The Impact of "Small" Volcanic Eruptions on Earth's Climate 11

[Maui]

These "small" volcanic eruptions are being viewed by some scientists as potentially having a greater influence on earth's climate than was previously believed:

http://www.rdmag.com/news/2015/01/s...?et_cid=4359172&et_rid=407330416&location=top

Please do not allow the vitriolic verbal pyrotechnics of your fellow contributors overshadow the points that you are attempting to make in your replies.

Maui

 

[2dye4]

"" The temperature has probably risen but that isn't the same as energy""

Raise the temperature of a system and it will contain more energy afterwards. Why do you think otherwise.

""That the IPCC claims that a stable system as old as the earths oxygen and nitrogen atmosphere has a net positive feedback is a very difficult claim to stomach for anyone with a background is systems analysis""

Does your background in systems analysis tell you that a stable system cannot react with positive feedback when its conditions change ??

""Looking at 1-5 its pretty clear that you started at 6 and worked your way back. True sophist reasoning. This is to be expected from a socialist since socialists are almost always sophists.""

Suppose for a minute that evidence emerged that made the MMGW theory very solid, a near certain likelihood of damaging the life carrying capacity of the Earth, what do you propose as a way to curb fossil fuel consumption if this was the only way to mitigate the damage.

 

[cranky108]

rconnor, If carbon sinks are required to be created, then some of the rise is not just from the cutting of trees, but at about the same time the projected rise in tempetures started, there were a number of enviromential laws enacted to limit logging in this country. The cutting of trees, and producing products, which in time become land filled, while still allowing more trees to grow is a sink.

If I recall, it is the youngest trees than grow the fastest. So I might be able to conclude that wood products are actually good for the enviroment. Where in the life cycle of plastics, some are not land filled, but are burned.

Gee now I sound like the arberday foundation.

The issue with logging is the reduction of fertility of the soil, so new trees don't have as good of soil to grow in. What seems to be missing is the return of soil fertility.

 

[2dye4]

Cranky

There are trees that do well on poor soil improving it as they grow. Black Locust comes to mind as it is a nitrogen fixing tree.

I wonder how much impact we could make by planting as much open area as possible with fast growing trees and then
burying them when they mature. Sounds crazy doesn't it.

 

[GTTofAK]

"Suppose for a minute that evidence emerged that made the MMGW theory very solid, a near certain likelihood of damaging the life carrying capacity of the Earth, what do you propose as a way to curb fossil fuel consumption if this was the only way to mitigate the damage."

The answer has always been nuclear and hydro electric. Two things that make the environmentalists socialists go nuts because neither solution involves command and control of the economy and rationing of energy.

"Does your background in systems analysis tell you that a stable system cannot react with positive feedback when its conditions change ??"

I don't think you get what negative feedback is. We know that the direct forcing CO2 is about 1C with negative feedback the actual system response would be something like 0.5.

 

[cranky108]

Here's even dumber. Grow the trees, convert them into charcoal, and burn them in generating plants made for burning coal.
Growing trees, the new farming. Use wood ash, and human sludge to fertlize.

Good jobs to replace coal mining.

 

[rconnor]

rconnor, If carbon sinks are required to be created, then some of the rise is not just from the cutting of trees, but at about the same time the projected rise in tempetures started, there were a number of enviromential laws enacted to limit logging in this country. The cutting of trees, and producing products, which in time become land filled, while still allowing more trees to grow is a sink.

If I recall, it is the youngest trees than grow the fastest. So I might be able to conclude that wood products are actually good for the enviroment.

Cranky108, I’m not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that because the rise in global temperatures started around the time environmental regulations began limiting logging in the US that reductions in deforestation are responsible for the increase in global temperature? And are you using this idea to say that through the life cycle of wood products, we actually increase the carbon sink by cutting down trees?

The first statement, if it reflects what you were trying to say, is not true. While deforestation in the US may have decreased since 1970 (I’m not sure this is true but let’s assume, for arguments sake, it is), deforestation world-wide has increased. The increases are most notable in South America, Indonesia and parts of Africa (one example from south east Asia). America is actual a relatively small player. So, firstly, global deforestation since 1970 has increased which means “reductions in deforestation in the US are partly responsible for the increase in global temperature because it actually increased the carbon sink” appears untrue. Here’s a good paper on the subject. Secondly, even if global deforestation dropped, I still don’t think you could conclude that. I have no idea how cutting down trees would increase the carbon sink. Sure, cutting down trees and replacing with more than you cut down would – but that’s net reforestation.

Now, I’m not saying that the global increase in deforestation caused the increase in global temperature. Deforestation certainly contributed to reducing the carbon sink, thus increasing the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 but CO2 emissions are also responsible (and likely more so than deforestation – see the paper above which states fossil fuels contribute the most, deforestation is second).

I should note that deforestation has other impacts on climate change besides reducing the carbon sink. Slash-and-burn style deforestation directly leads to more CO2 emissions. Also, deforestation changes the albedo of the planet and the amount of water vapour released into the atmosphere. Some contribute to warming (carbon emissions, loss of carbon sink) while others contribute to cooling (albedo change). The net impact appears to be highly dependent on the region of forestation/deforestation. However, even if deforestation has a net cooling impact on the planet (which is uncertain), it is absolutely not justification for continuing with rapid deforestation – it would be absurd to conclude this. At the end of the day, deforestation is a major issue – whether you’re talking climate change, environmental/species protection or otherwise.

 

[cranky108]

Wood cutting in the US is different than the slash and burn in other countries, because in the US the wood is used to build things, which is a form of carbon capture. And in the US the forest is allowed to regrow.
I am saying that some of the reduction in wood cutting in the US correlates with the projected rise, and may be part of the cause. I agree that slash and burn likely is a larger part, but I don't have facts on that.

Also the reduction in cutting of trees in the US shifted tree cutting in other countries that may not have reforestation programs, or may have much larger soil erosion issues.

Many wood products in the US are used and landfilled, not burned in a heap like other countries, which is a form of carbon capture.

 

[IRstuff]

"Wood cutting in the US is different than the slash and burn in other countries, because in the US the wood is used to build things, which is a form of carbon capture." is not quite true; this is, at best, carbon neutral, since the wood was there to begin with, so making it into furniture doesn't sink any more carbon, and actually increases carbon through the energy consumed to make and ship the end product.

"And in the US the forest is allowed to regrow." This mostly applies to trees used for paper, and regardless of how fast the trees grow back, there's going to be at least a couple year gap before the new trees capture carbon to the same level as the original trees. Moreover, at least some of the trees used for other products are "clear cut" from "old-growth" trees which are not replaced, because the work required to remove old-growth trunks/roots to allow for new growth is very high. The Pacific Northwest is littered with clear-cut forests that look like the aftermath of Tunguska, except that all the tree trunks and crowns are gone. The cutting of old-growth was big hot-button issue a while ago, but I haven't heard anything recently.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529


Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
There is a homework forum hosted by engineering.com:

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

 

[rconnor]

Cranky108, I think that IRstuff nicely covered what I would have said in response to the conversation on deforestation.

I would like to return to something you said before, that I didn’t address.

My biggest issue is not so much if it exists or not, but that we are attempting to limit peoples freedom based on the assumption that it exists, and the seas will rise 6 feet, and we will have more storms, and death and destruction. I want to see that there really is science, and not just some made up issues. What is the solution other than punish those who do not believe, and tax the hell out of everyone.

”I want to see that there really is science, and not just some made up issues”
While it’s clear that you aren’t sold on the science, I greatly appreciate the sincere efforts to ask questions to understand the science. I’ve tried to present the science to you as best I can. I understand that you may not agree with all of it but it’s far from a “made up issue”. If you continue to have doubts about certain areas, we can try to answer them. Like rb1957, you've shown an interest to ask questions and an honesty in what aspects you have trouble agreeing with.

“My biggest issue is not so much if it exists or not, but that we are attempting to limit peoples freedom”
I previously illustrated 3 mitigation efforts that I support (“[1] incentivizing energy-efficient products/methods, [2a]increasing efficiency standards ([2b]and banning certain products/methods that don’t meet those standards) and [3]revenue-neutral taxation initiatives”). I’m not in agreement that these “[attempt] to limit peoples freedom”. However, I will discuss the three and attempt to do so from a libertarian perspective.

1) Incentivize energy-efficient products/methods
While incentives (of any nature) are perceived to impose an artificial disturbance of the free-market from a libertarian perspective, I don’t believe this limits peoples’ freedom. It may limit the markets freedom but this is hardly unheard of in our current society. New technologies always require a bit of push to get market adoption and incentives are an effect way to do this. In fact, fossil fuels receive massive tax breaks and incentives. So to have issues with one, you surely must have issues with both.

2) Increase Efficiency Standards
Again, increasing efficiency standards hardly limits peoples’ freedoms. However, it could be stated that by increasing standards, you ban products/methods below that standard which could be taken as a loss of freedom. But, again, this is hardly limited to climate change mitigation initiatives. Do you feel the requirement to drive a car with seat belts is a loss of your freedom to drive a car without seat belts? Possibly you do but I would think the pros (safety) outweigh the cons.

3) Revenue-Neutral taxation
This is undoubtedly the toughest one to agree with from a libertarian perspective. However, currently, the pricing of fossil fuels allows the market to privatize the profits while socializing the risk/damages. In other words, the pricing of fossil fuels does not include the externalities associate with air pollution and impacts on climate.

An analogy is libertarians issue with universal healthcare. Many libertarians feel that if I choose to live an unhealthy life, I should pay a proportionally larger amount for healthcare than someone that actively chooses to live a healthy lifestyle. So, equally, if I choose to live a carbon heavy lifestyle, I should pay a proportionally larger amount for the impacts on the public that lifestyle causes. It would seem in keeping with libertarian ideology that incorporating the true cost of my actions in my share of the costs would be agreeable.

Surprisingly, many libertarians, who fight against universal healthcare and social services, all of the sudden begin to develop a keen sense of the disenfranchised when it comes to carbon taxes. They claim that carbon taxes would unfairly hurt the poor more than the rich (where this same sentiment is in the healthcare/social safety net program debate, I’m unsure). There is an element of truth to this, despite the fact that the poor live a much less carbon heavy lifestyle, and therefore would not be impacted as much (hence why I say “element” of truth). But much of this concern is erased in revenue-neutral taxation programs where part of the revenue goes to support low-income people or provide tax breaks to people in the lower income brackets.

I’d also add that a key fear of carbon taxation structures from a libertarian perspective comes from the assumption that it is a “power play” from governments (or, inexplicably, the UN). Again, a revenue-neutral system eliminates much of this fear as the revenue gained from the tax is injected back into the populous, normally in the form of support for low-income people and income tax and corporate tax breaks. This greatly decreases the possibility for increased level of government control or power resulting from the tax.

General comments
Now, I don’t expect this will change your opinion cranky108 but it’s important to understand that much of what you read on blogs and papers that oppose climate change mitigation is overblown and exaggerated. I fail to see how climate change mitigation efforts are purely an attempt to rob you of your freedom or how governments/individuals/scientists(!?!?!?!?!) stand to (sinisterly) profit from it (note: I do see how individuals could profit off of cap-and-trade/carbon credit trading, which is one of the major reasons I don't advocate for it). I also fail to see how these changes will be crippling to our economy. While they may be costly, it’s about investment in infrastructure and new, better, more efficient technologies. This is hardly a waste of money, regardless of the extent of future climate change.

Climate change mitigation is about protecting people from the risks of possible future climate change. These risks are not 100% certain. However, as I stated before, climate change science and the resulting policy is a risk assessment exercise. While the risks might not be as high as we think, they also might be worse than we think. In fact, most probability distribution functions on the impacts of climate change have a much lower probability of being smaller than we think than they do being larger than we think (i.e. it’s not a perfect bell curve, it’s a positive skew). I don’t say this to promote the fact that it’s probably worse than we think. I say this to help skeptics understand that the argument “well, it might not be as bad as we think” is simply not how you approach a risk assessment (especially when dealing with a positive skew).

Another important point is that even if the actual outcomes are on the low-end (less damaging), the situation is still somewhat damaging. The range is between less bad to very bad. Not good to bad (see my thread on climate change sensitivity for more on this). However, by “very bad” I don’t mean fire and brimstone will rain down from the sky. I don’t mean that humanity will enter some post-apocalyptic state. I mean that climatic changes could put a significant stress on the carry capacity of the planet for 10 billion people. Of course this might not happen (again, the risk is not 100% certain) but that’s what might happen at the upper-end of the risk spectrum. This isn’t “alarmism” this is differentiating between false representations of “alarmism” and what the science says.

Lastly, it’s important to realize that there is “alarmism” on both sides. The pro-mitigation crowd can demonstrate alarmism by saying things such as “society as we know it will crumble if we don’t do something!” or “won’t somebody please think of the polar bears!”. The anti-mitigation crowd can demonstrate alarmism by saying things such as “climate change is a socialist plot to control you!” (which would explain why those socialist, tree-hugging hippies at the US Military agree that climate change may be a serious issue), “all these scientists are a bunch of liars and crooks out to steal our money!” or, a more sane version, “climate change mitigation will cripple our economy!”. None of these are substantive, supported statements; they are emotionally or ideologically driven, unsupported allegations. This should not be encouraged on either side of the discussion.

 

[cranky108]

rconnor, thank you, because so many people are so far one way or another. And I appreaciate to time you took to explain your position.
IRstuff, I think you missed something important. I missed this at first also. But carbon capture is never a forever capture. The issue is like the money supply, speed of the cycle. If you slow down the cycle, you decrease the amount the of carbon in the air. Trees will on there own grow, die, and decay. If you some how make the decay take longer, as in building things with the wood, you are slowing down the carbon cycle.

rconnor, I think the the proof, if any is so small it is difficult to see. And when I hear taxes offered as a solution, and with some of the government misapplications going on today, I do become concerned. I'm not a big government guy.

I do feel I should have the right to not wear seatbelts, but I do wear them. However, they don't appear to be effective enough because of the requirements in new cars of having more air bags.
As in the universal health care law, those of us with well paying jobs are also pay for part or all of the cost of the poor, and the freeloaders. It's the governments inability to throw off the freeloaders that really makes more subsidized requirements unlikeable. And I am also to blame for some of this, in that I refuse to pay extra for recycling. Recycling has become a tax to feel good, and not enough of a savings that it pays it's own way.

One of the problems with incentives, is they don't make since. They make big money for some companies, and don't justify the simple things like replacing windows. After all 40% of energy in a home is used for heat, and cooling, and the windows are the lowest insulated part of the home.

 

[GTTofAK]

So rconnor you do believe that if you tax something you get less of it and if you subsidize something you get more of it. That is evident from your post. But if you believe that why do you not believe that the subsidizing of pro AGW research, to the tune of about 8 billion dollars annually from the US alone, does not effect the science? If almost all of the money earmarked to study "climate" is directed to pro AGW research then we would expect a "consensus" given your own logic.

Choosing to simply not apply are principle in one sense and then apply it in another is a hallmark of sophism. Hell its the hallmark of sophism. You aren't building your argument from the ground up with objective Aristotelian logic. You are building your argument from the top down choosing when and how you will apply principles based on if they suit your argument or not.

 

[GTTofAK]

"2) Increase Efficiency Standards
Again, increasing efficiency standards hardly limits peoples’ freedoms. However, it could be stated that by increasing standards, you ban products/methods below that standard which could be taken as a loss of freedom. But, again, this is hardly limited to climate change mitigation initiatives. Do you feel the requirement to drive a car with seat belts is a loss of your freedom to drive a car without seat belts? Possibly you do but I would think the pros (safety) outweigh the cons."

Toilets that dont flush.

Light bulbs that hurt your eyes and give you head aches.

Dish washers that dont wash or dry.

Tin can cars that cant take an impact.

 

[cranky108]

GTTorAK, somehow you forgot about cars you can't work on by yourself. This one bothers me the a bunch. I have this light that comes on to tell me an oxygen sensor isen't working. The sensor is around $60 (last time I had it replaced), and the only thing it does is with the smog control. Also last time I had it replaced it only lasted a month before I started having the light again.

I don't blame the smog regulation so much, as I do the requirement for more complexity, and added chance for shoddy products.

As an engineer we should have learned to simplify. But the lawyers attempt to make things complex.

 

[IRstuff]

cranky,

nature cycling of the trees is a generally slow process, barring disease. That's one of the reasons trees can grow 60 or 100 yrs or longer. When trees are used for product, be it paper or furniture or building materials, massive numbers of trees disappear, pretty much simultaneously. While companies like Georgia Pacific tout their "sustainable" harvesting, and even claim to be planting more trees than they're cutting, they fail to mention that they're not planting the same type of trees. In some cases, they're planting "rapid-growth" trees that can be re-harvested in less than a decade. This puts the duty cycle, at best, of the new tree population as something like 60%, i.e., 6 years of useful carbon sinking. This would be contrasted with the original trees having something more like 80% duty cycle, and, that's with a bigger trunk and more branches, and, the old growth trees probably had higher areal density, since there was no need to have truck paths nor need to have less damaging treefall paths, which potentially results in something on the order of 2.5x the net carbon sinking of the new trees, even ignoring all the gas-powered chain saws and trucks running around.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529


Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
There is a homework forum hosted by engineering.com:

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

 

[rconnor]

cranky108,

“I think the proof, if any is so small it is difficult to see.”

This is a very interesting point and highlights a key issue with climate change discussions. You feel that the proof is so small it is difficult to see. However, I feel that it’s actually that the proof is so large, complex and interconnected that it is difficult to see. I completely understand why you’d think that though – I’m actually partly to blame! Allow me to explain:

When climate change is discussed by blog posts, forum threads or newspaper articles, it’s discussed in piecemeal. Furthermore, this piecemeal way of presenting the science is usually done in defense of challenges on the science where illustrating the science is almost secondary or only done to explain away the challenges. The solid scientific narrative that supports our current understanding of climate science never comes through (this is also partly because it would take too long and no blog, forum or newspaper could hold a reader’s attention long enough). Therefore, the average reader, trying to get a handle of this whole messy issue, only sees a piece-by-piece and defensive presentation of the science. It is therefore easy to understand why someone would think there isn’t anything solid, it’s all just a bunch of disjointed points (…and unfortunately also because there is just so much misinformation out there). However, in my opinion, the proof of climate science is not so small it’s hard to see but that it’s so large and interconnected, it’s difficult to adequately and thoroughly present in a single blog, post or article.

Where my blame comes in is that I’ve engaged in a random, piece-by-piece defense of the science and expected that to be good enough to get people to see the big picture. Of course it’s doomed to fall because I’m not presenting the big picture all in one place. Not only is it difficult to see the proof without the big picture, it’s actually very easy, due to the lack of context, to falsely present very insignificant issues with the science as show-stoppers. When you examine these issues against the full narrative or body of science, you understand that, even if true, they don’t significantly undermine the theory, Perhaps a post that runs through the science behind the 6-point “spectrum of agreement” I outlined above would be a better way to structure it. (in the meantime, if interested, there’s plenty of resources that summarize climate science better than I ever could - American Institute of Physics, NASA, NOAA, etc)

”I'm not a big government guy.”

I understand that but that’s irrelevant to climate science though. You can be an anti-big government guy and still agree with science (I hope), as they are two completely separate things. When it comes to the subsequent policy, political ideology does come into play (but I don’t believe it’s as big as it’s made out to be). The key is that you shouldn’t project your political ideology onto the science. However, this done again and again. Climate change skeptics have a disproportionately high probability of being Libertarians or free-market enthusiasts. Whereas those that agree with science come from a much more diverse ideological background (as described above, the US military is hardly the poster child for leftist ideology). Much of the skepticism from climate change science comes from disliking the resulting policies and projecting that view back on the science. But science doesn’t work on ideology, hence why nearly every scientific institution agrees with climate change science.

One of the problems with incentives, is they don't make since. They make big money for some companies, and don't justify the simple things like replacing windows. After all 40% of energy in a home is used for heat, and cooling, and the windows are the lowest insulated part of the home.

I’m in agreement with you! Typically, incentives are used as “favours” to lobbyists that involve over-sized scissors and ribbons. This is not what I mean by incentives though. I mean supporting demand side management (DSM) programs by supplementing financial incentives given out by utility or third-party DSM programs.

These DSM programs cover everything from industrial refrigeration and compressed air to commercial HVAC to residential window replacement. This is key because the typical issues with incentives is that the money doesn’t actually lead to anything substantive (i.e. energy/emission reductions). However, utility or third-party DSM programs currently design their incentives based off demand ($/kW saved) and energy savings ($/kWh saved). They involve standardized estimate, measurement and verification procedures to ensure the estimated savings match, more or less, to the actual savings. But utility DSM programs are limited by the fact that the financial benefit of DSM only allows for a small financial incentive. Government incentives could come in on top of the pre-existing DSM incentive. So the government doesn’t need to re-do the study or wildly guess at what projects will have a benefit, they can just piggy back on the studies that are already done. It’s administratively simple, technically accurate and the incentive is proportionate to the benefit.

I feel incentives, when used properly, can help encourage early market adoption of new, more efficient products/methods by helping overcome some of the obstacles that make early market adoption difficult – namely cost premiums and a lack of proven history. Supplementing DSM incentives is one. Supporting pilot projects for carefully selected new technologies is another. Pilot projects have the added benefit of being a small initial invest that can be used to determine if larger investment is worthwhile. Only if proven to be effective in the pilot stages do these technologies get adopted into the market. It also allows promising ideas, that have some technical issues to be resolved, to mature and sort out the technical issues – which is difficult to do without some early support.

However, the only reason I bring these things up is to help demonstrate that emission mitigation policy isn’t nearly as scary as some make it out to be. I’d like to avoid the conversation turning to policy as it doesn’t make sense to discuss policy if you still have concerns about the science.

 

[GTTofAK]

"As an engineer we should have learned to simplify. But the lawyers attempt to make things complex."

Lawyers believe that they know everything. They also know that you can find an "expert" who will say whatever you pay him to say.

I found it funny that rconnor would use car safety as an example for energy efficiency when in the face of ever rising efficiency standards having picked most of the low hanging fruit manufacturers are simply forced to make the cars lighters sacrificing potential structural integrity. Now this added danger has been offset by ever increasing safety features but it begs the question how many more lives could have been saved were we not sacrificing the structural integrity of automobiles for increased efficiency.

And yes I know that there has been improvements in body and frame design that make it safer but the flaw in thinking comes when you say If you say ‘well using this new design we can get the same impact performance using aluminum as we did using steel in the previous design. So this design will let us use aluminum to meet our efficiency standards’

The obvious question of course Is ‘well how much safer would the new design be using steel rather than aluminum. How many more lives would be saved if we used this new design from the standpoint of saving lives rather than meeting efficiency standards?’

 

[GTTofAK]

"I understand that but that’s irrelevant to climate science though. You can be an anti-big government guy and still agree with science (I hope), as they are two completely separate things. When it comes to the subsequent policy, political ideology does come into play (but I don’t believe it’s as big as it’s made out to be). The key is that you shouldn’t project your political ideology onto the science."

What guarantee do I have that the scientist isn't projecting his ideology into it? We are largely talking models here because no one can do an experiment on the entire atmosphere. Models are nutritious for reflecting the bias of the modeler.

As I said I have no problem with auto mechanics. I am however I'm very weary of a mechanic who actually doesn't enjoy mechanics and is in the business to make money.

There is currently a glut of climate scientists attracted to the field for reasons other than climate science.

 

[cranky108]

Here's a question about cars, which is cheaper to build a car with, steel or aluminum? And which requires less energy to produce?
If I knew the answers, I would not ask. But think about this, if someone could take a chunk out of your car and sell it for cash, would they?
The whole car thing is sort of a different issue, because there is so much other stuff going on there. And I have been wanting to know what it would cost to remove the things I don't want from a new car.

DSM is also a questionable thing because it takes money from one person to give to some other person to save money. Is this really what a utility company should be doing? Social engineering?
DSM also works on theory most of the time. LED street lights are more efficent, and are more expencive, but the fact that they don't last as long (yes the LED's should last longer), because the electronics are so sensitive to voltage spikes. The turn back the thermostat thing is also not true because with more stay at home moms of recent years, who just turn them back up.

The biggest thing to get in the way of new products is shoddy products, where the market had a good feel of what were good products, the disruptions in product availability has made consumers leary of new things.
The other things is the don't care as long as it's cheap attitude of many consumers.

 

[rconnor]

Cranky108, DSM is not a form a charity. It makes or saves the utility money in the long-term by delaying or minimizing the amount of new generation required, increasing export power (which is sold at a higher price than domestic power) or reducing the amount of import power required.

“The other things is the don't care as long as it's cheap attitude of many consumers.” – I’m in agreement and this makes up part of my point. Consumers, as a whole, respond primarily to costs. Of course there are exceptions but they are just that – exceptions. So to claim that consumers can, on their own and in large enough numbers to be meaningful, change their consumption habits to significantly reduce emissions (or any other social goal for that matter), I’m rather skeptical. Furthermore, as the market and producers simply respond to consumer demands, they certainly will not, on their own and in large enough numbers to be meaningful, change their production habits. Education, regulation, taxation and incentives are methods to influence consumer behavior which in turn changes producer behavior.

The first point, education, is the most important. Proper education on the science is a prerequisite to any subsequent policy. Frankly, I’d argue that proper education is the prerequisite to any substantial social change. This is why discussing policy without people understanding the science is not effective. Only once people understand where the science stands today, complete with the uncertainty and probabilistic range of outcomes, can a meaningful policy discussion be had.

 

[IRstuff]

There was, a while ago, an option to buy your electricity from "green" suppliers only; you'd pay more, but the supplier certified that they were/are using sustainable and low-carbon footprint generation. Haven't seen it or noticed it recently, though.

One comment about education is that you get everyone educated, then they'll just all be arguing in vein of this thread. It's pretty clear that the participants in this discussion are indeed well-trained in math and science, so the issue isn't really a question of education, at least not here.

We've got people here that are refusing to even accept the possibility of AGW; that's a pretty wide chasm to cross. Moreover, I don't know whether it's simply rhetoric, or belief, but clearly both sides are at least somewhat in the camp of believing that the other side is part of some gigantic conspiracy, which is further compounded by the political differences and rhetoric in that vein. Just imagine if the fake Apollo guys had the backing of a major political party.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529


Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
There is a homework forum hosted by engineering.com:

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx