another kick at the climate change cat ... 34

[rb1957]

i think the problems with burning fossil fuels are that we're returning carbon to the atmosphere at an unnatural rate, and that there was a very long interval between when the carbon was deposited from the atmosphere and when it's getting returned to it.

the second problem is meant to say that bio-fuels, which take from and return to the atmosphere over a short timescale, probably won't have the same effect on the global climate as compared to fossil fuels. Though, of course, once we start doing this on a global scale and derive meaningfull amounts of energy this way then there'll be unforeseen side effects.

i think it's reasonable to say that the global climate is changing; and that this would be happening even without mankind's contributions.

i think it's reasonable to say that atmospheric CO2 levels change with climate. i think the record shows that previously (say before the 20th century) that CO2 increased sometime after the global temperature increased.

i think it's reasonable to say that the amount of carbon we putting into the atmosphere has the potential to affect global climate. this is i think too wishy-washy "for the masses" so we're being told carbon is changing the climate ... maybe a simple message but one that has divided those wanting more explanation.

once you say that then i think it's reasonable to ask is this a bad thing, ie do we want to change ? We have to acknowledge that energy is the means to developing our economies. adding hydro, geo-thermal, wind and solar power aren't bad things ... there's a cost and a benefit associated. clearly there are some places that can really benefit for these (because of sustained sunlight or wind or water resources or etc). becoming more efficient in our energy consumption is clearly a good thing, though i suspect that won't gain us significant relief. i worry that developing economies are progressing along the same energy path that the developed countries have used, and that maybe there are "better" choices today.

we can't (won't) stop burning fossil fuels, we need the cheap energy. we can be a little smarter and make power stations more efficient but essentially we're dependent on fossil fuels. we're reluctant to persue the nuclear option, though i wish more research money was being directed at fusion power which i see as the only truly long term option.

it is IMHO nonsense to talk about reducing CO2 production to 1990 (or 2000 or whatever) levels principally because developing economies (China in particular, and probably India as well) are going to be burning more and more fossil fuels. carbon sequestration is also IMHO a nonsense technology unless you're talking about growing trees (and biomass). it is also IMHO nonsense to talk about sustainability ... truly sustainable energy would mean using energy resources at the same rate as they're being created (ie no fossil fuels or nukes) or available (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal). but then maybe that's one answer to the question, and we'll make truly huge investments in these "green" energies so that we'll increase the fraction of energy we derive from these sources, maybe enough to significantly reduce the carbon output.

if we're going to pay taxes on carbon (through whichever scheme you choose) ... where's the money going ? what's it doing to fix the "problem" ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[moltenmetal]

The imperfect regulation and taxation of a democracy are preferable to no regulation and no taxation, and are greatly preferable to the arbitrary regulation and taxation of an autocracy.

No regulation creates and propagates economic and environmental injustice and eliminates any possibility of a functioning market. No taxation means no government and hence neither regulation nor any rule of law.

A market where there are inputs or outputs to a transaction which have associated costs to individuals or to broader society (i.e. the environment) which are in economic terms "free of charge" to either the buyer or seller, is not really a free market. You need government regulation and/or taxation to deal with those circumstances. Otherwise, you can't complain about the results, whether those be monopoly, collusion, oligarchy, damage due to pollution or any number of other things that this can cause.

 

[zdas04]

moltenmetal,
I've often conceded that point, but the article that debodine linked above changed my life. Not quite, but it did de-fuzz many of the concepts I've held for years. When laws facilitate (or even force) the formation of monopolies, then the laws written to prevent monopolies are likely to be watered down tripe that publicly bust up AT&T while allowing Wells Fargo to get bigger than AT&T ever was. I have a near-reverent love of the US Constitution. My wife and I read it to our sons before they started school. If we adhered to the Constitution and forced the Federal Government to stay within its bounds, the money involved in this stuff would not be big enough to the attract top-tier thieves that have populated Congress since the early 1800's. There is no way to unravel the harm that these people have done in a generation, but if we don't start returning to the Constitution in our generation the country cannot survive the next generation.

A market where neither side has an advantage provided by bought-and-paid-for legislation ends up being fair in the long run. A government organized to prevent plunder (in Bastiat's terminology) facilitates fair markets (I would say that price fixing is "plunder).

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[TGS4]

moltenmetal - so, in this debate about CAGW, what, where, and when is the damage (that wouldn't have otherwise occurred - i.e. the null hypothesis)? I'm all for preventing damage/harm. I just don't see the damage/harm from CO2 emissions. I definitely appreciate the harm from SOx and NOx, heavy metals, etc. Just not CO2.

 

[rb1957]

if you accept the damage due to SOx and NOx presumably due to an appreciation of smog and acid rain, then imagine yourself back in the 50s ... would you be as knowledgable and therefore concerned ?

i wonder if this is how the global warming crisis got started ... i think some scientists thought "if we keep burning ffs, then CO2 will increase, and that will (or may) cause GW in the future". i think politicans got involved and thought "the message needs to be more direct and more imminent if we're to get the proles to do anything" and the message changed to "CO2 for ffs is causing the climate change we're seeing today".

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

If you can't assert the cost or value of what you are regulating, then exactly how do you determine the cost or value of the regulation? In other words, tell me the damage that will be caused for each ton of CO2 that is being released, and then we can asses if the taxes that will be imposed are in the correct range.

There inlies the problem, no one has determined the value of the CO2, because there is no problem. If it has no value there is no problem.

I mean honestly, we can calculate the tax drag of having so many people looking at this, but where are the real results other than graphs and charts. Put a dollar value on it that reflects something real.

 

[berkshire]

I just could not resist throwing this little cannonball into the global warming debate.
I will now just stand back and watch.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

 

[GregLocock]

Presumably these guys are the ones who predicted this year's rather enjoyable summer in the UK. It's a pity their predictions didn't make it into the news before it happened.


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[SomptingGuy]

Daily Express.
I guess this means there's no Royal news to print today.

- Steve

 

[hokie66]

The predicters of climate and weather need something to keep them occupied. Some of the AGW proponents were predicters of global cooling some 40 years ago. I prefer the Farmer's Almanac.

 

[TomDOT]

hokie - that's why the mantra is now "climate change" instead of "global warming." The climate has always changed and will always change (at least until the Sun blows up into a red giant...) It's a lot easier for the proponents of AGW to defend that "the climate is changing!"

 

[ornerynorsk]

"We think it is actually quietening more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years."

Based on well documented observations, of course.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[beej67]

I think people are mixing terms.

Free Markets are markets where nobody is interfering with anyone making a transaction, and all transactions are made by rational actors with complete information. Free Markets have the unique feature of being completely self controlling related to COST. The only thing a Free Market does is reduce market price of goods to the margin, making it so the least profit is made, and the consumer saves the most money. Free Markets don't protect the environment at all, unless you are able to somehow directly tie all the impacts someone makes to the environment in producing that product back to the product itself, with a direct dollar value equivalent, and you have some mechanism whereby that dollar equivalent is utilized with 100% efficiency to clean up the impact that product created.

Capitalism is sometimes lumped in with Free Markets in common speech, but really Capitalism is a different thing. It has to do with loaning money and expecting a return on that money. It is the engine that drives our modern western economy, but it really has nothing at all to do with marketplace controls, and even less to do with the environment. The thing most people don't realize about Capitalism, is it's all predicated on growth. The moment the world economy stops growing, the whole thing collapses on itself, because there's no return on loaning money. It's the best way to do what we do today, but there may come a time when it completely unravels.

Ron Paul advocates a kind of free market environmentalism, that while I like conceptually, I don't think would work. He seems to think we could handle the whole deal through litigation instead of regulation - just sue the polluters for the dollar value of their impact to the environment, and then use those dollars to clean up the impact. This position has obvious flaws when the polluter has less resources than the impact, or when the polluter uses their better lawyers to weasel out of the suit.

To address the overall point of the thread .. no, I don't think you can manage pollution in general in the sort of sense that most of you are trying to do, without one centralized world government. And the very thought of one centralized world government terrifies me, and should terrify all of you. Big socialist secular governments have a tendency to mass murder their people, historically speaking.

I also present the following link, with no further commentary, other than to say that Poisoning The Well is a highly inappropriate response to Cato, who are widely regarded as rational, nonpartisan, independent thinkers:

http://www.cato.org/blog/or-without...buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

That is why we are having this discussion. No form of taxes is fair to everyone. And the litigation method is just another form of lumpy taxes.

Regulation is what we are willing to accept (as a socity, not each and every one of us maybe), to try to make the playing field fairer.

 

[SnTMan]

The best way to protect the environment, world wide, it that we all get rich. Concern for the envornment is a luxury enjoyed by affluent people.

Regards,

Mike

 

[ewh]

Concern for the envornment is a luxury enjoyed by affluent people

Hogwash

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[zdas04]

Defining "harm" is the slipperiest slope of all. Where I live there is a lot of federal land "managed" by the BLM. The motto of the BLM is "Land of many uses". One of the uses is hiking. Another is riding horses. Another is riding mountain bikes. Another is motorcycles. Another is 4WD rock crawling. Each of these groups feels "harmed" by all of the others (e.g., the mountain bikers complain that the hikers won't get out of their way and that the motorbikers make too much noise). Environmentalist have sued the BLM on many occasions for the damage that horses, bicycles, motorbikes, and 4WD vehicles do to the pristine ecology. The other groups have sued the BLM for closing too much territory to wheeled vehicles. So which is "harm" and which is "recreation"?

There is absolutely nothing that the EPA or BLM or DOE or MMS can do that will not cause harm to someone. Our current system of proscriptive and contradictory regulations is simply not working. I don't know what will work, but the system of 25 years ago worked much better than what we have today. In the past, the regulations set limits (i.e., you couldn't emit more than X tonnes of Y chemical without a penalty up to and including plant closure). Today the regulations require certain activities (e.g., the latest EPA clean air regulation requires dry shaft seals on centrifugal compressors instead of limiting the amount of gas that can be leaked through a shaft seal) that may occasionally (but not often) actually be the "Best Available Controls Technology", but what does it do to innovation? In most cases it stops it. If someone is precluded by law from installing better technology, then what incentive do companies have to develop better technology?

Regulations that cap category emissions combined with a free market would have a much better chance of some level of success than our current system. I'm not going to purchase a widget that exceeds the emissions limits, so people selling non-compliant stuff would tend to go under. Liquid effluents exceeding clear limits should cause pain to the polluter.

Basstiat defines "law" as "the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense". Collectively, we have the right to prevent someone from actions that make our air or water a threat to our health. We do not have the right to clean air or clean water, we have the right to prevent others from harming what we have. Laws that fit that definition would work. Today's laws and regulations do not fit that definition.




David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[rb1957]

litigation makes money for lawyers,
regulation makes money for politicans and lobbyists.

people vote with their money. if they like organic food, they'll pay the extra for it. if they like monster SUVs, they'll buy them and pay (and probably gripe too) the taxes associated. if people think CO2 is the worst thing since sliced bread, then they won't drive (or use public transport) and will get their power for "renewable" sources (ie not from the grid, powered by ff burning powerstations) and maybe buy "carbon bonds" to "help" reduce the carbon footprint of the rest of us.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[SnTMan]

Hogwash? Hardly. The world tells us otherwise.

Regards,

Mike

 

[SnTMan]

By concern, I don't mean just wishing it well, I mean doing something about it.

 

[TheTick]

Casting more bait into the climate change sea...

Arctic ice is shrinking. As a result, shipping lanes are opening. Russia is posturing for firmer control of the Arctic and its resources. China is planning for more trans-Arctic shipping to Europe.

Greenland's ice is shrinking, and nigh-autonomous Greenland has more access to its untapped mineral wealth.

Antarctic ice is shrinking. How long until countries start claiming pieces to exploit?

Call it what you will. The natural world is changing, and the political and economic world is not waiting to find out why.