists. Mandatory air bags. We'd all just be safer in rubber rooms you know.

"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?

Covered in the sense that we already have the mechanism in place to reduce CO2 emissions.

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.

Far less draconian to drive the price of energy much higher, and thus transportation, and food, and manufactured goods. Not regressive at all... Nope.

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?

There is a middle ground between whining and totalitarianism. It's called leadership. People in the US aren't so mechanical that they would only do the best economic thing. They will follow leadership, when there are tangible realistic goals.

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:

Well, what good are predictions if they inaccurately project the wrong answer into the future. How do we know that the 2009 predictions for 2025 are any better?

Hansen gave three scenarios, with the worst case scenario being that we did nothing, and we've done nothing. But, the climate has actually been cooler than his best case scenario, where drastic cuts in CO2 emission were made between 1990 and 2000. In fact, the rate of CO2 has risen faster than Hansen thought it would due to the economic emergence of China, India, and other non-OECD nations. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html

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

I beg to differ.

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.

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.

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.

Consider that it took over 200 years, to solve an n-body gravity problem where n>3. Just resolved in 1991 by Qiu-Dong Wang. Trying to build an accurate model of the Earth's atmosphere is really, really, really hard. I look at it this way... A person can tolerate and eliminate a certain level of toxins, but if you reach a threshold then suddenly bad things happen. I think this is how the Earth behaves with CO2. Once you pass a threshold for sequestration, then you only have so much time while it builds in the atmosphere before something bad might happen. That something might be excessive plant growth, or it might be crazy weather.

I just think we should do a better job "leaving no footprints" on the world. Back to my Yin-Yang model.

[Jester]

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.

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!

-Jester

Edit: Realized most of my post could be let go without much loss.

[kandrathe]

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!

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?

I feel that I am that elf that helps clean up the planet.

[Jester]

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?

The amount of carbon offset by the planting of a tree depends entirely on the fate of the tree. If they live forever, or are buried in the earth with zero rotting after death, then you´ve probably offset enough for your whole lifetime, with lots to spare. If every one of them burns down or rots at some point, rereleasing the carbon stored therein, then you haven´t offset anything - unless it is replaced by another tree.

The problem with burning fossil fuels is that we´re releasing carbon stored deep in the earth, which only returns to the earth at a very slow pace, as sequestration sucks carbon out of the cycle. Vegetation, on the other hand, is part of the carbon cycle, not separate from it. Dead plants decay or burn, and return carbon to the atmosphere.

So, the question of yin and yang is not a matter of how many trees you plant, but rather, what % of the trees you plant end up as sequestered carbon.

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.

-Jester

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.

[--Pete]

Hi,

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.

Exactly. If everyone (or even a large fraction) were as informed and pro-active as kandrathe, then we wouldn't need to be forced. Another example of the "anarchy only works if everybody follows the rules" principle. Unfortunately, ignorance, apathy, selfishness, thoughtlessness, and greed are much more prevalent. The law cannot *make* man good, but it can force him to *act* right.

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?

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.

So, as interesting as this debate is, it is still based on the political outlook of each side. To quote Occhi's oft used line, "Where you sit determines what you see."

--Pete

[Jester]

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?

Well, in naive economist-speak, the answers are as follows. A ban is just a very strong incentive (taking the value of the punishment enforced) so that's just one side of a large spectrum. Laws that discourage only specific actions are likely to run afoul of substitutes - a ban on air travel will increase car travel, a ban on coal power will increase oil power, and so forth. So, if you want to reduce carbon emissions, you want to attack that problem specifically, not any given cause. An outright ban on carbon dioxide emissions would be literally fatal, so an incentive would be better - a tax.

The value of that tax should be set by a market equilibrium. Determine the optimal safe output of greenhouse gases, divide those up into "pollution shares," and auction them off. (Regressivity issues can be solved with rebates or credits as appropriate.) Polluters will trade amongst themselves as they find it profitable to pollute more, and arbitrageurs will step in to rook them in case they try to collude. The externality will be capped by law, and people will be free to pollute as much as they please - provided they pay for it by buying credits.

To punish violators, government could keep a small stack of reserve credits. If anyone breaks their quota, they could fine them double the market value of the credits, and destroy that part of the reserve. The reserves could then be rolled over into the next year if not used.

New credits could be created through sequestration projects - the "positive" incentive. If the price of credits rose high enough, entrepreneurs would start growing forests (and making sure they don't burn down) to sell the resulting offsets on the market. People who go on Arbor Day tree plants could look forward to a shiny new carbon share - which they could then sell off, or even keep in reserve to prevent that carbon from being re-polluted - although if optimal values for emissions are chosen, that would be counter-productive.

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.

I have no idea whether the above solution works. Certainly it won't work perfectly without the buy-in of most of the world's governments, or at least the big players - Europe, USA, Japan, China, India, Russia. But it would, at least in theory (dangerous words) distribute pollution in a socially optimal way, while limiting its total value.

Alternatively, a pigovian tax on anything that pollutes greenhouse gases is a simpler solution, but one that has a harder time addressing issues like deforestation.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

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.

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. I blame my mother who drilled citizenship into me, the notion that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, and that accountability to those goals should be local(as opposed to State or Federal Laws). Her dad (my grandad) was a small town sheriff for many years.

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.

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.

[Jester]

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.

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.

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 rainforest for grazing land.

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.

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.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

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.

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.

Our government controlled and run education system has extended the adult political stalemate into the education of children where they are mostly taught to parrot the progressive mind set. Rather, children need to be taught that each of us is a cog in the larger wheel responsible for the outcome of the whole. Also, there are corporate and government environmental issues that also must be dealt with, which "exposure", both good and bad, seems to help handle. Our expectations of products and services should be that they are produced and distributed according to our shared values. However, people are also very trusting of propaganda, both from corporations, and the State. State and Federal governments are actually the largest polluters, but are not held to account for their negative actions against their own citizenry. 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.

Another step is to address levels of unsustainable consumption at the corporate and State level. It matters little what the commodity is in question, but when the wall is hit (demand exceeds supply) then shortage and crisis will follow. You can choose one (e.g. Oil, Iron, Copper, Food, Molybdenum, Uranium) and follow through what happens with the known supply vs demand curve and when the "crisis" occurs. 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.

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.

It's hard to influence your children, let alone your neighbor, but the citizens of other nations would be even harder still. We somehow need to stop deforestation both here and elsewhere, in North America it has been done by Federal and State Forestry, allocating huge areas as National Parks, and by teaching farmers better agricultural practices.

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

No, not when they are cut. Only if they are burned or rot. Forests do not need to be permanent, but the wood should be sequestered in permanent structures. So, cutting down, and replanting forests to build permanent wooden structures in formerly unforested areas would sequester more than the permanent forest alone. What we do is a small thing compared to the amount of consumption, pollution, or release of CO2 even along the roadways we "reforest". But, then again, how many people really understand their actual "ecological debt"?

[--Pete]

Hi,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, it would. 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.

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

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.

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

Once again, your words argue for the need for enforced laws.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I saw today that the FOIA request scenario that happened at UEA CRU is playing out at NASA as well.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/d...limate-dispute/

The only major news show to cover this story (except for FOX of course) is Jon Stewart...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-dece...al-warming-data

I particularly enjoyed his bit on the value added data "truth plus, now with lemon", and the rising oceans caused by God's tears.

[kandrathe]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

[--Pete]

Hi,

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.

You make it sound as if this were something new. In the USA it goes back to the beginning -- consider the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the need for the Constitution.

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).

Funny, but the two examples really don't work. 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.

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.

I suspect we all agree on that, in principle. But, as we all know, the devil is in the details.

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.

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.

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

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.

There are no simple right answers. <_<

--Pete

[kandrathe]

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.

Actually, except when they are confined into too small a paddock, they tend to choose a place in their enclosure as the collective outhouse.

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.

Well, except that Northern Fur Seal populations are at a 10 year low, declining about 5% per year since 1998. Your point though, is not lost on me. Generally, human populations are too large now to allow equal access to environmental exploitation. Therefore, just like say Moose hunting in Minnesota, you apply for a permit to take an animal and you may or may not get that permission. When fishing, the numbers of different species of fish taken are regulated. Many lakes are off limits. Around here, any poaching infraction results in the loss of all your gear, including your vehicle and boat. Even camping is becoming managed by a lottery system.

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.

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

[Jester]

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

Individually, and in total rejection of any plan that involves taxation or regulation beyond what already exists? Or is there actually some plan for doing this on a collective basis that you could get behind?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

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

More taxation is only necessary if the answer to the problem is more government. Why should I keep trying to pee up that rope? What has it done for us?

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

Absolutely, there is no conflict between environmentalism and libertarianism. We need to start by getting the corruption out of environmental legislation and oversight, and eliminating sovereign immunity for governments contribution to environmental harm.

http://www.adti.net/environment/congressRe...ryan102800.html

Rather than see government as a solution (with their taxes), I see them as the main contributor to the problem. Consider how government colluded with Detroit to destroy many street car systems. Congress is rife with crafty legislation and amendments to promote coal, oil, and natural gas, while eliminating support for renewable sources (and nuclear). I've said before that our republic has descended more into oligarchy or fascist plutarchy than any other recognizable form of government. It certainly is no longer a representative democracy. I don't consider plutocrats watching public opinion polls as democratic, and it is corporations and special interests that actually provide(fund) the candidates for whom (about 55%) of us get to choose between.

But, to answer your question... Yes, there is a plan I would get behind. It would need to be grass roots, and it would need to spread from locality to locality. In order to do so, we'd need to remove the obstruction of the State and Federal government who protect their wealthy friends preventing us from holding those who damage the environment accountable.