jshore, I think you put that forth pretty fairly and evenly there, by my reading. I might say things differently on a point or two, but not enough that it’s worth debating. I have nothing to add unless the thread gets into the details of a specific point. My eyes bleed sometimes from reading the environmental compliance plans that are crossing my desk nowadays.
Err…in reading more carefully, I might take small issue with a few more points, but overall, since you’ve linked to the threads we discussed the two items in, anyone who wants to see the “long version” of both sides of the debate should feel free to read those threads. I don’t want to reproduce them here, or argue anew. Now, if you want to discuss the process flows of gypsum wallboard production from scrubbers, I’m doing that about 10 hours a day for…the next week…yeeesh.
Hope you had a good T-Giving, BTW, jshore.
If you look at the numbers on a per capita basis then Americans might understand why countries like China and Russia are not real sympathetic to the arguement. Eg, China should be the one reducing world pollution.
China has over 5x the population of the US, but produces less Kyoto type pollution on an absolutebasis. Not saying that China does not have the responsibility to reduce their pollution output. That said, not driving an SUV will do a lot more for the global environment than having a Chinese peasant burn less coal.
You wanna drive that SUV, then maybe you should have to subsidize 5 Chinese peasant villages off of coal and onto Hydroelectric power.
China Guy makes a good point in regards to Kyoto and such. Western nations might argue it is unfair that they are the only ones who have to make emissions cuts in the first step of the process (with the protocol saying that other countries will take part in subsequent steps that haven’t been negotiated yet). However, it seems to me that the Western nations actually have gotten a pretty good deal of being grandfathered into some quite high emissions per capita that it is quite unlikely the developing nations will ever be able to enjoy.
Um…I’ll pass, thanks! 
Thanks, I did. Hope you did too. How’d the curry-glazed turkey turn out? It sounded yummy.
Having looked it up, I’m quite content to have enough knowledge of the process to inscribe on the head of a pin. 
Squink: Noooooooo! Make gypsum go away! :eek:
I could be wrong… It happens. I think that worrying about greenhouse gasses, when periodic ice ages are the norm, is silly. From revue-politique
[bolding mine]
Er, “OVER” worrying. Air quality is important. I too breathe. Economic costs are costs. Ignore them at your peril.
Beagle,
Well, I would say that your view is certainly a minority view within the scientific community on this subject. As for that book “Adapt or Die…”, there is no doubt that some adaptation will be needed. That would be true even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today which clearly ain’t gonna happen. However, it is also important that we try to limit the extent of the grand experiment we are now performing on the earth’s climate system. Also, I don’t think that book is anything new…Those on the libertarian side of the spectrum have been arguing against emission reductions since Day-1. And, while it may not be obvious from the article that the International Policy Network falls into that category, a perusal of their website will make it clear that this is the case. This is from the “about” section:
Of course, they have a right to their views, but it is worthwhile to understand where they are coming from. (It is disappointing that nothing in that review or the self-description of the book gives any indication that they have a certain strong point-of-view.) After all, you probably wouldn’t be too convinced about the seriousness of the issue of climate change if I provided lots of links to Greenpeace. That is why it is important to have organizations like IPCC and NAS providing reviews of the current state of these subjects in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
P.S. - As for economic costs, the idea that they must be considered is nothing new although some people seem to like to imply that it is. IPCC has worried about them quite a bit. In fact, they note that most of the studies on costs have been “top-down” macro-economic studies rather than “bottom up” technology studies, so this is mainly what they relied on. The few “bottom up” studies that have been done (one by Union of Concerned Scientists and Tellus, one by 5 U.S. government labs) have come up with much lower costs.
We also know that the macro-economic models tend to ignore market inefficiencies…i.e., they assume one starts from an optimal state, whereas companies like B.P. who have instituted Kyoto-like reductions recently are claiming that they have done it with a net costs savings, which these models never could have predicted.
Furthermore, Here is an interesting piece from The American Prospect (admittedly a liberal journal) that argues that the costs of environmental regulations have been quite generally overestimated. The most interesting claim is that not only are the costs estimates by industry too high but even the estimates by, e.g., the EPA tend to be too high. They attribute this to the fact that the cost estimates tend to look at the cost barriers that exist at the time and neglect to factor in the market’s ability to do things at lower cost by innovation!
[hijack]Good turkey, good everything. [/hijack]
There is a need to modernize our infrastructure but it is tough to build anything without spending a million dollars on a study to prove the obvious. If you want to improve the environment then reduce the need and expense of environmental studies and provide incentives to upgrade.
We pay billions for institutions of higher learning. We should see this as an opportunity to steer research toward technological solutions. I love to see a university team inventing a process that can be expoited for the betterment of humankind. Makes me feel like I’m getting something for my tax dollars.