That “guy” is Richard Alley, and he is Republican but that does not stop him from being a scientist.
And he does mention that indeed, a similar effort and cost to deal with the issue will be similar to what humans in developed nations had to spend to get clean water and treat the sewage. Civilization did not stop.
Avoidance of the evidence presented duly noted again.
Again, the “volcano” you are talking about did not stop humanity from controlling our human waste and get clean water in our cities. Nor it meant that rivers and our lakes clogged with green algae with the phosphates released into the water from detergents from all that people washing clothes in the early 20th century, besides the fact that environmentalists do not shy away from advising that population control is a factor of the solution (indeed that say so of not addressing overpopulation was also dealt with before, you are just demonstrating to all how the facts are just being ignored to get a baseless narrative going) History has shown with many examples that humanity can solve issues without depending on draconian solutions of the population control issue, again if you were correct then all our rivers would be clogged with green algae and with almost no fish as the population grew in the USA, what happened is that we solved that issue with mandates, limits and help from industry.
I’m not sure what Mr Alley’s political affiliation has to do with anything? And which evidence did I avoid, exactly?
History has shown we can fix some problems and not others. For example we can solve the problem of no universities but we can’t solve the problem that not everyone is equally fit to take advantage of them. We’re gonna leave some kids behind, and about 50% of them are going to remain less capable than the top 50%.
If sewage is dropping on my head and stinking up my room, I’m suddenly interested in pooping into a drain and getting others to do the same. Sure. It turns out I’m no all that interested in getting the Amazonian tribes to do the same; their sewage problem is not quite local enough.
If my local lake is choked with phosphates, that’s local. I have been less concerned with the Chinese damming up the Yangtze and killing the river dolphins. Sad, but their problem.
If my next door neighbor kid is starving, he can come over for dinner tonite. I have let Ethiopians starve in my lifetime without doing much of anything.
OK, so now the world is going to heat up, because we are dependent on energy that creates CO2, the CO2 added to natural CO2 tips us over the edge, everyone needs energy to live well, and everyone except Ed Begley wants to live high off the hog.
You are not going to convince either me or Al Gore to live low (enough) off the hog, even though you can convince me to use modern sanitation to clean up my neighborhood sewage. I and others are almost positive we aren’t going to get the world to stop consuming, so we aren’t going to be the fall guy.
The degree to which we would have to stop consuming to actually make a difference, using the current CO2 numbers, is so crushingly draconian, and the skepticism I have over getting the entire world to change its behaviour is so profound that I can’t really be bothered, beyond approving some money to look into possible solutions for the longer term. If we cook while I’m diddling, I guess we cook. I’ll just try to make sure I and my neighborhood fry last.
You are completely wrong about this ridiculous notion that we brilliant humans can somehow figure out how to maintain 9 billion people on this planet without wrecking its fundamental ecosystem. Don’t you even see pictures of the East Coast and wonder what it looked like, not before Sandy but before the cities?
Sir, you’ve picked the easy problem for your Great Cause. Easy to get behind. Easy to cheer for. But I can’t even get my own neighborhood to vote for wind turbines, and I’m all for them. Apparently they are a great idea, but not in my backyard. I can’t get them to vote for nuclear plants around here either. Apparently the science for radioactive material is too scary, and after that ancient plant poisoned the neighborhood after Japan’s tsunami, I’m not sure we’ll get the masses to objectively evaluate whether or not modern science has made nuclear safe enough. So apparently I’m waiting for solar, or tidal, or something.
Bring me the numbers, and I’ll panel up my roof tomorrow. I’m not opposed to getting rid of CO2 and see if anything happens. I think it’s a fun challenge to “wake up and do something” about AGW. Hey, it’s a fun challenge to fight poverty and leave no children behind.
Here’s the dilemma though: If, today, we created a perfect source of unlimited totally green energy, the consequence would be an incredible expansion of the species which is currently paving over the earth and wrecking it in many ways beyond heating it up. Build the cheap non-polluting car tomorrow parked in cheap non-polluting homes and watch us pave this sucker over. And so on.
Just to reiterate what I think is the best answer here, by Michael63129, anthropogenic climate change is agreed to be a serious problem by virtually all of the major scientific organizations on the planet. Yes, you can find individual scientists who believe otherwise, just as you can find individual scientists who believe that intelligent design is as good a scientific theory as evolution. (In fact, interestingly, one of the very few real, publishing climate scientists who is an AGW skeptic, Roy Spencer, is also an evolution skeptic.)
I am not sure about the general public, although my impression is that outside of the United States, aggressive belief against it is less prevalent (although certainly not absent) and that it is also a little less politically-polarized than in the U.S.
It has to do with the fact that it is folly to ignore the experts on the field, and do not play coy, once you bring Al Gore as a Bogey man it is clear that politics is a reason why you have a beef with this.
The historical examples that I and Richard Alley brought indeed demonstrate that even though the population in America has increased the problem of the Algae in our rivers and lakes was solved, indeed the local issue shows how off base your idea to shoe horn a doomsday thanks to overpopulation to anything under the sun so just you can go off on that tangent; a tangent that once again, environmentalists do not shy away from also mention, yet another item you ignore to go off again in that tirade of yours.
There is lots to do without imposing draconian measures. How about we cut everyone’s income taxes and transition to a system based on energy/carbon taxes. Let’s, for the short term, encourage fracking and discourage sources of energy like those tar sands you have up there. Let’s subsidize (either through outright stimulus or through tax breaks) a move toward a natural gas and a hydrogen based economy and away from oil. We can also move toward Bio fuels; algae based Bio fuels show a great deal of promise. Let us also subsidize alternative energy sources and nuclear power as much as possible without being draconian. We can also do other smaller things like encouraging power generated from methane captured on farms. We can encourage our trading partners to do the same.
The world is already developing these sources due to market forces (population/economic growth and peak oil), why not encourage the development to move a bit faster using taxes and stimulus?
Do you think doing thse things is draconian? Do you think none of it will make a difference? I think a lot of anti-climate change crowd like to use the fallacy of the excluded middle or whatever it is called; basically they argue that to stop climate change we need to stop driving, flying, using energy and all starve together in the dark. This is clearly bullshit.
I remain confused about what experts in the field think we need to do other than pursue better green energy by various methods. I admit to being a little light on exactly what those specifics are.
I remain committed to my notion that in the interim none of us–well, almost none–are going to change their general trend toward comfortable consumption. I do not use Mr Gore as a political bogeyman but as a shorthand archetype of the problem. If one of the chief AGW enthusiasts thinks the right approach is to consume heartily and buy (directly or indirectly) your way out of your personal obligation to consume less (by, for instance, purchasing a share of green energy so vast that if everyone did it there wouldn’t be enough green energy to go around), I hold that up as an example for why the numbers for any putative solutions currently on the table do not crunch.
6.9 billion of us currently wish we could live better, even if consuming more personally means leaving a rattier earth for everyone else. This is the tragedy of the commons. At least another 3 billion are coming online, and all but one or two of them want to consume more. All of that consumption (including feeding), um…consumes the earth and its resources. This makes numbers very hard to crunch when actually proposing any solutions.
That’s why AGW is a housefire and too many people is an erupting volcano under the city.
But have at it, and by all means enjoy your crusade. We dug the Panama canal after the French crapped out. We may well be able to solve AGW and too much carbon. It just won’t do much to save the Planet.
Bingo, there is also the ongoing contradictory point that we can do nothing as it is too late, as pointed before, the position of the IPCC and many others is to already acknowledge that draconian ways are not viable, so the policy recommendation is to already expect an increase in temperature and deal with a lot of changes that a 2 degree increase will bring under that compromise.
Unfortunately interest groups are investing in a lot of FUD and in politics and guess what? After that advise/warning to keep change manageable, now we are looking at 4 or more of an increase in temperature if nothing is done as anti-scientific conservative groups continue to obstruct common sense measures.
It sounds a lot like the Democrats and the Health care issue, they came to the table with an already compromised position (no single payer, no public option) and then started negotiating with an already compromised limit, the sad thing is that even that huge compromise by the IPCC and others has just made the think thanks and politicians that are against it even more bold and funded.
Unfortunately the end result is to get even dumber Republicans (and a few Democrats) because the ones that the fossil fuel companies are reduced to fund carry even more woo woo around, it is not just against climate change but against all science.
For more timely information on this one needs to check the recent Frontline expose on the climate of doubt these fake skeptical groups are pushing forward.
It is almost an hour long, but it is almost obligatory to check if you are still undecided in this election.
And that is not what Gore said either, so bogey man it is.
As for what to do, first stop relying on sources of information that are just geared to keep the FUD going. The experts are not recommending going back to horse and carriage or into caves.
Once again, this is going into a complete denial that societies can clean up their acts in regards to technical issues, regardless of the increase in populations, still the recommendation remains, education and some economical incentives should be also be applied to reduce our population (we can walk and chew gum at the same time as it has been pointed many times before ) you are ignoring that the change requires us to assign the real costs to our dumping of gases into the atmosphere and reap the benefits of the new industries and jobs we will be getting by cleaning up our act, just ask Joe the Plumber.
I have no idea what he actually said. I think I have a reasonable guess around how well he lives… I should have said, “If one of the chief AGW enthusiasts consumes heartily…” to make it more clear I’m simpy using Mr Gore as an easily-understood archetype of what actually happens. We’re all about taxes until it is us being taxed; all about reducing consumption until we realize how great freshy fresh is.
We aren’t going to stop living as lavishly as possible and we aren’t going to allow taxation systems that create some sort of common good elsewhere (either down the road or to another country) if it significantly impacts us locally from consuming lavishly.
The number of people on the planet trying to get to any decent level of consumption at all means non-draconian measures are not going to work.
Yep, ignorance of even why it is not a good idea to follow this track is showing, once again let’s rewind the tape:
"Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame. "
What always strikes me in these conversations is that if you ask a conservative / libertarian person what would happen if we were to start to run out of fossil fuels, they will tell you about how human ingenuity and the magic of the market would allow us to come up with solutions: New sources of energy would be developed and technological advances would lead to more efficient use of energy.
However, if you ask the same person what happens if you put a price on the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere either by a carbon tax or by cap-and-trade policies, then all of a sudden, it is going to lead to the end of civilization as we know it.
Apparently, the contradiction in these two points of view is not very apparent to them! Actually, the case of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade is even easier to deal with in the sense that you have the additional technological option of carbon capture.
You’re wrong. What a free market/libertarian person will tell you is that if we start to run out of oil, the price will go up, and that will stimulate research into alternatives and more exploration and other ways of improving supply of energy.
That doesn’t mean it will result in a ‘better’ outcome than what we have now. It just means it will result in an optimum allocation of resources given the new reality.
There is no promise of a magic solution or invention that will make our lives better. If we can’t figure out a way to create mass amounts of energy to replace that oil, then the price of energy would go up permanently, and our standard of living will decline. All that ‘market evangelists’ will promise you is that this new state of affairs represents the best we can do, and that it will be better than government-managed allocation.
The fact is, there are billions or even trillions of dollars to be made if someone could come up with a replacement for fossil fuels that actually costs less. People have been trying to find that holy grail for a century now. There’s been no shortage of research into alternative energy. It’s just a REALLY HARD problem. Fossil fuels are transportable and have an incredibly high energy density. It’s so cheap you can buy a gallon of gas for less than a gallon of milk. Replacing that source of cheap, dense energy is a nut we have yet to crack, and it’s not for lack of trying.
Let me give you an analogy. Let’s say that tomorrow an alien race showed up and said, “Hey! We need all your platinum reserves, and we’re powerful aliens, so we’re just taking it. Bye!”
Now, we have endured a shock to our platinum supply. Many things in the world require platinum. All we have left is the existing platinum already refined and in use in products today. So what do we do?
Your answer might be that a lot of really smart people need to set up government panels to study the problem, and perhaps a platinum rationing board to make sure that the remaining platinum goes to those most in need of it. Perhaps you’ll make it illegal to own platinum, and open up government recycling facilities so people can turn in their own platinum-tipped spark plugs and other goods which contain the metal. Then you’ll refine it, rebuild a stockpile out of what we have left, and then use really smart people to allocate it.
My answer would be, “Let the market solve that problem.” The instant result would be that any product that uses platinum would skyrocket in price. This would stimulate R&D efforts all over the world to come up with acceptable solutions. In the meantime, platinum’s rapid increase in value would cause people to voluntarily sell their platinum-containing goods to recyclers, provided they can get more for it than the value they receive from owning the good.
Over a relatively short period of time, the new value of the suddenly-scarce platinum will ripple through the market. Products with marginal gains from platinum use will vanish. Perhaps the use of platinum jewelry will fade away. Equipment that absolutely requires platinum will go up in price. Holes in the market will be filled, and eventually everything will stabilize around the new reality.
I feel that the market-based approach would be far superior to government-planned allocation and rationing. But that doesn’t mean the result will be better than what we had before the aliens took our platinum - only that it’ll be less bad than if we let the government do it. We still lost a lot of wealth, but the market will allow us to maximize what we have left.
Absent a breakthrough that none of us can predict, the world we are headed for is one of higher energy costs, regardless of whether we leave it up to the market or the government. But if we want to maximize the chance of a breakthrough and optimize the economy around the reality of increasing energy prices, we’re better off letting the market sort it out than a bunch of technocrats in Washington and their corporate cronies.
The flaw in that line of thought is that the majority of the House and most of the senate is a bunch of Luddites with their corporate cronies making “by pure coincidence” votes that benefit their corporate cronies as of now.
Well, but don’t forget that me and Mr Gore are pals. I’m not vilifying him. I’m saying he is the archetype for me. I am the problem. I have tried to get this across to you any number of times.
It’s me. It’s Al too, sure. But it’s me.
Even my toilet habits want to consume more. I like new golf clubs every year. I like my generous house. I fly first instead of coach, take a limo when I can, use first class hotels if possible, travel where I like, use freshy fresh now in addition to toilet paper alone, and…well you get the idea.
I’m not vilifying Mr Gore. I am saying he and I are the problem you need to solve, and there are 6.9999 or whatever billion more just like us, with the Ed Begleys being in the teeniest minority.
Because we are the human condition (Mr Gore and I), the problem is too many people, not too much consumption. If the 6.9999 billion would ride their damn bicycles and live 10 to a room without modern conveniences, the scope of the problem would switch from overpopulation to dirty energy. But that is not the case.
Already dealt with, many times also, you do not like even a compromise that’s for sure, so it is safe to dismiss* your continual refusal to see that humanity has solved issues like this (dealing with technology) without resorting to remove a chunk of the population, and still, there are measures environmentalists recommend to use to also deal with the population, the reality is that you only want to delay the implementation of the solutions already mentioned.
*More than safe, one item you missed is that the evidence shows that even the majority of conservative scientists who are experts on this issue are in favor of doing something now, you are in reality pushing the fringe ideas of a fringe group.
For the record, not only am I willing to be taxed (perhaps because I can afford it) in an effort to find cleaner energy, I’m actually for the idea in general.
I don’t think it will help solve the ailing earth, though.
Is it your position that if we solved green energy tonight, the earth’s ecosystem would be saved tomorrow? As I keep trying to argue, we could have perfectly clean energy tomorrow and Gaia would still be doomed as we pave it over and farm it up for our burgeoning species. Most of the ecological disasters happening under our noses (the decimation of the ocean to follow up on the decimation of the land) are unrelated to AGW.
You’ve championed a terrific–and popular–Great Cause. Solving it won’t help save the earth, though, from humans.
We still currently have the ability to give more of the people a solid middle class lifestyle. If we do so, the population will start to reverse itself as people stop deciding to have more than a replacement level of children. This of course depends on if the politics and technology win out over the dwindling resources.
Okay…Fair enough. But, in general, the free marketers I have run into are pretty optimistic about our ability to deal with scarcity without dramatic reductions in our quality of life. That’s why they have generally poo-pooed the idea that we are running into the limits of growth (of population or of consumption).
But there has been a lack of trying because the costs of fossil fuels have been subsidized since some of those costs are externalized. As a result, the price each individual pays for that energy is not the full cost, but rather there is an additional cost spread out over the population due to the damage to our climate system (and acidification of the oceans and the various other environmental pollution problems).
And once again in the end just a baseless justification for doing nothing, and you also show your ignorance here by not being aware of ocean acidification, the **other **evil twin of AGW:
If we got the Tanzanians up to middle class status, the CO2 involved would kill us all. So that’s the reason the population explosion is a catch-22.
To get to lower levels of population, we gotta get 'em consuming . If we get them consuming, we’re even more screwed than we are now because the green grid won’t be ready in time. If we wait for the grid to get ready (good luck with persuading developing worlds to hang on while we enjoy our comfort and fix the grid) then the developing worlds will keep reproducing too fast.
These are the numbers I keep waiting to be crunched into some sort of realistic package.
But again, we can solve energy and we’ll still pave over the earth and farm it to death. The lowest population peaks are on the order of 9 Billion, and a good bit of the current 7B plus the next 2 are way underconsuming currently. So you get me to step down from first class to coach but two other people are stepping up to flying from driving, and four are going from busing to driving, and 8 are going from cycling to busing…you get the idea.
) you are ignoring that the change requires us to assign the real costs to our dumping of gases into the atmosphere and reap the benefits of the new industries and jobs we will be getting by cleaning up our act, just ask Joe the Plumber. 
