# Is there any realistic way to fight global warming? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 28, 2013, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345 "2013-12-28T07:38:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/61 "2013-12-31T15:14:25Z")
> [@Dave\_Hartwick](#): > > There are many methods available, and a nigh-infinite number of combinations and intensities of which those methods might be applied. They might be, but the point of talking about Algore is that they probably won’t. Because even Mr. Global Warming himself won’t give up his carbon footprint that is eleven times larger than average even for the US. If the most ardent advocates won’t change unless and until they are forced to do so, why would they expect anyone else to change? If it is not a good idea for him until someone passes a law forcing it on him, then it is not a good idea for me until someone passes a law forcing it on me, and we cannot pass a law forcing it on the Chinese. > [@](#): > > Of course, no one here has advocated that you should give things up. Advocating a switch to energy sources that are uneconomical without tax subsidies is asking us to give something up. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/62 "2013-12-31T15:39:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > They might be, but the point of talking about Algore is that they probably won’t. Because even Mr. Global Warming himself won’t give up his carbon footprint that is eleven times larger than average even for the US. > > If the most ardent advocates won’t change unless and until they are forced to do so, why would they expect anyone else to change? If it is not a good idea for him until someone passes a law forcing it on him, then it is not a good idea for me until someone passes a law forcing it on me, and we cannot pass a law forcing it on the Chinese. > Advocating a switch to energy sources that are uneconomical without tax subsidies is asking us to give something up. > > Regards, > Shodan And it also shows that you also did not paid attention, The point of Al Gore is to be carbon neutral, the change he advocates includes put his money in industries that allow him to keep the balance of the CO2 in the atmosphere. That was is, and even then it is clear that while it was not his point he is on top of that making changes like going vegan and reducing the carbon footprint in his home, of curse as I usually point out it seems that the blind spot seen on many conservatives is there, timelines and the march of science and technology is ignored to make the real alarmist points. Then you ignore also what is going on with the progress done with solar and wind, that are now not only making sense ecologically but also making sense economically. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/63 "2013-12-31T15:42:11Z")
> [@Dave\_Hartwick](#): > > No, my jokes usually involve pirates or ducks. > > You might think that nobody, anywhere, ever willingly gives up anything. That’s not true, though. Entire nations have given up, say, leaded gasoline. I gave up gasoline altogether for personal use. It hasn’t made me poor, not if by poor you mean short on cash. It saves me money that I can then spend on, as it turns out, my wife’s hobbies and my daughters’ toys. Such is life. > > Of course, no one here has advocated that you should give things up. That’s one of your strawmen. I will now, though. You should give up thinking about climate change. No good will come of it. Your non-ideas are particularly bad non-ideas. Not only do you repeat the obvious falsehood that there are only two choices, you can’t even see that mitigation is not an all or nothing concept. There are many methods available, and a nigh-infinite number of combinations and intensities of which those methods might be applied. This has already been addressed but your non-ideas are impervious to information. Very sturdy stuff, your little anti-thoughts. If I could, I’d insulate my house with them, though I’d be worried about the smell. At the very least, one could use them to wrap garbage. Then they’d be useful. > > Sorry I couldn’t work in a pirate or duck. What’s made of gibberish and quacks? So…given the typical level of concern over AGW (which I think is quite high), would you mind giving me a rough idea of what the typical “give” has been in lifestyle or comfort level that has resulted in “mitigation”? I just see total population continuing to rise, almost every member of that population putting their personal comfort above a putative future good, and total energy “needs” consuming all sources of energy brought online. That is, as we get better new renewables, they will add to the pool of energy but they will not displace AGW-contributing energy sources. And I do not see mankind avoiding the tragedy of the commons. But if you do, I’m just curious if you’d mind mentioning some areas where sacrifice pending better anti-AGW alternatives has been a success in mitigating. And if not now, when? I totally understand I am a sinner, AGW wise. And I swear to try to do good. But in the end I am pretty sure I will sink back into sinning instead of mitigating. And I bet you did not give up driving until lead-free gas came out. At least, most of us didn’t. We’ve solved a lot of pollution problems. But none that I know of that required us to substantially sacrifice while we were solving the problem. The problem wrt AGW is that we do not have enough total energy to make everyone live rich, and everyone wants to live rich. So we can’t solve the problem by making greener energy if the greener energy doesn’t displace dirty energy. I have not seen any numbers showing greener energy replaces the total amount of dirty energy. Have you? (See the graph I posted earlier to see what I mean) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/64 "2013-12-31T15:53:22Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > One more question, GIGObuster: Can you help me understand from the graph I linked above how much the rise in newer renewables (the green line at the bottom) was able to reduce the consumption of coal and oil (the red and black lines)? > > Look at the far right of the [graph](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_energy_consumption.svg) to understand my confusion here about your optimism. It does not look to me like rising new renewables is resulting in diminished coal/oil. > > Is it the case that the folks in China, India and most of africa will be putting their get-less-poor dreams on hold until we first sort out how to add only clean energy? > > What I see out there is mostly [this kind of grade-school level crap](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earthlife_Africa_brouchure.jpeg). But what are the numbers? The numbers were in the Reuters article and the other I linked about Germany, it shows what it would happen if we all would follow the example. You are looking at a graph that only goes to 2010, the example Germany is giving and the results are just taking place recently. It is painfully clear that you are repeating once again debunked points that are now even more so thanks to the march of time. And you \*\*still \*\*expect the \*\*same \*\* old straw to lift you up. And the huge rise seen in solar deployment seen in the south west of the USA is not there, once again the march of time is ignored to make sorry points. And your straw man was even mentioned in the post I made, and I was correct as your straw man appears once again in your post here, you are indeed claiming that the me and the experts are recommending that countries give up progress, or demand it from developing nations, it remains a straw man, the experts are not saying that. And last time I checked Germany and other countries that are doing a concerted effort are not going back to the stone age. You are indeed telling all that you are paying attention when in reality you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![phreesh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@phreesh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phreesh)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/65 "2013-12-31T16:02:22Z")
The solution is to price carbon. It really is that simple. However, implementation is a nightmare. Pricing carbon in most jurisdictions is probably feasible, but those that choose to not join such a group would have a potentially considerable economic advantage over other countries. To make a quick, real dent in climate change, carbon would need to have a high price implemented quickly. This would severely disadvantage developing countries like China and India, which have high energy needs, but not sufficient capital to invest in higher cost, low carbon energy solutions. Europe, Canada, the US and a small number of other countries could probably get their carbon use to reasonable level and still survive economically, but the rest of the world would be screwed. We would live in a world where climate change was potentially under control, but where the vast majority of the human population would be living under terrible economic conditions. Also, to address Bjorn Lomborg, he has been highly successful and influential. While many do not agree with his writing, he has hardly suffered greatly. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/66 "2013-12-31T16:20:30Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > We’ve solved a lot of pollution problems. But none that I know of that required us to substantially sacrifice while we were solving the problem. > > The problem wrt AGW is that we do not have enough total energy to make everyone live rich, and everyone wants to live rich. So we can’t solve the problem by making greener energy if the greener energy doesn’t displace dirty energy. > > I have not seen any numbers showing greener energy replaces the total amount of dirty energy. Have you? (See the graph I posted earlier to see what I mean) Like\*\* Dave Hartwic\*\* did notice, your points are made of straw. In this case though the fallacy is coming from a repeated (as Richard Alley was pointed out before in a previous discussion) argument from ignorance. And with a dash of appeal to extremes. The sacrifice you mention here does imply stopping progress and imposing intolerable sacrifices, it does not. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/V7bmg65SS20/maxresdefault.jpg "How to Talk to an Ostrich: "We can't Afford Clean Energy"") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7bmg65SS20) > [@](#): > > Some people say transitioning to clean energy will simply cost too much - “leave it to future generations.” In Edinburgh, Scotland, Richard Alley explains that if we start soon the cost of the transformation could be similar to that which was paid for something none of us would want to do without - clean water and the modern sanitation system. As Alley and many other experts mentioned, the percentage of the costs for the world economy doing a concerted effort to deal with the issue are in the single digits, the cost of continuing as usual continues to be the big elephant that is ignored by the contrarians. > **[The true cost of fossil fuels](https://skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... > [@](#): > > When you account for the effects which are not reflected in the market price of fossil fuels, like air pollution and health impacts, the true cost of coal and other fossil fuels is higher than the cost of most renewable energy technologies. > > … > > Cost Comparison > > The US Energy Information Administration provides a comparison of levelized costs for different power generation sources. Levelized cost represents the present value of the total cost of building and operating a generating plant over a period of time, and reflects overnight capital cost, fuel cost, operation and maintenance costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type. To convert from dollars per megawatt-hour to cents per kWh, move the decimal point in the table below one spot to the left (for example, conventional coal is 9.48 cents per kWh on average). > > energy costs from EIA > > As you can see, the externalities are sufficient to triple the cost of coal power, if they were reflected in its price. If we include the coal externalities, it increases the levalized costs to approximately 18 to 28 cents per kWh, which is more than hydroelectric, onshore wind, geothermal, biomass, nuclear, natural gas, and on par with solar photovoltaic and solar thermal (whose costs are falling rapidly), and offshore wind. Suddenly coal doesn’t look like such a good deal. > … > Bottom Line > > Ultimately it’s a significant problem that we rely so heavily on coal to meet our energy needs due to its artificially low market price. It’s like eating junk food for every meal. It’s cheap, it tastes good, but it’s not healthy and eventually you’ll pay the price through poor health, high medical bills, and a shortened lifespan. > > We may not pay the costs of climate change, lost biodiversity, air and water pollution, adverse health effects, etc. up front, but we do have to pay them eventually. We need to follow the recommendations of Epstein et al., transform our energy infrastructure, and move away from our dependence on coal and other fossil fuels. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/67 "2013-12-31T16:33:23Z")
> [@phreesh](#): > > The solution is to price carbon. It really is that simple. > > However, implementation is a nightmare. Pricing carbon in most jurisdictions is probably feasible, but those that choose to not join such a group would have a potentially considerable economic advantage over other countries. > > To make a quick, real dent in climate change, carbon would need to have a high price implemented quickly. This would severely disadvantage developing countries like China and India, which have high energy needs, but not sufficient capital to invest in higher cost, low carbon energy solutions. > > Europe, Canada, the US and a small number of other countries could probably get their carbon use to reasonable level and still survive economically, but the rest of the world would be screwed. We would live in a world where climate change was potentially under control, but where the vast majority of the human population would be living under terrible economic conditions. > > Also, to address Bjorn Lomborg, he has been highly successful and influential. While many do not agree with his writing, he has hardly suffered greatly. I would not quite agree on his writing, > **[The Lomborg Deception | ScienceBlogs](https://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/23/the-lomborg-deception)** > > I've noted before that Bjorn Lomborg systematically misrepresents the science. Sharon Begley has reviewed Howard Friel's book The Lomborg Deception: > **[So what's wrong with Lomborg? | ScienceBlogs](https://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/14/so-whats-wrong-with-lomborg)** > > People have noticed that there was an advertisement for Bjorn Lomborg's Cool It! on ScienceBlogs. Seed's sales staff know not to accept ads for Creationists, psychics and pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo, so how did Lomborg slip through? And that he has not suffered. > **[Bjorn Lomborg's climate sceptic thinktank to close](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/23/bjorn-lomborg-climate-thinktank-close)** > > Ecologist: Copenhagen Consensus Centre, directed by the high profile opponent of tackling global warming, is to close in July after the Danish government cut its funding > [@](#): > > Bjorn Lomborg’s climate sceptic thinktank to close > Copenhagen Consensus Centre, directed by the high profile opponent of tackling global warming, is to close in July after the Danish government cut its funding That would make me wonder where is getting his funding now, in any case many experts made the point in the past that the falling prices in solar will eventually make their massive deployment to make economical sense, even with the efforts made to ignore the real cost of using coal and other fossil fuels. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/68 "2013-12-31T17:26:19Z")
> [@grude](#): > > Lets just assume human caused global warming is real, stay with me ok. You still need to define what you mean by “global warming”, and especially what the consequences of the undefined “global warming” are assumed to be, and when. ---
**Author:** ![Spiff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiff/32/9852_2.png) [@Spiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiff)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/69 "2013-12-31T17:42:26Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > And the storage issues are political, not technical. And that’s just what I stated. Show me a political entity that is guaranteed to last 10,000 years. But it’s also technical. Show me a container guaranteed to last 10,000 years. You can’t do either, so nuclear is an absurd answer. Period. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/70 "2013-12-31T17:43:34Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > You still need to define what you mean by “global warming”, and especially what the consequences of the undefined “global warming” are assumed to be, and when. Once again, this only implies that we should not do anything when some issues are still uncertain. However, uncertainty is not your friend. Nor is the fact that almost all experts on the matter conclude that we should control emissions and you continue to claim those experts should interpret the data as you do. [http://planet3.org/2012/03/13/uncertainty-is-not-your-friend/](http://planet3.org/2012/03/13/uncertainty-is-not-your-friend/) > [@](#): > > In a nutshell, the logic of this position can be condensed to “there is so much uncertainty that I am certain there isn’t a problem.” How logical is this position? Can we conclude from the existence of uncertainty that there certainly is no problem? > > This conclusion appears inadvisable for a number of reasons that will be examined in this series of three posts. To foreshadow briefly, there are three reasons why uncertainty should not be taken as a reason for inaction on climate change: > > ``` > [ul] > > ``` > > [li]Uncertainty should make us worry more than certainty, because uncertainty means that things can be worse than our best guess. Today’s post expands on this point below, by showing that in the case of climate change, uncertainty is asymmetrical and things are more likely to be worse, rather than better, than expected.[/li][li] In the second post, I will show that it is a nearly inescapable mathematical constraint that greater uncertainty about the future evolution of the climate necessarily translates into greater expected damage cost.[/li][li] Finally, the presence of uncertainty does not negate the urgency of mitigative action. There may be uncertainty about our carbon budget—that is, the amount of greenhouse gasses we can emit before we are likely to exceed temperature increases that are deemed “safe”—but the implications of there being a budget are that delaying mitigative action will necessarily end up being more costly later.[/li][/ul] > \*\* > Uncertainty means things could be worse than anticipated\*\* > > What does uncertainty mean in the context of climate change? Although the word uncertainty has been used in many different contexts, a good definition is to equate uncertainty with imprecision in our best estimate of the future evolution of the climate. > > In particular, I focus on the likely “sensitivity” of the climate, which refers to the expected increase in global temperatures in response to a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels. According to best current estimates, climate sensitivity is anywhere between 2 degrees (Celsius) and 4.5 degrees, with a best estimate of about 3 degrees. Because an eventual doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels (~275 ppm) cannot be ruled out, given today’s concentration of ~392 ppm and the on-going increase of 2 ppm per year, this estimate of climate sensitivity is also a good estimate of the temperature increase from pre-industrial levels that we may experience towards the end of the century. > > Without going any further, we can already draw one conclusion from this fact: If our best guess of climate sensitivity is 3 degrees, and the uncertainty range is 2-4.5, then things could be worse than expected. We expect 3 degrees but might get 4.5—of course, we could also get as “little” as 2, but we are ignoring the vast majority of possible outcomes if we assume (or hope) that we will “only” get 2 degrees. > > So clearly, uncertainty means that things could be worse than anticipated. > > But the problem does not end there. There are two additional aspects of uncertainty that we need to consider. > > First, we must consider the distribution of climate sensitivity estimates. We know that there is a “best” (mean) estimate, and we know that there is a range of most likely values. But it turns out that climate scientists can do better than that: they can provide a distribution of possible values of climate sensitivity which attaches a probability of occurrence to a range of possible values. > > The figure below shows the distribution of climate sensitivity, taken from a paper by Roe and Baker (2007). > > For present purposes, the most crucial aspect of the figure is its asymmetry: It has a “fat” upper tail and a fairly skinny lower tail. That is, there is little likelihood that climate sensitivity will turn out to be more than 1 degree less than the best estimate of around 3-3.5 degrees (i.e. there is little chance of it being below 2), but there is a considerable chance of it being more than 1 degree above that value—note how it is not inconceivable that it might be as high as 5 or even 6 degrees. > > There are some very good—and intellectually fascinating—reasons for why the climate sensitivity distribution is asymmetric and has a fat upper tail, but they are beyond the present scope. Interested readers may want to consult Roe and Baker (2007) or Roe and Armour (2011). (For a critique of the work by Roe and colleagues, see Zaliapin & Ghil, 2010, 2011.Their critique does not affect the presence of fat tails, only the generality of the reasons underlying its occurrence). > > So uncertainty doesn’t just mean that things could be worse than anticipated—in the case of climate, chances are that things will be worse rather than better than anticipated. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/71 "2013-12-31T17:51:56Z")
> [@Spiff](#): > > And that’s just what I stated. > > Show me a political entity that is guaranteed to last 10,000 years. > > But it’s also technical. Show me a container guaranteed to last 10,000 years. > > You can’t do either, so nuclear is an absurd answer. Period. Underground locations have been found that have been stable for millions of years, of course NIMBY can make this a problem by preventing the development of those disposal locations. We should not forget that Fukishima was not contained as it should in large part because of all the spent fuel stored on the nuclear plant contaminated the control areas. Currently we have many situations like that in the USA because of the current political nonsense that does not allow the proper disposal of the spent fuel. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/72 "2013-12-31T17:58:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > We should not forget that Fukishima was not contained as it should in large part because of all the spent fuel stored on the nuclear plant contaminated the control areas. Complete nonsense. None of of the stored fuel rods contributed to any of the radiation that contaminated anything at Fukushima. It was all from the three ruined reactors that vented or breached containment. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/73 "2013-12-31T18:01:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Once again, this only implies that we should not do anything when some issues are still uncertain. No, it directly states that before you can discuss, or solve a problem, you need to know what the problem actually is. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/74 "2013-12-31T18:13:23Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > No, it directly states that before you can discuss, or solve a problem, you need to know what the problem actually is. More ignorance that the problem was identified and that experts do report what it should be done. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) > [@](#): > > In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a “greenhouse effect” which affects the planet’s temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. The story is long and the cited science is there. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/75 "2013-12-31T18:18:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Then you ignore also what is going on with the progress done with solar and wind, that are now not only making sense ecologically but also making sense economically. Not true, unfortunately. > [@](#): > > While the cost of solar energy has declined rapidly in the recent past, it still remains much higher than the cost of conventional energy technologies. Like other renewable energy technologies, solar energy benefits from fiscal and regulatory incentives and mandates, including tax credits and exemptions, feed-in-tariff, preferential interest rates, renewable portfolio standards and voluntary green power programs in many countries. Potential expansion of carbon credit markets also would provide additional incentives to solar energy deployment; however, the scale of incentives provided by the existing carbon market instruments, such as the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, is limited. Despite the huge technical potential, development and large-scale, market-driven deployment of solar energy technologies world-wide still has to overcome a number of technical and financial barriers. Unless these barriers are overcome, maintaining and increasing electricity supplies from solar energy will require continuation of potentially costly policy supports. [Cite](http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/1813-9450-5845). Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/76 "2013-12-31T18:44:08Z")
FPL built a solar assist array (first in the nation they say) to boost output from a natural gas fired boiler. In essence it adds the sun’s heat during the day to the gas fired boiler, meaning they use less gas when the sun shines, which happens to be when they need the most power. [Here it is on Google Earth](https://maps.google.com/maps?q=indiantown+fl&ll=27.050985,-80.551114&spn=0.017429,0.025535&hnear=Indiantown,+Martin,+Florida&gl=us&t=h&z=15), and here are [the gas fired boilers](https://maps.google.com/maps?q=indiantown+fl&ll=27.058944,-80.564541&spn=0.002178,0.003192&hnear=Indiantown,+Martin,+Florida&gl=us&t=h&z=18) it assists. Uses an oil to conduct the heat. Brilliant idea, simple concept. Just use the heat of the sun (of which there is a LOT of in Florida) to reduce fuel use. They had an oil leak (huge expense), but still, at least somebody is trying to use the sun. FPL also wants to put in wind mills next to their nuclear plants, but of course the home owners and other groups are fighting it tooth and nail. I mean, it’s OK to live across the river from two nuclear reactors, but windmills? Perish the thought. Plus, the birds. And bats. Man it is HARD to to use the sun and wind in Florida. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/77 "2013-12-31T18:44:33Z")
My biggest problem with wind and solar is that people think it can actually fulfill our needs and let’s us ignore that scaaaary nuclear power. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/78 "2013-12-31T18:44:52Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Complete nonsense. None of of the stored fuel rods contributed to any of the radiation that contaminated anything at Fukushima. It was all from the three ruined reactors that vented or breached containment. Not what I read, at the start of the crisis a lot of the contaminated water came thanks to the efforts to control the spent fuel that was up high in the reactor building. The frames of the store thanks were damaged in the gas explosion, along the building infrastructure on which they were constructed. With no way to detect right away if the spent fuel was under control, water was applied to the tanks. The point was that if the spent fuel had not been stored up high and in the building there would had been less contamination and more prompt control of the incident. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/79 "2013-12-31T18:46:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Not true, unfortunately. > [Cite](http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/1813-9450-5845). > > Regards, > Shodan Once again, from a few years ago and remember the IF in their report, it seems to the the if is being taken care of in Germany and other places. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/80 "2013-12-31T18:47:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point was that if the spent fuel had not been stored up high and in the building there would had been less contamination and more prompt control of the incident. While that is also not true, I agree that spent fuel rods should NOT be stored on top of the reactors. The problem is, as anyone following the crisis knows, you can’t move fresh spent fuel rods. Even after they have cooled for years, they are very hard to move. They have to be kept under a lot of water. Until they have “cooled” off for a long time. The longer the better. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345.md?page=5)