Don’t worry about our effect on the climate, just get used to it.
For those too lazy to click the link, the Bush administration has apparently decided that it’s too much effort to try to control greenhouse gasses, so we should all just be prepared to adapt to our new climate.
Holy Fuck.
Trivia question- how much of the world’s population will have to adapt to their cities being below sea level if we manage to melt too much of the ice caps?
Shit.
Well, they’re half right. It looks as though there are going to be noticeable climate effects from anthropogenic global warming that has already occurred, and there will have to be some strategies to adapt to it 'cause there ain’t no magic wand to get rid of it.
But what about the other half? Should we simply do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and probably make the problem far worse in the future? (Not to speak of all the other problems exacerbated by our fossil fuel overdependence?) Hell no, IMHO: that’s about as shortsighted as you can get.
However, at least the government is now admitting that anthropogenic climate change is a fact that will have some non-negligible effects. That’s progress, I guess.
Isn’t that the classic rapist’s line? “You’re going to be fucked no matter what, might as well lie back and enjoy it.”
I think I’m gonna hurl.
[obligatory Simpsons reference]“In Texas, we got rid of the environment and everyone’s much happier!”[/obligatory Simpsons reference]
But that’s not what the article says–it says that the report (which I have not yet read) recommends not making drastic and rapid changes/reductions. Instead, the report, according to the article, “calls for voluntary measures that would allow gas emissions to continue to rise, with the goal of slowing the rate of growth.” Slowing the rate of growth isn’t “doing nothing”; it means not making changes as rapidly as some people would prefer. I think reasonable people may differ as to the wisdom of that, but it isn’t “doing nothing.”
It’s also worth noting that, Federal and industry energy policies aside, there is absolutely nothing stopping any of us from reducing our own energy consumption, including them nasty ol’ fossil fuels. I mean, I assume we’re all sitting in a space illuminated by incandescent or fluorescent bulbs rather than whale oil lamps when we post to the SDMB, and these computers aren’t powered by hamsters, either.
So, take the initiative and reduce your energy consumption somehow on your own, and convince as many people as you can to do the same. Walk, or take public transportation, when it is a reasonable alternative to driving. Use natural light in your home during daylight hours. Replace your thermostat with a programmable one–you can get one for $30 at Target and it will make a noticeable difference in your electricity and gas usage.
Differences are often made by leading by example, not by browbeating others.
Well, yes, and we could all chip in on a voluntary basis to support our military efforts in Afghanistan. Why is mandated action important to the one but not the other? The habitability of the planet is (believe it or not) more important than putting Osama out of business.
And slowing the rate of growth of greenhouse gas production may not be doing nothing, but if the current rates of generation of greenhouse gases, combined with natural forces, are resulting in global warming, then growing at all will likely take the climate further down that road. A plan that says, “we’ll produce more greenhouse gases each year than the year before, but the increases in production won’t be as big as if we did nothing” is, IMHO, a defeatist plan: ‘the environmental terrorists have already won’. 
The report recommends against drastic reductions, and that’s fine. But the goal should be reductions of some sort, before too long.
Bullshit. cite The rate of growth is ALREADY slowing, has been since 1980. Commiting to slowing the rate of growth is the exact same thing as sitting back and letting current trends take their course. There’s a word for that. Let me think now…, yep, it’s called doing nothing.
Alternative energy research? Gas taxes to fund public transit? Reduced emissions? Bah!! Do you realize that would make gas expensive? Like $2/gallon or more?? That would be a catastrophe far worse than flooding our coasts and destroying our ecosystem.
[sub]This post contains no useful content, only sarcasm. Do not eat.[/sub]
PJ Michaels, Professor of Environmental Studies at UV, admits to global warming but downplays mankind’s impact on the phenomenon in his most recent work Satanic Gases.
Some of his conclusions:[ul][li]Most warming occurs during winter in the coldest climates on the planet[]The warming of the 20th century has had positive effects, sea level rises of 1’ over the last 100 years had no impact[]At best, implementing the draconian measures of Kyoto will only limit warming by 14/100’s[/li]degree centigrade.[/ul] and a whole host of other heresy.
My assumption is the truth lies somewhere in between the “oceans are rising” and the “don’t sweat it” crowd.
I wish scientists would stop politicizing the issue and instead of attacking him as a CATO ideologue paid for by big business, sanely and rationally refute his findings.
On the other side of the coin, if global warming does turn out to be nothing but hot air, governments will start directing hard-sought after research funds in other directions.
I’m no conspiracy nut, but if the scientists whose continued livliehood hinges on those funds, isn’t it at least possible their conclusions may be skewed toward the worst case scenario?
From your cite:
I eagerly await your apology to Mr. Dennison.
As it happens, he is, as usual, exactly right. We (the U.S.) are outsize producers of CO2 not because of some nefarious plan by producers, nor because U.S. plants produce more CO2 per unit of production, but because U.S. consumers are outsize consumers of the kind of stuff that results in CO2 emissions.
Wanna make a difference? Eschew products with individual wrapping, whether it be candy bars or those little salt packets. Quit using straws. Ride your bike to work. Hell, if it’s regulation you want, at least be honest and regulate consumer behavior, where the problem lies.
You have my absolute guarantee that if U.S. consumers consume less stuff, emissions will go down.
OK, then, let’s regulate. Because if you wait for individual choices to make the difference, people will do what people will do individually, and 280 million Americans’ choices will, by and large, cancel each other out.
JohnBckWLD’s favorite scientist says more Honda Insights (hybrid gas/electric cars) would help. Good - let’s have higher fleet mileage standards, and stop excluding SUVs, pickup trucks, and any other passenger vehicles that have slipped through a loophole. Then we’ll have more hybrids, because the automakers will have to sell more. But unless you change the rules of the game to make decisions minimizing greenhouse gases to be more of a positive outcome at the individual level, the average of everyone’s individual decisions has no reason to move.
Um . . . because ice cream has no bones? I mean, do these two things actually have something to do with each other? I don’t think so, and I suspect you don’t either. In any case, the military is under the direct control of the government to use as it will; my house is not, nor should it be.
If people are going to sit around and wait for the government to tell them what to do, rather than simply making meaningful, voluntary reductions in energy consumption themselves, then they are not really interested in saving the environment, AFAIC.
I mean, I’m not the brightest guy on the planet by a long shot, but if I can figure out to take the Metro and buy a $30 thermostat, and recommend it to all my friends, I bet other people can, too.
This will, of course, make all vehicles more expensive to consumers, because there are a limited number of ways to raise vehicle mileage, and all of them add cost to the manufacture of the vehicle. Making them more expensive will price poorer car buyers out of the market for new vehicles, forcing them to buy older, less clean vehicles, which could easily make this solution a wash on the average. (Unless, of course, a large number of metropolitan areas are willing to seriously beef up the reach and usefulness of public transportation, and let’s not kid ourselves about the potential cost of that.)
Two words…
Atomic energy
See how far that pig flies.
Wouldn’t be so bad if a space elevator was built (HEY, stop laughing!) and we just then shot the damn radioactive leftovers into space.
Or found some use for slowly decaying radioactive crap. . . .
Couldn’t all of that energy left over be used for SOMETHING? Yeesh
always ?
Have you got some backup for that ridiculous assertion, or maybe a few qualifiers to explain how you rule out 70’s vintage Datsuns as an acceptable solution for everyone ?
This is really funny, since automobiles make up the minority in terms of gasoline usage. Most of the pollution comes from power and manufacturing.
Personally, I’d love to go with Reeder’s suggestion of more nuclear power. We’ve already got the perfect place to store nuclear waste (was it Arizona or Nevada)? The problem is we’ve got a bunch of pansy-asses running around who wet their pants whenever someone uses the N-word (and I don’t mean the racial slur).
You are like SOOOO kidding right? You realize how FUCKING FAST we would fill up the area?
And then since it was “never going to fill up” we would not have developed alternative disposal technologies by then, a new site would be chosen, and well, wash rinse repeat
Your suspicions are unfounded. Most libertarian types I’ve known IRL have conceded that certain governmental functions are simply too essential to be done on a voluntary basis, such as the military and the police. I’d contend that preserving a viable climate (literally) is just as essential, which is what makes it a reasonable subject of government action.
Who said anything about your house? (You made an offer on one yet, btw? OK, now I’ve said something about your house! :))
Newsflash: most people aren’t that interested in saving the environment!!
Your enviros are, of course - but most of them are already doing the things you’re talking about. I installed a programmable thermostat in my house years ago. My wife and I have bought high-mileage, ultra-low-emissions cars. We recycle, we carpool.
But most people are waiting for their government to take the lead; they figure (as do I) that stuff like this is why we have a government. You can believe that there’s nothing important enough to restrict individual choices, or you can believe that there are things that are that important. I believe the latter, and if anything’s that important, I have to believe that global climate change is one of those things.
Well, let’s not kid ourselves about the potential cost of roads, either. You live a few miles from two multibillion-dollar road projects. Metro was expensive to build, but it would cost probably tens of billions of dollars to build the roads to replace it, if it disappeared tomorrow.
But I’d hardly agree either that requiring higher gas mileage cars will make them noticeably more expensive, or that the result will be a wash. You’ll have fewer SUVs - and they’re (as a class) the most expensive vehicles anyway. How much does a Geo Metro or a Toyota Echo cost?
Sure, some people will buy used rather than buying new - hell, until a few years ago, I was in that position anyway. You know what? There are many used cars that get good gas mileage too - and if the fleet averages are raised, then eventually the guzzlers will get old and go to the junkyard. And fifteen years from now, poor people will be buying 10-year-old Honda Insights for cheap.
RT, nothing on a house yet. It is, unfortunately, a seller’s market par excellence right now. Properties are only listing for 2 or 3 days right now, with multiple offers being submitted for each, and selling prices averaging more than 100% of asking prices. I don’t want to get locked into a home I don’t really want just because I feel like I have to jump on it right away. Our mortgage approval is good for six months, and if we go beyond that we just have to re-apply with a cursory set of procedures. No biggy. Thanks for asking!
Anyhoo, sticking with the specific issue of cars, I’m well aware of the cost of road building. But extending Metro won’t be cheap, either. I can’t even fathom the cost of extending the Orange Line out to Dulles, or adding a stop in Tysons, or many of the other proposals we’ve seen. It ain’t gonna be cheap, is all I’m saying, and I hope people are prepared for that.
With the fleet mileage issue, absent some major breakthroughs in the science of the internal combustion engine, there are only a few ways to improve mileage standards. Let’s say we do start making all passenger vehicles, including SUVs and light trucks, subject to the CAFE numbers and simultaneously raise those numbers. Some possibilities:
–Make the cars lighter. That’s the quickest way to improve mileage, but it means using less steel and more plastic in the body of the car. Even taking SUVs out of the picture, this can mean a huge decrease in safety. There’s a constant tradeoff between vehicle size/construction and safety, and at a certain point it becomes nonbeneficial.
–Make the car use less power. This means decreasing the number of options: power windows, power seats, power mirrors, A/C, stereos, etc. Cars that are light on options tend not to be the big sellers. If they were the only choice, then I guess that would be that, but people sure wouldn’t like it. The market isn’t going to come to that point on its own, though, and I don’t feel comfortable with a government mandate to do away with power car options.
In all seriousness, do you think part of that is the result of eco-hysteria for the past 40-50 years which has proven time and again to be far past hyberbolic? You can only cry “Wolf!” so many times before people stop listening.
RT, nothing on a house yet. It is, unfortunately, a seller’s market par excellence right now. Properties are only listing for 2 or 3 days right now, with multiple offers being submitted for each, and selling prices averaging more than 100% of asking prices. I don’t want to get locked into a home I don’t really want just because I feel like I have to jump on it right away. Our mortgage approval is good for six months, and if we go beyond that we just have to re-apply with a cursory set of procedures. No biggy. Thanks for asking!
Anyhoo, sticking with the specific issue of cars, I’m well aware of the cost of road building. But extending Metro won’t be cheap, either. I can’t even fathom the cost of extending the Orange Line out to Dulles, or adding a stop in Tysons, or many of the other proposals we’ve seen. It ain’t gonna be cheap, is all I’m saying, and I hope people are prepared for that.
With the fleet mileage issue, absent some major breakthroughs in the science of the internal combustion engine, there are only a few ways to improve mileage standards. Let’s say we do start making all passenger vehicles, including SUVs and light trucks, subject to the CAFE numbers and simultaneously raise those numbers. Some possibilities:
–Make the cars lighter. That’s the quickest way to improve mileage, but it means using less steel and more plastic in the body of the car. Even taking SUVs out of the picture, this can mean a huge decrease in safety. There’s a constant tradeoff between vehicle size/construction and safety, and at a certain point it becomes nonbeneficial.
–Make the car use less power. This means decreasing the number of options: power windows, power seats, power mirrors, A/C, stereos, etc. Cars that are light on options tend not to be the big sellers. If they were the only choice, then I guess that would be that, but people sure wouldn’t like it. The market isn’t going to come to that point on its own, though, and I don’t feel comfortable with a government mandate to do away with power car options.
Anyway, CAFE standards are only part of the problem, because they only address fuel that will be built in new vehicles for personal use. They don’t address older vehicles nor do they address non-vehicle burners of oil fuels like home heaters.
And I see an inconsistency you stating that slowing the rate of CO2 emission increases is “doing nothing,” but that we can wait fifteen years to allow the prices of used hybrid vehicles to fall to levels where the poorer car buyers can afford them and for older, bad-mileage cars to fall out of use.
In all seriousness, do you think part of that is the result of eco-hysteria for the past 40-50 years which has proven time and again to be far past hyberbolic? You can only cry “Wolf!” so many times before people stop listening.