Is pumping SO2 into the stratosphere a good or bad idea?

[gamerunknown]

Nope. But thanks for illustrating the point.

You don’t like Adam Smith?

Because no one would ever pay $20k for a barrel of oil. It shows a basic disconnect right there that you think this is even possible.Perhaps if you understood what markets are and how they work you wouldn’t assert stuff like this? If you really want to understand any of this stuff I urge you get get a basic book on economics, or open a new thread in GQ and ask some questions (and actually listen to the answers), rather than hijacking this thread with this sort of thing.

B-but… isn’t this precisely the sort of thing that occurred with lobsters? I can find instances of their being sold for $100, though perhaps not for 50c.

Regardless of how the price is subsidized, eventually the price of gasoline and other oil based products will take it to the point where alternatives are economically competitive, and then that market thingy that you are hazy on will take over. You see, The Market™ is really just you and me and all the other folks out there that buy stuff, well, buying stuff. If gas got to be $10/gallon in the US then it would open up myriad alternatives…alternatives we are already seeing at $3-4/gallon TODAY. And that is the answer to your assertion that oil could get to $20k/barrel…see, even at $100/barrel alternatives are being explored. You are taking about 200 times that price. The reason we use oil today is it’s CHEAP. If it weren’t, then we wouldn’t use it, and instead we’d use something else. You do realize that there is nothing oil does that can’t be done by some other material, right? But that we use oil because, again, it’s cheap? Yes?

Err, actually, I thought it was rather expensive. Subsidising oil cost the taxpayer more than housing for the disabled and the elderly, Iraqi construction, the endowment for the arts and search and rescue combined in 2009 as far as I’m aware. That’s going by the official statistics, the actual cost may have been higher. Not to mention the fact that alternatives that some aspects of the market want to see developed have been blocked by lobbying by the oil companies.

Again, would it be currently possible to utilise biofuel in all the ambulances in the US with their current fuel injection mechanism? I’m completely ignorant as to the answer and would appreciate you filling me in.

If the two things that have come up in the threads on this topic are true, that there will be a simple transitory segue into sustainable resources and that it’d be simpler to use fossil fuels in a more efficient manner (thus reducing carbon emissions), then I fail to see why environmentalists are raising such a fuss.

[XT]

[QUOTE=gamerunknown]
You don’t like Adam Smith?
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations par. IV.2.9

The produce of the soil maintains at all times nearly that number of inhabitants which it is capable of maintaining. The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species.
The Theory of Moral Sentiments par. IV.I.10

B-but… isn’t this precisely the sort of thing that occurred with lobsters? I can find instances of their being sold for $100, though perhaps not for 50c.

Do you understand what the term ‘adjusted for inflation’ means? Seriously, just stop. Please. I’m begging you here. You are just making yourself look more foolish continuing to push the whole $20k/barrel of oil thingy.

Err, actually, I thought it was rather expensive. Subsidising oil cost the taxpayer more than housing for the disabled and the elderly, Iraqi construction, the endowment for the arts and search and rescue combined in 2009 as far as I’m aware. That’s going by the official statistics, the actual cost may have been higher.

Well, you know, if you can’t trust TreeHugger.com and the Cato Institute, who can you trust? Yeah, if you add in everything dealing with oil, including military expenditures in the Middle East on down it adds to the total cost. What this has to do with what I said I have no idea, since, again, whether we pay ‘subsidies’ or not, eventually the price of gas at the pump will reach a point where alternatives will become economically viable. Which was my point. You obviously had ‘need to talk about “subsidies” for oil’ on a tape recorder somewhere, so hopefully with that off your chest now…

Not to mention the fact that alternatives that some aspects of the market want to see developed have been blocked by lobbying by the oil companies.

You would be wiser not to mention it, since you are getting into tinfoil hat territory here. Next you’ll be telling us about 200 MPG carburetors and gods know where things will go from there.

Again, would it be currently possible to utilise biofuel in all the ambulances in the US with their current fuel injection mechanism? I’m completely ignorant as to the answer and would appreciate you filling me in.

Why does it have to be biofuels? And, er, what are you on about with the ‘current fuel injection mechanism’? Why is that important? Ambulances don’t run without a ‘fuel injection mechanism’? But whatever. I can think of half a dozen alternatives to oil based fuels off the top of my head without even straining…all of which would be viable and even competitive if the price of gas at the pump climbed only a few more dollars a gallon.

If the two things that have come up in the threads on this topic are true, that there will be a simple transitory segue into sustainable resources and that it’d be simpler to use fossil fuels in a more efficient manner (thus reducing carbon emissions), then I fail to see why environmentalists are raising such a fuss.

You should, perhaps, go back and re-read the OP. It doesn’t say what you thin’ it says, kimosabe.

-XT

[gamerunknown]

Adam Smith

Yes and that argument unfortunately ignores the fact that the profit motivator can stall the interests of society when one is considered more important than another, ignore the tragedy of the commons where rational self-interest is worse for everyone than central planning and has also been extended to ridiculous lengths by right wing libertarians.

Here is one examples I encountered recently:

“I have the right to deny potential employment if I don’t like my employer (sex/ age/ personality etc..). So, If someone doesn’t want to hire me because I am brown / male then they should have the right to do so. But they are doing it at the expense of bad publicity and higher wages for a preferred candidate. They will be easily out-competed by employers who will hire regardless of race or sex. The free market can take care of these issues itself. “

(Arguing against the Civil Rights Act)

Do you understand what the term ‘adjusted for inflation’ means?

I’m afraid I brought up inflation, not you.

You obviously had ‘need to talk about “subsidies” for oil’ on a tape recorder somewhere, so hopefully with that off your chest now…

Right, thanks for your assiduous commentary. My point was that an entrenched corporate agenda can make viable alternatives very much less so, because start up companies and current companies are bound by the strictures of convention.

You would be wiser not to mention it, since you are getting into tinfoil hat territory here. Next you’ll be telling us about 200 MPG carburetors and gods know where things will go from there.

Well, perhaps I’m a sucker, but I believed the oil lobby had something to do with the reneging of the mandate for electric cars? Before you bring it up, electricity can be generated utilising methods other than fossil fuels such as hydrostatic power.

Why does it have to be biofuels? And, er, what are you on about with the ‘current fuel injection mechanism’? Why is that important? Ambulances don’t run without a ‘fuel injection mechanism’? But whatever. I can think of half a dozen alternatives to oil based fuels off the top of my head without even straining…all of which would be viable and even competitive if the price of gas at the pump climbed only a few more dollars a gallon.

Well, you that “ambulances can be run on something other than an oil based product”. I thought you might be referring to current ambulances rather than ones that’ll have to be designed in the future when fossil fuels start to become more scarce. Which would be a good reason, as I said, to start work now instead of when the market begins to demand it.

You should, perhaps, go back and re-read the OP. It doesn’t say what you thin’ it says, kimosabe.

I’m afraid I wasn’t referring to the OP.

the easiest geoengineering project we could implement would be to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.

There are ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stopping burning fossil fuels. Carbon sequestration is one idea. Also improving efficiency to reduce waste.

[Irishman]

Bioplastics are already beginning to be used. Why, just this weekend I read a bottle of Heinz ketchup where it says that 30% of the plastic in the bottle is made from plant matter, and it’s 100% recyclable. And I’ve seen advertising on water bottles and chip bags about them being made from plant sources.

[sweeteviljesus]

Perhaps this isn’t the best forum to discuss this. Mods, do you have a better suggestion?

Thanks,
Rob

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

sweeteviljesus: congrats! Your OP was noticed by Cecil, and became the launch for his current column: Can we fight global warming with artificial global cooling? - The Straight Dope

Congratulations on being one of the lucky few, and don’t let the fame go to your head!

[qazwart]

@Chronos

Yes. Sure, cutting back carbon dioxide emissions is really hard, but any other geoengineering project we could undertake for the same effect would be even harder, and most of them we don’t even know how to do.

Yeah, but if I can geoengineer, I still get to drive my Hummer!

The problem is whether we want to sacrifice out opulent lifestyle just to save the planet, and for the vast majority of people, the answer seems to be no. Cut back on green house emissions might mean I have to walk or even worse gasp take a bus to work.

Do you want to live in a world where our kids are forced to ride on busses? Is that what forefathers fought for back in 1776? Remember what Patrick Henry said “Give me premium unleaded or give me death!”.

In Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, he showed a slide from a conservation PowerPoint presentation that shows an extremely large scale with the planet on one side and a big bag of money on the other. The slide was suppose to show the need for balance, but as Gore pointed out, if we don’t have a planet, having money won’t do you so much good.

[constanze]

@sweeteviljesus

In this column Cecil seems to disparage the idea of geoengineering or at least using sulfur dioxide to counter global warning, but he doesn’t defend the position. Is it a good or bad idea, and if so, why?

I thought he was coming out pretty much against it.

After all, besides the local problems (local weather, dry spells etc.) the main problem is:

we got into the current mess = man-made climate change by mucking around with a highly complicated mechanism with multiple feedback points, that we barely understood (by releasing CO2); we compounded the problem by ignoring warnings; instead of taking the softest route of changing our lifestyle and energy production to lower CO2, trap the current amount in trees and help those affected by the inevitable consequences of the already-in-motion climate change - we look to a barely understood, not yet tested technique with multiple local consequences and unknown consquences decades down the road.

How anybody with more than a minimum understanding of the climate system or basic chaos theory or history of mankind would entertain the thought of fixing a complex system that got out of whack because of our heavy-handed messing with another, even more heavy-handed messing … I really can’t fathom.

Or put simpler: when a juggler starts dropping balls, you don’t add knifes. You let one drop and hope he gets it together again.

[sweeteviljesus]

I feel so special! I also found another question of mine he answered, but I won’t link to that as it uses my real last name.

I only wish he had also touched on what I said in post #7, paragraph #2.

Here, by the way, is the column to which I was referring.

[psythe]

I think the whole stratospheric sulphur dioxide idea is kinda cool in some ways, but there are two issues I’d like to bring up. One is that recooling the planet this way won’t do anything for the acidity of oceans (other than perhaps by reducing the amount of CO2 lost from melting ice) so we’ll still have big issues with reef destruction.

The other is that some countries are actually going to benefit economically from climate change (via a better climate for tourism and/or agriculture). If their less lucky neighbour starts unilaterally putting up big chimneys which are fairly obviously going to do it serious economic damage might that not be considered an act of war?

[constanze]

@psythe

The other is that some countries are actually going to benefit economically from climate change (via a better climate for tourism and/or agriculture).

What? Who told you that? Some countries which are now semi-arid will become even drier; others will become wetter; most will be exposed to more drastic climate (more and heavier tornadoes, hurricanes etc.,). Even in temperate zones, rainfall will be more concentrated into one big fall of 100 cm which has higher likelihood of flooding, and drought the rest of the month, instead of steady rainfall during several weeks as now.

In addition, small islands are already sinking now.

I have not heard of any “winners”. The rich countries can obviously better weather the effects - the Netherlands have a program (or rather, they just did a 180 regarding their previous decades-old program of building dams against high water to a new program with “controlled flooding” because with both ocean rising and rivers flooding, dams can’t keep up) to deal with the water, while the Bangladeshis more or less drown.

But even if it’s warm enough in Greenland to grow strawberries there, doesn’t make them a winner, because all the other negative effects of climate change affect them more, or because all the other factors for a successful strawberry industry aren’t there.