I don’t get it. Are you saying that in a few years to a decade or so, nanotechnology will so alter manufacturing methods that carbon output will be minimized? That such an outcome will result independently of whether or not there are mandates or incentives in place to strive for low-carbon technologies?
Well more that I am saying that we don’t know what’s coming down the pike in the near future and that we should be focusing on driving technological platforms that reduce carbon emissions rather than trying to come up with fancy economic controls that are generally going to be merely vehicles for third world resentment, and definitely we need to stay away from Geoengineering. But yes, I think it’s fair to say that carbon output will be reduced over time as carbon emissions in the US have already been declining due to increased output from lower emissions tech like solar, geothermal and wind. Of course a lot of that will depend on what happens with the Rare Earths market and our access to high-powered magnets which almost every ‘green’ electric tech require. The market for new technology will drive innovation that will reduce carbon emissions. I was wrong before when I thought we could monetize the carbon so easily, or at least I can’t find a reliable cite for it.
Whether or not the people at Copenhagen have the right diagnosis, I am skeptical about their ability to come up with the correct prescription.
They could also reduce immigration to first world countries to lower population growth.
[QUOTE]
“… a greater number of migrants arriving in the United States will correspond to a larger increase in the size of the total population. Under the assumption of a high level of net international migration, the population is expected to grow to 458 million by 2050. … “
[United States Population Projections: 2000 to 2050 by Jennifer M. Ortman and Christine E. Guarneri of the Census Bureau]
QUOTE]
Presumably you are talking specifically about burying currently non-recycled organic materials, such as food and agricultural waste.
It is possible to use these products for carbon biosequestration, though to achieve any useful length of soil residency, they need to be converted to biochar. This is probably effective in the realm of c. 5000 years and has the additional benefit of improving soil productivity, and potentially water quality.
The same technique can be applied to specifically cultivated woody material, though if the process can be sufficiently improved, it would be more efficient to use it as an alternative to fossil fuels (and save their use), rather than burying it.
Longer term sequestration of carbon will necessarily involve the lithosphere.
We dealt with acid rain individually, not through global cooperation. I suspect we’re going to have to deal with climate change the same way.
Yes, this is the way it looks like it will happen. Thankfully.
Thing is Ralph, if you’re going to grow a bunch of trees, and then chop them down, truck them across the country and bury them in a big pit, and all to absorb carbon from the atmosphere–wouldn’t it make more sense to not take ancient trees that are already buried in a big pit and unbury them and truck them across the country and burn them?
You could save a step by just burning the trees in the first place rather than the coal.
I do not think this will work in the same fashion.
Acid rain had environmental impacts relatively close to where the emissions were happening. When they put controls in the areas downwind saw notable improvements. It was also a relatively narrow set of industries affected by the regulation and I do not think they were industries that could re-locate (such as a power plant).
Carbon is global and all businesses may be impacted if you raise costs to lower emissions. That puts the companies at a distinct competitive disadvantage if others are not under the same pressure and encourages them to move to places that do not have stringent environmental rules.
I stlll don’t buy into the idea that we should give a commission of people the keys to the economy and just ‘trust them’.
And individual nations can set emissions standards for Carbon Dioxide.
This is kind of canard based on a right wing fantasy. Restrictions that raise costs are not the only reason why people operate in a market. Having access to a skilled populace is still an important part of the equation.
I am one of those who predicted Copenhagen would produce nothing of substance, and criticized the naivety of those who thought it would. What did they learn from Kyoto? I predict the same for all future collective meetings ever undertaken which cost specific entities a high amount in the short run and produce value only in the indistinct future for everyone.
In short, for those who believe firmly in devastation from anthropogenic climate change, it is a tragedy of the commons.
It’s not a problem resulting primarily from the success of Deniers. We have a Democratic President, House and Senate here in the US–and pretty much all of them campaigned on Really Serious Approaches to Saving the Earth–and all that came out of Copenhagen was hot air. And may I say some Republicans as well…
When push comes to shove (if we start actually cooking) what you will see is this:
- Lots more effort put into trying to disprove ACC science (cheaper than swapping out the grid wholesale)
- Lots more voluntary superficial crap (get your LEDs now) so we all feel better and feel that we tried
- Lots more analysis of individual entities about how ACC affects them personally versus the whole world (“Well; ACC drowned a couple of Islands, but here in Canada we are getting a longer growing season than ever before. Some bad; some good. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. Here’s a little check to help defray the cost of your island community…”)
- More focus on the Real Problem (Caution! CP’s longstanding editorial here) : too many people. Way too many people!! That shifts the sinning to include the developing countries.
We had a thread awhile back in which ACC Defenders wouldn’t even name a single lifestyle change that should be morally demanded of individuals who buy into AGW/ACC. And we are going to try and get something done collectively??!!
I await on the sidelines with bated breath because I still cannot figure out where to place the bets with my retirement stash.
I am so tired of the idea that LEDs are superficial crap. I’m sick of this idea that only heavy industry has a part to play in it. LEDs are not superficial crap, they are a great way to reduce your consumption and that will be reflected SIGNIFICANTLY in your bill. If everyone did it, it would make a HUGE dent.
Chief Pedant You make some valid points, but you guys need to stop insulting the people who are trying to do their part as best they are able. This is a problem of billions of increments. Every little increment counts. You’re stuck in a Hollywood Blockbuster mindset where only the big and flashy is important.
Conservation is a moral and personal issue first, a social issue second.
This is why I hate the AGW movement, it’s so anti-environmentalism. Does more harm than good really. How much less carbon would have been put into the air if they didn’t hold this fucking meeting? You see perfectly the moral bankruptcy whenever an AGW proponent pisses all over the conservationism of individuals in their daily lives.
No, we dealt with acid rain through binding international treaties, and relatively easily implementable flue-gas desulphurisation. Also the immediacy and visual manifestation of the effects were considerably easier for the scientifically unversed general public to understand, and provided the political impetus for change.
Mitigating AGW is a massive technical challenge in the face of considerable political and public opposition. The seriousness of the environmental and financial effects it will have, are not yet fully realised by many people, and some of those who do, don’t see it in their self-interest to act.
To alter the underlying energy production and usage mechanisms for the entire world is a monumental task.
And the best way to win this thing is to tell people that anything they do on an individual basis is totally useless.
Keep those incandescent bulbs, don’t worry about taking home more plastic bags! You have no personal stake or responsibility, it’s industry we’re after!
If it’s not socialism it’s crap!
Well done constructing a straw man out of my answer. As it happens I switched over all of my incandescent light bulbs about 5 years ago, and my country is phasing them out by 2011 anyway. I do take personal responsibility, but international governance is crucial to addressing the wholesale reform of energy production that’s needed. The failure of the Copenhagen summit is not something to be grateful for, unless your interests lie in very short term outcomes.
How HUGE? And if any given change is voluntary?
The “individuals should voluntarily change” is just pap.
Let’s say CP swaps out for LEDs and CFs, and let’s say it’s a given that there is HUGE net savings. Then I go out and get me some new golf clubs (or whatever).
I don’t bother with calculating all the carbon footprint silliness, but I’m betting I shoonta gotten those new clubs if I really cared, and I’m betting the embedded carbon in their manufacture zero’d out the LEDs. (And as a cool aside, China would get blamed for the golf clubs carbon because they made them and the US would get credit for my LED scam, because that’s where I live.)
See, ultimately the dilemma is Consumption. Not TB, but plain old Stuff. And we love stuff. The Tanzanian wants more stuff, the Pedant wants more stuff and the super rich want more stuff.
And no-one wants to tell the next guy over to stop having so much stuff, because we all want to be that next guy over. When I have to ride a bus, I really wish I could drive; when I drive I really wish I could fly coach; when I fly coach I really wish I could be in First; and when I am in First I really wish I was on the G5.
Stuff. Comfort and leisure and Me. That, in a nutshell is the tragedy of the commons. “Voluntary LEDs and everyone pitching in” my a$$. Good luck with that. We’ll have LED salesmen rich enough to fly their private jets to LED sales meetings. But we’ll still fry.
Still, if enough of you pitch LEDs, I am willing to invest. I’m pretty much down to a baseline skepticism about ACC in general and a profound skepticism that anything will be done, so that just leaves me with a decision about where to invest.
Hear me on this: until we do something about so many people, everything else is just feel-good candy. And right now overpopulation is too politically incorrect to even mention, much less correct.
Fair enough, I wasn’t really going after you in particular but making a more generalized straw man. 
The failure of Cophenhagen IS something to be grateful for because it was a bunch of pissing and moaning where socialist ideology trumped real environmental concern. So many people getting up on soap boxes bitching about the ‘first world’ and how we should bear the brunt of the burden in a weak economy.
It takes a lot of incremental changes. The same argument could be said about an individual factory. “Well MY factory won’t make much difference.”, you’re just attacking people on your own side for doing something that IS effective but isn’t some kind of whizz-bang solution.
Yeah well that isn’t the point and you know it. You don’t need to use that savings to buy golf clubs. Just like Al Gore should travel to his speaking engagement via bus or even first class on, but it’s obvious that his primary motivation is making fuckloads of money so he can afford a private jet.
Well if the carbon is embedded in the clubs its not in the atmosphere is it? Why are the LEDs a scam? They reduce YOUR carbon footprint. That you chose to blow off the concern and buy golf clubs is your choice.
Yes, and you consume less with LEDs, if you make up for that consumption somewhere else, that has nothing to do with the LEDs.
Yeah, and I could just kill someone and take their money. How does self-interest mitigate the immorality of an action?
Ok, so you’ve made your argument. You’re a selfish fuck (hypothetically) who really doesn’t give a shit about anyone else. What does this have to do with the objective fact that LEDs consume less energy than an incandescent?
Well go for it pollute as you will, we’re all gonna die in the fire! Though I think that it’s overblown nonsense. Sure there is evidence of warming, but there is no evidence that the warming is apocalyptic.
Overpopulation is being corrected naturally. Most first world nations are breeding below replacement rate.
But the World population will continue to expand, for instance, the African population is set to double to 1.5 billion by 2036.
Yes, but educated first worlders breeding themselves into extinction won’t change this, it will only result in humanity being largely uneducated with current levels of technology, thus ensuring that these problems are never solved as the entire globe experiences brain drain. The people breeding the most are the least educated on the planet.
I think the US took an unfair amount of crap for not going along with Kyoto, and I think the value and ability of researchers and industry to find cost-effective solutions to some of these problems tends to be discounted.
Right, I think one of the points the Sierra Club used to make was that immigration was maintaining & increasing first world numbers though. For instance, the US population is projected to increase by 150 million by 2050. So that will entail a massive increase in emissions (assuming the newcomers have anything like the std carbon footprint).