ISiddiqui: That’s because to date there ARE no ‘costs’ related to gasoline and global warming. First of all, automobiles are only a part of the CO2 emissions that cause warming. Second, there hasn’t been that much warming to date. And third, most economic models I’ve seen have shown that the net effect on the world economic is POSITIVE for very mild warming (under 2 degrees).
That’s not to say that some people aren’t hurt by gasoline consumption. Poor countries in equatorial regions are economically damaged by any amount of warming, because it’s already too warm there. Pollution is a serious concern in large cities.
But before I’ll accept the assumption that gasoline consumption to date has been a net economic drag on the world, I’ll want to see some pretty impressive numbers. And while we’re at it, I hope we’ll also consider the external benefits of automobiles along with their costs. After all, pretty much everyone benefits from, say, refrigerated trucking, even if they themselves don’t drive.
And most places already tax gasoline to pay for roads and such. Here in Canada, taxes make up almost half of the pump price of gasoline (in Alberta, it’s 43%. It’s higher in other provinces).
:eek: You are kidding, right? No costs related to gas and global warming? There hasn’t been that much warming? Warming positive?!
Look outside… the US is suffering a drought. El Nino has gotten consistantly worse. Tornados are increasing world wide. Weather patterns are increasingly becoming more and more strange. Global warming is happening, and automobiles are some of the worst polluters. And even mild warming can have devestating effects (like saying bye to New Orleans for one). You can put your hands in your ears and say it isn’t happening, but the proof is there, and you ignore it to all of our peril.
Never mind. As usual, I see I contributed nothing of pertinent or scientific value to the topic. I should stay away from these things unless I’m going to participate in a positive and constructive manner. I don’t know why I got my feathers ruffled over so little, but I am indeed sorry for ever posting here.
I really can’t argue with jshore’s excellent facts and figures, but I also feel that several of the ideas that others have had can work in conjunction with it. I guess the popular issue is that Kyoto has been set up now to be “The World versus the US”, or “The US in defiance of the World”, and when people in general start out on that footing no one is going to convince the other.
The US is an incredibly wasteful society. Energy studies I have conducted on municipal entities and residential subdivisions show some enormous wastes of energy, which could be easily remedied by reasonable conservation measures. I posted in the past on the “1-inch of grass study” I was aware of, but Search cannot find it and I don’t have the details handy. A recent energy study conducted by a neighboring unit in my company, sponsored by the local utility, came up with the following conclusions:
Setting: Subdivision complex of 1153 homes, divided over several subdivision groupings. Median home valuation (from assessor’s office) $153,000. Median household income $84,700 per annum. Median age of home 9 years.
Average thermostat setting in Summer (July): 69 F.
Average thermostat setting in Winter (January): 77 F.
Average unneeded lights on per day: 950 W*hr.
Average unneeded (unattended) television power usage per day: 300 W*hr.
Percentage of homes which air-dry clothing at any time during the year: 0% (HOA mandates electric dryers only)
Percentage of persons who leave at least one interior light on 24/7: 79%
Percentage of persons who leave at least one exterior light on 24/7: 93% (note: HOA mandates lights be used at night and at dawn and dusk. Many times of the year this means the HO is already at work by the time it is light out)
Percentage of persons who leave at least one computer on 24/7: 24%
Percentage of persons who utilize a heating blanket while the house central air conditioning is on: 22% :eek:
Percentage of homes with programmable thermostats (which can save enormous amounts of energy): 56%
Average number of “wall-wart” transformers plugged in and drawing power via induction, per household: 3.1
Streetlights per house: 0.167 (about 1 streetlight every 6 houses…why do they need this many?)
And it goes on to paint a picture of a group of middle to upper-middle class persons, for whom the price of energy is cheap as to be laughable, who have little desire to save. Especially interesting are the people using a heating pad or blanket while ranking the aircon up…the overall estimate of this study was on an annual basis, at least 20% of the home electrical usage could be cut without noticibly affecting the standard of living of the persons involved in it. Although there would be some capital expenditures required (such as solar on/off switches for exterior lights, programmable thermostats for one and all, replacement of many lights with CF lights, etc.) The scary thing was, the study showed that from a first-level economic basis, it made no substantial economic sense to conserve - and for some homes, almost no economic benfit at all. And that’s just plain wrong, on so many levels.
ISiddquidi: I didn’t say that gasoline use comes without cost. I even named them. These are serious problems that deserve solutions.
But as for the question of whether, on the whole, gasoline consumption has been a net cost or a net benefit to society… That’s a whole 'nother question. After all, the reason we burn it in the first place is because it has value to us. Gasoline is concentrated energy. The use of us allows us to manipulate our environment with heavy industry, and to move goods around efficiently. It is a huge economic benefit, and not just to the people who engage in the activity. Even an Amish farmer benefits from gasoline, because it makes his crops more valuable. The reason he can get a good price for it is because it is relatively cheap to move it between him and his consumers. Every gallon of oil that has come out of the ground has increased mankind’s wealth (except for the stuff we spill).
And no, TO DATE there is no measurable damage to the Earth attributable to global warming that I know of. Part of that is because we just don’t know enough to assign definite causes to specific meteorological events, but part is because to date, warming due to man-made CO2 hasn’t been that significant. I think the IPCC predicted a net economic benefit to the globe for warming below 2.1 degrees, and a net loss for warming above that value.
So, has the pollution and warming that gasoline causes been a net drag on the economy? If you add up all the externalities, does it come out positive or negative? Show me the numbers.
And you know that global warming doesn’t work on a scale where you can blame every heat wave or drought on it. There were droughts before there was industrialization. The atmosphere is subject to a lot of variance around its norms.
Anthracite: *I don’t know why I got my feathers ruffled over so little, but I am indeed sorry for ever posting here. *
There there, I’m sorry I snapped your head off about it, no big deal.
*I guess the popular issue is that Kyoto has been set up now to be “The World versus the US”, or “The US in defiance of the World”, and when people in general start out on that footing no one is going to convince the other. *
I agree that it’s not a very helpful attitude, but I think that what frustrates many people to the point of pointing all those fingers is the US’s lack of a coherent plan for really reducing emissions, or even, as you point out, improving conservation measures. Many nations that have been less than enthusiastic about Kyoto at least have something like a plan of their own for developing renewables/conservation.
The US is an incredibly wasteful society. […] The scary thing was, the study showed that from a first-level economic basis, it made no substantial economic sense to conserve - and for some homes, almost no economic benfit at all. And that’s just plain wrong, on so many levels.
Anth, I take back every mean thing I ever said to you, and humbly apologize for them. May I put your picture over my thermostat?
As long as it’s a programmable one, Kimstu. Damn but those things can save money. Even non-conservation aware people I know will go out of their way to comment on their effectiveness - hey, Department of Energy, here’s a way to reduce energy consumption and CO2 emissions that I think would get a good general approval - give a tax subsidy for the retrofit/installation of programmable thermostats for homes.
I don’t have one myself. I just shut the thermostat completely off when I’m gone instead, or in the Winter turn it down to 58 F when gone (frozen pipes don’t help anyone out). By doing this and other measures in 2001, I successfully reduced my electric use over a 4-month “Summer” period by 64% - and at no real reduction in my standard of living. I still had AC on in the Summer, but the thermostat was set to 80 F. My natural gas usage, over 5 “Winter” months dropped by about 40%. But at a reduction of my standard of living - my thermostat was set to about 60 F. I also lost nearly 50 pounds last year, and combined with my diabetes all I did was shiver most of the Winter and watch my fingers honestly turn blue at times. I proved my point to myself, but I did expect a much higher savings than I got. Maybe it was all those 2-hour hot showers I had to take to warm my body up. I mean, if Fierra had been here we would have just made love all day long, and kept ourselves warm that way.
The point is - conservation will work. It will allow us to reach the Kyoto levels, without serious modification to infrastructure. That’s not to say that it wouldn’t affect the economy - let’s say that everyone in the US suddenly starts saving 50% on their A/C bills in the Summer - that’s 50% less revenue for the power companies. Well, the power companies do provide services based on the volume and their income to some extent. Fifty percent less income could lead to an enormous number of layoffs, a reduction of preventative maintenance, and a definite reduction in customer service.
Does this mean we shouldn’t? I mean, that’s like saying “But if we stop polluting totally, all those poor people at the EPA will lose their jobs!” Given the response of the public to conservation (which is typically that given to an old grandmother who waggles her admonishing finger in front of one’s face), I doubt the power companies would have much to worry about. But those are factors to consider - just the number of jobs lost at energy consulting companies due to the recent slowdown is somewhat scary.
Here a phenomenon that worries me - I haven’t done a study of one of them, but what about all those massive “warehouse stores” and their energy usage? They appear to have very crappy insulation that is almost an afterthought, 30-foot ceilings, and are typically kept at about 65 F all Summer long. In fact, I often have to wear a coat when I go to them. How much energy do those sorts of places use?
I would love to organize and carry out some sort of experiment on the SDMB. Such as “Doper Energy Conservation Day”, where we make an OP that explains how they can do it, and people post of what they did. Or maybe even a month, where people compare utility bills from last year (now, I know that weather is a huge factor in this, so there is going to be some error). I don’t know. Seems like fun anyhow.
Also, I guess “Doper Energy Conservation Day” doesn’t sound inspiring. Maybe "Dopers with Primal Rage Sticking it To The Man Day"would generate more enthusiasm. But I fear it would turn into “Up Yours, Bush! Day” or something if the topic became too, how shall we say, “creative”?
You set your AC to 80°F, so everyone else should do the same for ‘conservation’?
I set mine on 72°F because that’s the temperature I’m comfortable at in the summer. Hotter than that, I’m sweating, probably covered in hives, and hoping it’s going to get cold soon so I don’t have to deal with that.
Winter time, I set the furnace to 70°F because that’s within my comfort zone. I can easily afford the utility bills, and I’d rather be warm enough to walk around barefoot in my house than so cold I have to wear layers and an extra pair of socks. But again, it’s like you’re suggesting some government mandate tell me where I can set my thermostat.
So, just who is it that is going to be telling me what’s ‘wasteful’ and what isn’t? And what gave them the authority to decide?
I said that? I thought I was giving examples of what I did to try and conserve energy.
If I read this correctly, it seems you have a very tight comfort zone - from 70-72 F only.
My total utility bills (minus phone) are less than 5% of my gross income per year. I’m doing it to make a difference in the World, and to reduce that number even more, since even reducing this to 4% of my gross income would pay for a flight to Europe.
I have posted as to how wasteful American society is (and don’t let my location fool you, my primary house is in Kansas City). I have not called for any “government mandate” for conservation. Please re-read my posts here, where you will see the following quote:
A tax subsidy is hardly a government mandate. Nor did I specify anything about an actual setting on that aforementioned programmable thermostat. Unless one would argue that one should be able to keep their house in their comfort zone even when they are out of town for an extended trip, and that having a programmable thermostat infringes on that right.
As an energy expert I do have the “authority” to compare a domestic household energy utilization situation and determine if, relative to what could be economically and practically achieved with simple conservation measures, is “wasteful”. But I could not possibly do so, because I know nearly nothing whatsoever about you, your situation, and your relative usage within your own community. Therefore, how could I pass judgement on you, even if cared to?
I never brought up net costs or benefits. All I said is that gasoline should reflect it’s true cost. Not just supply and demand, but also the costs in treating people for sunstroke because of the depletion of the ozone layer. The cost for the pollution the spits out increasing our temperatures.
And yet the 1990s were the hottest decade in recorded history, it has seen 5 of the highest years recorded. The fact is that there IS a warming of the planet, and every study has shown that. There is only one thing that has consistantly risen with the temperature? That’s right, carbon emissions. We are not on the normal varience path, no, average temperatures are rising significantly around the globe, breaking records left and right.
As for the IPCC account. If the temperature rose by 2 degrees Celsius on average, New Orleans probably wouldn’t exist anymore, and neither would parts of many other coastal cities. How that leads to an economic benefit, I don’t know.
We must stop being wasteful while we still can. Reduction in emissions won’t cost us that much. For example the Senate vote that rejected increasing our fleet miles per gallon by 50% by 2015, was not only attainable, but probably pretty easy to make. Most of the technology is there, but we have to be willing to use it. European nations put out about half the emissions per person that we do, and you don’t see them suffering economically. It is time to get our asses in gear.
Not that there is a very long history of accurate and widespread temperature measurement. Not too much more than 300 years back at the most. And I am not certain that the 1990s were the hottest decade in recorded history either. You have a cite, I assume?
Hasn’t it already risen by a substantial amount? More than 2 C? Aside from Venice, are any other cities in imminent danger of sinking with a mild increase in sea level?
All that aside, Sam was talking net economic benefit. Net = worldwide in this case.
Exactly how much would increasing the CAFE by 50% cost then?
We don’t?
I hate to say this, being a frequent resident of much of Europe and hopefully a dual citizen of the UK someday, but you cannot compare the economic standard of living in most European countries with that of the US. I’m guessing you’ve never spent much time in Europe, but it is truly a different World over here than the US.
For better or for worse, Europe just does not have the same standard of living as the US. Cheap energy has made the US a far more luxurious, extravagant, and wasteful (and comfortable too, for that matter) place than much of Europe. Let me give you some examples from my trip to Spain last week:
All public toilets unheated, and horrific to sit in.
No paper towels for wiping hands, and no air dryers either.
Thermostats set so offices are cold (it was cold and rainy there), such that everyone wore sweaters to work. Or coats.
Escalators go up, but they don’t go down.
Lighting is greatly lower than in the US.
Fridges are tiny, as are freezers (where they even exist).
Air conditioning in residential homes? Que? Not to the extent of the US.
Clothes are dried on the line, or dried draped over your radiators in the Winter, or when it rains, or when it snows, or when there is fog…clothes dryers are not common.
One towel for your hotel room, to save energy. Got two guests? Then they might give you two towels; it depends. If you are female and need another towel for your hair…be prepared to see them make a fuss over the “outrageous American who wants towels everywhere”.
You want to do without AC, your freezer, clothes dryers, and set your thermostat to 58 F in the Winter? Welcome to Spain. Or England.
And I won’t mention all the times I’ve checked into a hotel in London only to find that with it being 50 degrees outside, the radiators are off to “save energy”, requiring wearing mittens and a light coat in your $250 a night hotel room. Ironically, the cheaper hotels often let you set your own room thermostat…
The simple fact is that Kyoto is going to impact the US more than Europe, because we have further to go to reduce.
Now, before someone jumps in about that, what I’m saying is - I think we should and must buckle down and start reducing emissions, slowly but steadily, until we can come on-par with Europe. I think we will need to do this, and I don’t know that Kyoto is the best way, but it is one way that deserves serious consideration for adoption. But let’s not kid ourselves here - past a certain level of emissions reductions, and barring some technological wonder, our standard of living will decrease. I already done my own personal emissions reduction by reducing my energy usage by so much, so I feel I’ve at least done my own little part.
I think it is clear that World temperatures are increasing from a general standpoint, although the ultimate reason is not proven to my satisfaction. However, I feel there is enough evidence to say that CO2 emissions are a highly likely cause, and that at a minimum we should stop the growth of CO2 emissions at once, and look for whatever ways possible to reduce them, gradually and steadily, until further studies can tell us for certain what is going on.
I think a cautious viewpoint can help both sides. I think that conservation can be encouraged by the right government incentives (not mandates), although I do feel that CAFE should be raised by mandate (but not for the ozone layer). I also feel that population control has to figure into any scheme, and has to figure into it big time. Let’s bring the World population back down to 4 billion over the next 50 years, and see where CO2 emissions lie - I’ll hazard they would be a damn sight lower than they are now.
Well, I am glad you’ve stuck around because I think that you have contributed lots of interesting stuff today.
Not only that but doesn’t one generally wear lighter clothes in summer (e.g, shorts and t-shirts) and heavier clothes in winter (e.g., long pants and sweaters)?
And, to catsix directly, we don’t want the government to mandate where you set your thermostat; we just want you to actually pay the full costs of your energy usage. You apparently want all the rest of us to subsidize you.
Wait a minute…I see that you have identified positive benefits to gasoline here but are these really externalities? Unless the refrigerated trucking companies are generously transporting the Amish farmer’s produce for free, this is not an externality.
As for the measurement of externalities, this is admittedly a crude science, but I don’t think this means we can throw up our hands and say that nothing can be done. I would settle for what would probably be only partial corrections of the externalities. As for general studies of externalities associated with gasoline for automobiles (going beyond global warming), here are some numbers from a Sierra Club web page: http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/transportation/control.asp You admittedly may not like the source, but you can follow some of the references to the studies. For example, the OTA (Office of Technological Assessment) study is available here: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1994/9432_n.html ; it is quite a tomb and I have to admit that I haven’t read it all and am not sure how Sierra Club pulled out the numbers from this very extensive study. But it definitely makes interesting reading.
I agree. It is hard to separate out the natural variation from the events caused or maybe more severe by global warming. The IPCC Working Group I report has the following to say about whether various events have already been observed in the 20th century and will be observed in the 21st century (using the term “likely” to mean 66-90% confidence and “very likely” to mean 90-99% confidence):
increase of heat index over land areas:
has been: likely, over many areas
will be: very likely, over most areas
more intense precipitation events:
has been: likely, over many Northern Hemisphere mid- to high-lattitude land areas
will be: very likely, over many areas
increased summer continental drying and associated risk of drought:
has been: likely, in a few areas
will be: likely, over most mid-latitude continental interiors. (Lack of consistent projections in other areas.)
Insurance companies, who obviously are in the business of assessing these things, have apparently concluded that climate change is a threat and have become quite concerned about it.
I haven’t been able to find this in the IPCC reports. (Admittedly, I didn’t do an exhaustive search but I did try to look where I thought such a statement might be.) I think the general belief is that global warming will be in net bad rather than good because of two reasons: (1) It is generally like to lead to more extremes and more variability in precipitation. (2) It will cause displacive effects. I.e., people have adapted to the climate as it is now (and, in more extreme cases, to land and water where it is now) and thus there tend to be costs associated with any significant changes. Of course, this is truer still for flora and fauna.
Well, I would tend to say that my experience, admittedly biased toward the fairly wealthy nation of Denmark where I have spent the most time, is somewhat different. Well, not completely different. I would tend to agree that by some measures of luxury and extravagance…huge houses, huge cars, ostentatious wealth…they lag. But, I find that in many ways the standard of living…and especially the quality of life…is higher. And, while there are less extremes of wealth, there are also less extremes of poverty.
Jshore: I think you misread slightly. I didn’t claim that warming has not happened - it has, as you pointed out. The 0.4 - 0.8 degree amount seems about right. We have no argument there.
What I said was that I haven’t seen any evidence of net economic damage from that warming, TO DATE.
But note that I did say that pretty much ANY warming in the warmest climates is damaging, so I’ll accept that there have been some localized damages from Global warming. However, there have also been benefits. Longer growing seasons, lower heating costs (and lower energy usage from heating), etc.
I’ll be back in a bit, hopefully with some actual numbers to plug into this debate.
Actually, those last numbers on the warming were just thrown out as general background since there were references in postings by a few different people…It wasn’t meant as a specific response to you.
The probability that various more extreme events such as droughts and floods were becoming more common was more pertinent to your points, since I think that these sorts of events almost always have economic costs. As you noted, it is not easy to separate them from natural variation which is why I quoted what the general scientific opinion is on their relation to global climate change.
I wish I could remember where I read it, but recently I read a summary of a study which suggested that the connection between global warming and violent weather was more tenuous than previously thought.
In theory, it makes sense that a hotter earth would have more violent weather. Pump more energy into a system, and you get more energy out. That fundamental equation was the basis behind many of the claims that warming would cause an increase in storm activity and other large-scale environmental effects. Apparently, there is some question as to whether that’s the case.
