'Educated' opinions on climate change 41

[csd72]

As engineers we are educated in physics and chemistry and should have a reasonable idea on what really effects the energy consumption that causes climate change. I am looking for peoples opinions on what suggestions have been good ideas to reduce your individual impact. Alternatively what suggestions have you heard that are utter nonsense.

It would be good to hear comments from engineers on this matter.

 

[zdas04]

The ending date of the last "little ice age" was a topic of serious academic debate for several decades. I think that the warming/cooling cycle of 2008 will become very clear around 2050 or so. By then I'll be proved right or wrong, but I'll personally be really dead.

I guess I'm so pasionate about this because I wrote a paper for an environmental conference in the '90s while I was working for a big Oil Company. There was no good reason to even mention climate change, but our CEO had an axe to grind and I was forced to link my inovation to fighting Global Warming under threat of having the paper pulled (and I really wanted to see Stavanger). I prostituted myself and made the link and have been looking for a reason not to be ashamed of that decision ever since. I haven't found it, and while the Stavanger trip was truly memorable, it wasn't worth the angst.

David

 

[ivymike]

bummer about the paper. I have one out there that I'm not thrilled with either, but it wasn't like I had much choice. It was only tangentially related to global warming, though.

 

[zdas04]

I did have a choice, but one that would have killed a trip to Norway and a later one to present the paper a second time at a big-deal company function in London. Just too much to ask of a boy from Newton County, Arkansas. I got great photos of those trips, but was left with an abiding skepticism about the topic.

David

 

[jmw]

I have a paper to give this May at a conference where the big topic will be, and has been for some time for the industry, pollution.

All I really want to do is present some practical hardware solutions but I can't simply do that, I necessarily have to address some of the environmental issues head on.

I have to do so in such a way that they know that I am not an expert on the environmental issues.
I will be asking some hard questions, offering up my own answers for discussion and suggesting that if the industry considers the questions to be important, that they may need to seek authoritative answers. (It is always easy to find some good questions, and anyone can do that, it is finding the answers is the tough part).

I will get to have my say, no one can say I am talking nonsense since I say it first, and I finally will get to talk about what I want to talk about.

One of the real problems with any environmental issue is that sensible debate on the issues has been all but eradicated due to the propaganda from all sides but usually most effectively and without scruples from the environmentalists, at least initially.

I guess the road to hell really is paved with good intentions. I can accept that some environmentalists are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause that they can justify to themselves some of their propaganda.
That doesn't mean I think they are justified or right, just that I can understand why they think they are while actually, I find it could be counter productive i.e. dangerously wrong headed.

In some cases where they attack a moderate solution, it creates such confusion that instead of following one path that will achieve some results, the ensuing debate means that nothing gets done.

The fact is that in their ideal world all solutions are workable, so go for the toughest.
In the real world the toughest solutions may be so totally unworkable that nothing is achieved at great expense whereas a more moderate solution would actually deliver some tangible benefits.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[zdas04]

JMW,
I think you said it as well as can be said

In some cases where they attack a moderate solution, it creates such confusion that instead of following one path that will achieve some results, the ensuing debate means that nothing gets done.

I've always hated the "anything that is not perfect is perfectly wrong" approach to the problems of the world. I see that attitude in the Global Warming uproar and instead of trying to mitigate the impacts of the perceived climate change directions, the conversations are all about who to blame and how to punish them.

Good luck with your paper.

David

 

[moltenmetal]

What I want is for economics to actually work with relation to preserving this resource. All this bizarre lifecycle cost arithmetic that goes on is so skewed by subsidy and the absence of a price on atmospheric dumping that even the best intentioned people have difficulty making correct decisions.

A carbon tax will fix that.

How will you know that a carbon tax is high enough? You'll know when wind power produces vastly cheaper electricity than that produced by burning coal. That wind power ISN'T cheaper than coal combustion should be a clear indication that our current energy market is totally FUBAR. And YES, I already know that we can't replace 100% of our electrical needs with wind power!

If you like conservation, a carbon tax will give you that. If you're worried about anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, it will address that too. If you like engineering jobs, it'll give you those too. The only place left for us to disagreem about is in relation to artificial CO2 sequestration: a process which will necessarily REDUCE energy efficiency and hasten the consumption of fossil fuels. As convinced as I am about the link between greenhouse gases and global warming, I'm still torn over this one. Once the basic economics are fixed by putting a tipping charge on atmospheric emissions, we can worry about what to do in relation to CO2 sequestration.

 

[MRWilliams]

csd72

Plants are carbon sinks when they are growing, carbon neutral when they are fully grown and carbon sources when they die. The carbon atoms don't go anywhere. Plus rotting vegiation produces methane (I think) which is 4x worse than CO2 (I think).

jmw

thats a good point, people who like to think of themselves as environmentalists usually justify themselves with unfounded arguements. I've chatted with many people who fancy themselves are part time eco warriors who really don't know what they are talking about. Sometimes the environmental consequences of a process go against "common sense". My favourite example is that wood burning power plants are "potentially" carbon neutral, all they know is that smoke is bad and make up their own assumptions.

 

[jmw]

The trouble with any taxation is that generally it is addictive and what governments like to d is collect them and spend them on other things entirely. John Prescott's favourite word was "hypothecation" and he was having none of it.
There are ways and means for governments to act if they really want to supress something or simply use it as an excuse to collect tax.

If tax revenues atart to come pouring in from "carbon taxes" then the last thing the government actually wants is the population to actually stop burning fuel as this would result in a downturn in tax revenues. The nicety of judgement required is to find the optimum taxation level that maximises tax without actually discouraging the act that is taxed.
e.g. beer, petrol, cigarettes VAT etc.

In history only a few taxes have ever been dropped, dog licenses, black and white TV licences, wireless licences, window tax and the poll tax. Actually, in most cases what actually happened is that the government found alternative ways to get the same or more money. The window tax wasn't too clever because people just bricked in a few windows. ergo the government found a new tax to levy before they started building houses without windows a all.

Taxation is a substitute for a real policy.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[csd72]

An interesting anti-skeptic article:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/

 

[KENAT]

csd, now you've gone and done it.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[moltenmetal]

jmw: I'd be delighted if the revenue from the carbon tax was at least in part used to offset some other taxes not related directly to consumption. But it would be most effective if the tax were dedicated to helping people kick their fossil fuels addiction. A fossil fuel tax high enough to be effective would certainly be able to offset a significant portion of the income taxes most of us pay, until we adjusted our consumption patterns.

I don't know about you, but I really dislike being personally taxed on my revenue while businesses are taxed on their PROFIT! I'd rather people were taxed on what they consume.

Yes, governments still need to function, so they'd shift the tax burden back again to other things after their revenues dropped.

Yeah, I know that politicians don't DO dedicated taxes. They lump everything into general revenue so they have "control" over how it's spent. Unfortunately it all has to compete with schools and hospitals, and hence the schools and hospitals win out over the public transit projects and the programs to retrofit the public housing with electric comfort heating and bad windows etc. But as I've said before, a tax would STILL be effective at deterring wasteful consumption even if governments just piled the tax money on the ground and BURNED it. People would make the necessary investments or lifestyle changes because there would be a payback, whereas now we're relying on peoples' sense of morality or collective responsibility to address the problem. The results are predictable.

So: if conservation is important to you, global warming or no, how would YOU motivate people to conserve, given that you don't like taxes as a means to do so?

 

[Zapster]

moltenmetal, how would you propose to implement a carbon tax while keeping businesses competitive with other nations that do not have a carbon tax. Would you give an exemption for business; hence another tax break for businesses or would you rather see the reduction in manufacturing jobs go to countries without the tax? Or the worst yet is to enable a world government to control our lives so everyone on the planet is subject to the whims and taxes of the United Nations. Can you imagine the resulting corruption by giving power and money, of this magnitude, to the United Nations?

What would such a tax do to the travel industry? Raise the cost of airfare? Limit the ability of the poorest segment of a country to travel. Force many folks that do not have access to mass transit into financial hardship.

I believe I see where this may be going. If you are rich and can afford the carbon tax, then it is OK if you pollute my air.

If you are a developing nation and are poor, then it is OK if you pollute my air and take away our manufacturing jobs.

 

[KENAT]

Or Zapsta you could have a carbon tariff on imports from countries that don't meet the necessary Carbon Emision standards.

However this also has problems, it will upset the NAFTA fans if nothing else.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[csd72]

I think Kenat hit the nail on the head, such a tax should apply to both domestically produced goods and to imports. This is the only fair way to do it.

 

[vc66]

So the one or two countries who decide to do that are COMPLETELY alienated (export-wise) from the rest of the countries who don't have a carbon tax.

Take the USA for example. If we imposed a high carbon tariff, do you think BMW would still sell M3s or M5s here? No, they'd pull the line from the USA, and put more into countries without the tariff, like say, China?

For it to be REALLY fair, ALL countries would have to impose it... good luck with that one. World Government, here we come.

I agree that that's the way to do it, but it's impossible, because we're human.

V

 

[KENAT]

VC66, I doubt BMW would pull out over something like that, luxury vehicles can probably add the cost to their price without significant change in sales.

The US market is massive and within reason people selling into it will put up with that kind of stuff.

Plus given the fuel taxes etc. in Europe I'd expect most (Western) European countries would meet the necessary carbon emission standards.

There are problems with the idea but I don't think yours are good examples.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[moltenmetal]

We tried to implement at least SOME kind of international compensation system in the form of Kyoto. Unfortunately, too few ratified it and some, like Canada, chose to ratify but NOT actually implement it since the US, amongst others, didn't sign on. Many developed nations also argued that the money they were forced to give to developing nations (to keep China from building another coal fired electric plant every week,,for instance) would be better spent reducing their own consumption. Of course, we developed nations on the whole spent (and did) precious little to reduce our own consumption.

If a country or a trading block like the EU was going to try to do this, they'd need to put a carbon tax on imports from countries without a carbon tax or they'd definitely gut their own industry AND service export sectors- in the short term, until the dividends of not having to export so much of their treasury every year to the countries who won the geological fossil fuels lottery really kicked in. They would REMAIN as a market, so people would STILL want to sell to them.

As to the notion that the rich would have a right to pollute, that's no different than it is NOW. Right now we all bear the consequences and costs of the conspicuous consumption of some, regardless how much capital and effort and personal sacrifice we invest personally to minimize our own consumption. As long as nobody pays a tipping fee for discharging sh*t into the atmosphere, your consumption patterns become my business. Pay the full and fair cost of your consumption, including a disincentive cost (ie. a carbon tax) to help others who care to reduce THEIR costs by reducing their consumption, and your HumV or your McMansion or your ten kids are no longer my business. Trust me, I really don't WANT to CARE how many kids you have, or what kind of vehicle or house you own. I just don't want to be saddled with any of the cost of your choices.

 

[Zapster]

As to the notion that the rich would have a right to pollute, that's no different than it is NOW.

Nice thought but that is not the way it works when you start to look at disposable income. Place a carbon tax on fuel in a society that does not overly tax their fuel, such that there are no other reductions in taxes, and you will quickly see that it is the poor that you are hurting. The rich can still afford as much fuel as desired because it is such a small percentage of their disposable income. With your plan, carbon footprint tax, you would be depriving the segment of the population with the least amount of money equal access to the world’s resources. I know, once you place the carbon footprint tax, then you can take the money you get and subsidize the poor so they can commute to work. I really do not care for more government control of the redistribution of my money.

And trying to place an import tax on countries that do not have a carbon footprint tax is a joke. How well did the oil-for-food program work? An import tax for countries without a carbon footprint tax will start a whole new shell game of illegal imports. These goods will not be traceable but instead will look like the country of origin is playing by the rules; those who play by the rules will lose.

 

[moltenmetal]

zapster: the people who will benefit most from well-served and cheap public transit are the poor. They can't AFFORD cars or the gas to fuel them even at current prices.

The poor people in the developed world are not poor because of transportation costs, or even heating and electricity. They're poor because most of their income goes to paying rent. That's due to the cost of property and of property taxes which have virtually nothing to do with the cost of fuel. These have far more to do with how much disposable income YOU have than they do with anything else.

The costs of improving the energy efficiency of public housing will be paid from taxes regardless. As we invest in these improvements, we'll reap the benefit of lower operating costs (which we also pay for via taxes). Personally I'd prefer that tax money to come from taxes on fuels than from income tax- at least that way, through proper behaviour and investment I can do something about what proportion of that cost I pay.

You can no more effectively deal with poverty by de-facto subsidizing fuel consumption than you can solve hunger by subsidizing food. You solve poverty by giving money to the poor and letting them figure out how they want to spend it. And you encourage people to work by ensuring that working gives you a better lifestyle than staying on welfare can provide. Different methods to solve these problems are tried by different societies, with varying degrees (and measures) of success. But as Jesus said, the poor will always be with us.

The poor also disproportionately bear the costs of adapting to climate change, and the impacts of non-greenhouse pollution as well. They live closest to the industrial areas and the freeways. They're the ones who get displaced from flooded lands etc. When your kid develops asthma, your healthcare plan covers drugs and doctor visits- their kids suffer and sometimes die.

"I really do not care for more government control of the redistribution of my money". OK, you don't like taxes: what other suggestions have you got? Or are you arguing for the continuation of the status quo?

Tarrifs will work better than NO TARRIFS are currently working. The US and Canada are bleeding jobs to China where the dirtiest practices make the most money and a new coal-fired electric plant is commissioned every week. Unless we get a handle on that, nothing we do at home will have anything other than symbolic value.

 

[zdas04]

This discussion has devolved into engineers talking about world economics and tax policy. I think the last dozen or so posts are really good examples of why engineers make lousy politicians and even worse economists--we want every problem to have a solution.

This one doesn't. There is no combination of policy, taxes, and tariffs that make the playing field flat. If there were a "solution", people and countries seeking greater advantage would pervert it very quickly. The oil-for-food example above is a perfect illustration--honorable people with the very best of intentions devised a plan that turned into the biggest rip off in history.

David