# What can be done (climate change debate)? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384 "2014-03-10T21:18:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**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:** [March 14, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/81 "2014-03-14T16:06:43Z")
Pure corn oil does not pollute when used in a diesel engine. Non food grade just means it’s not been treated like food, it might have biological impurities, not sulfur or shit like that. I didn’t say ethanol wouldn’t mess up your rubber and such, but you can put pure ethanol in most any car and it will run on it. better adjust the computer first. Old cars ran just fine on moonshine. It’s not the engine itself that suffers. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/82 "2014-03-14T16:11:28Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > We face both global warming and peak oil. That means we will be forced to use other energy sources whether we like it or not. That’s a fundamental contradiction. If peak oil is a serious problem, then global warming is self-correcting. None of the IPCC models include a ‘peak oil’ scenario. Basically, peak oil alarmism says that once the increase in consumption outstrips our ability to discover new supplies, the price of oil will skyrocket and cause the economy to crater as our energy costs go through the roof. But if that happens, by definition our emission of greenhouse gases would plummet - far more so than any carbon tax would ever cause. Another contradiction: Some of the same people that say peak oil will crater the economy believe that we can basically force a peak oil scenario through taxation, without hurting the economy at all. What’s common between those scenarios? A demand to intervene in the market and force the adoption of alternative energy sources. That two arguments are being used that are fundamentally contradictory should be illuminating. Another contradiction with the ‘green’ movement (and to be fair, this doesn’t include everyone on that side) is their opposition to fracking and nuclear power. Natural gas is a huge boon to global warming avoidance, because it provides a cheap widely available energy source that emits much less CO2 per btu than do other available sources. Yet there was widespread opposition to fracking from the same people who also oppose nuclear power - yet claim that global warming is the largest threat humanity faces. Fracking is the reason the U.S. has actually met the Kyoto targets while Europe has not, despite the U.S. being the ‘bad guy’ and the Europeans all piously signing up for the treaty. Sometimes it makes you think that the real objective is to increase taxes and control of the economy by government, and to put more power in the hands of the institutions the green movement likes. ---
**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:** [March 14, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/83 "2014-03-14T16:30:40Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Fracking is the reason the U.S. has actually met the Kyoto targets while Europe has not, despite the U.S. being the ‘bad guy’ and the Europeans all piously signing up for the treaty. > > Sometimes it makes you think that the real objective is to increase taxes and control of the economy by government, and to put more power in the hands of the institutions the green movement likes. Looking around it seems that the loudest proponent of that point that the EU has not met the Kyoto protocol and the USA has comes from WUWT, as I pointed before the problem of depending on sources that all along pushed hot air on the basics is that they are also very active on disparaging what others are doing about the issue. [http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news\_2013100901\_en.htm](http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2013100901_en.htm) > [@](#): > > EU over-achieved first Kyoto emissions target, on track to meet 2020 objective > > The European Union has succeeded in cutting its greenhouse gas emissions 18% since 1990, new reports from the European Commission and European Environment Agency show. The EU has also over-achieved its reduction commitment under the first period of the Kyoto Protocol by a wide margin. > > Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Action, said: “The EU is clearly delivering on its Kyoto commitments. The EU has reduced its emissions significantly since 1990 while expanding its economy. This further demonstrates that climate policy can be implemented in a way that fosters jobs and growth. Our 20% reduction target for 2020 is also within reach thanks to our climate and energy legislation. And through additional policies, we’re actually on track to overachieve our target.” ---
**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:** [March 14, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/84 "2014-03-14T16:37:04Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I hate to tell ya this, but the replacement also destroys ozone, and is a very powerful greenhouse gas as well. > > [http://scorecard.goodguide.com/chemical-profiles/summary.tcl?edf\_substance\_id=2837-89-0#envhazards](http://scorecard.goodguide.com/chemical-profiles/summary.tcl?edf_substance_id=2837-89-0#envhazards) > > Even with it having an ozone destruction level .02 of CFC-12, because 2-CHLORO-1,1,1,2-TETRAFLUOROETHAN is a high volume production gas, there is still a lot of ozone destruction going on. But the greenhouse effect from 2-CHLORO-1,1,1,2-TETRAFLUOROETHAN is high enough, that the amounts released since it began production is considerable, and may be one of the main causes of climate change as well. > > Unintended consequences. And as usual there is no look at the context, that site also reports that that replacement is also on the list of regulated chemicals now. The site also reports that efforts are ongoing to replace that with less harmful chemicals, in any case the reports are that the efforts did pay off, and not only on the ozone front. [http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2007/03/dodging-warming-bullet](http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2007/03/dodging-warming-bullet) > [@](#): > > What’s good for the ozone layer has been even better for Earth’s climate. According to a new study, a 20-year-old ban on ozone-depleting chemicals has been extremely effective at curbing greenhouse gases as well. In fact, it has already had more impact than a fully implemented Kyoto Protocol would have accomplished, even though the protocol was specifically designed to target atmospheric warming. The findings, say the authors, emphasize the importance of ridding the planet of these powerful greenhouse substances. > > Ratified by 169 countries since 1999, the Kyoto Protocol requires its signatories to set caps on carbon dioxide and methane emissions. Both gasses–commonly produced by fossil fuel burning and agriculture–have long been recognized as contributors to global warming because they trap heat in the upper atmosphere. But by focusing solely on this type of emissions, Kyoto has missed the most potent offenders, the researchers say. > > For example, says atmospheric scientist Guus Velders of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency in Bilthoven, the class of compounds known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) traps 5000 to 14,000 times more heat, pound for pound, than carbon dioxide, and 400 times more heat than methane. Policymakers, however, initially targeted these compounds not for their role in global warming but rather for their damage to the ozone layer. Just one CFC molecule can rip apart thousands of ozone molecules, exposing life on Earth to the harmful effects of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol was ratified by 191 countries to curb CFC emissions from sources such as refrigeration, dry cleaning, and foam insulation. The strategy has been effective: \*\*The rise in atmospheric concentrations of CFCs has been arrested, and the ozone layer has begun to show signs of recovery, to the point where scientists predict it will heal completely sometime after 2050. > \*\* > The real surprise, though, is the dramatic impact the reduction of CFCs has already had on global climate change. In a paper published online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Velders and colleagues calculate that since 1987, gradually shutting down CFC emissions has removed the equivalent of about 11 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (or about 0.55 billion tons per year that the Montreal Protocol has been active). By comparison, even if the Kyoto Protocol had been fully ratified (the United States and Australia, among others, have not signed on) it would have removed only about 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide thus far (or about 0.25 billion tons per year that the Kyoto Protocol has been active). So for CO2 emissions curbs to match the impact of the ban on ozone-depleting chemicals, they would have had to be over five times more restrictive. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/85 "2014-03-14T16:41:15Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > That’s a fundamental contradiction. If peak oil is a serious problem, then global warming is self-correcting. None of the IPCC models include a ‘peak oil’ scenario. There are many problems with that argument, aside from the fact that “peak oil” seems to be a continuing fallacy. Obviously the amount of available oil is finite; the question is when the practical economic limits of exploration and extraction will be reached and what shape our climate will be in by then – or more accurately, because there’s huge lag in climate response, what inevitable climate consequences we will be committed to by then. Since we’re already 120 ppm above the typical inter-glacial CO2 maximum, it’s not like we have the luxury to just sit back and see what happens. The other problem is that it’s not just oil. Coal reserves are very much larger, and even if coal isn’t convenient in its natural form, it’s convertible to other forms of carbon fuels. In short, there’s more than enough sequestered carbon deep in the earth to send the climate back to the Cretaceous. Which is quite literally where that carbon came from in the first place, and we’re cheerfully putting it all back. ---
**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:** [March 14, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/86 "2014-03-14T16:44:09Z")
If CfCs (like the current freons) are actually effective at warming the planet, then it would be possible to control the earth from entering an ice age. What’s strange, is that even with all the CfCs, CO2, methane and land use changes, we are not seeing any drastic increase in the global mean right now. In fact, this winter in the NH has been unusually cold. And fits the trend for colder NH winters. If, as it has been theorized, CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the cause, that an increase in greenhouse gases can actually CAUSE colder winters, there is yet another reason to do something about greenhouse gases. One of the few benefits of “global warming” was supposed to be a reduction in winter deaths, as well as savings on fuel cost for heating. That has not happened. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/87 "2014-03-14T16:51:49Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Pure corn oil does not pollute when used in a diesel engine. Non food grade just means it’s not been treated like food, it might have biological impurities, not sulfur or shit like that. > > I didn’t say ethanol wouldn’t mess up your rubber and such, but you can put pure ethanol in most any car and it will run on it. better adjust the computer first. > > Old cars ran just fine on moonshine. It’s not the engine itself that suffers. Whoa, we don’t want our food-grade corn oil spoiling on the shelf, why would we want our fuel-grade corn oil spoiling in the tank? Modern engines will run on kerosene, for a little while. Same with E100, for a little longer … but my new pick-up won’t last until 2028 running E100 all the time. [Another pseudo-citation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Ethanol-based_engines). > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > … because [methane] provides a cheap widely available energy source that emits much less CO2 per btu than do other available sources. Do you have a citation on the math here? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/88 "2014-03-14T16:59:05Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > We are indeed, self-serving. Newsflash though: we haven’t “become” that way. That’s human–probably animal–nature. The hungry crocodile will happily eat the last remaining endangered crane. At no time in the entire history of the human race has there been a deep and abiding concern for the welfare of descendants generations into the future. Yes, there has, just not often enough. We routinely recycle much of our garbage, something that was unheard of just about a generation ago; we drive relatively efficient less polluting cars and it’s no longer a status symbol to drive a behemoth that looks like an aircraft carrier on wheels; we solved acid rain and we got lead out of our gasoline and phosphates out of our detergents. Nuclear war may still be possible but it’s far less probable than it was 50 years ago. Indeed, there’s a fascinating story in an old LIFE magazine from 1953 about space flight that hammers away at its military implications, enthusiastically describing how US orbiting space stations could be, not just military observation platforms, but nuclear missile launch platforms that could unleash righteous atomic fury anywhere on earth where military leaders felt a little nuclear smackdown was called for. These were the days when the nuclear arms race was just beginning, and the biggest nuclear tests right in the open atmosphere were all yet to come – the tests that would send nuclear fallout all around the world and right into the food we eat. Although, those being the days when tetraethyl lead made all our car engines run so nice and smooth (look for the “ethyl” sign for guaranteed performance!), it’s not clear whether radioactive fallout would have killed us off before all the lead we were putting into our environment did. We’ve recognized and met challenges to our future survival and well-being before, only never at the scale that is now required. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > America is a plutocracy with a thin veneer of democracy laid over it. It’s what the rich want to happen that matters; if a hundred million non-rich people want X and _one_ rich guy wants Y, then Y is what happens. Wise words and very true. Further discussion belongs in its own thread, but in this one, suffice it to say that this is the basis of most of climate change denialism. When one side of the equation is some climate scientists and a hundred million average guys in the street who don’t really know what to think, and the other side is represented by companies like Exxon Mobil, a single company whose revenues are larger than the GDP of many countries, and individuals like the Koch brothers, all of whom are quite happy to tell the average guys in the street what to think, then there mysteriously seems to arise a great deal of doubt about the science. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/89 "2014-03-14T17:00:07Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > No, and since oil prices have a;lready reached the point where more expensive oil is a valuable commodity, oil isn’t anywhere close to running out. Peak oil is not about oil “running out.” > [@](#): > > In fact, the amount of oil under the oceans dwarfs all known reserves. But with sideways drilling, ocean oil that would be considered “too risky” or “too expensive” is already flowing down pipelines everyday. Peak oil is not about reserves. > [@](#): > > Oil isn’t going to run out anytime soon. It just gets more expensive. That’s peak oil. ---
**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:** [March 14, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/90 "2014-03-14T17:13:33Z")
Once again **FXMastermind** , this discussion is about what can be done and [we assume that it is happening](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/01/climate_change_deniers_cite_snowstorm_debunking_donald_trump_et_al.html) and we know the human causes that are driving the current warming. > [@wolfpup](#): > > The other problem is that it’s not just oil. Coal reserves are very much larger, and even if coal isn’t convenient in its natural form, it’s convertible to other forms of carbon fuels. In short, there’s more than enough sequestered carbon deep in the earth to send the climate back to the Cretaceous. Which is quite literally where that carbon came from in the first place, and we’re cheerfully putting it all back. That is the actual bottom line, as many corporations that are not the fossil fuel ones are beginning to realize that their future businesses will be affected by an increasing lack of control and extreme weather that we will get the longer we delay the concerted effort that is needed. One of the big stumbling blocks for those corporations that want to change is coming from the old energy providers that are not reacting well to the changing environment. > **[Big Business Wants Renewable Energy, But It Ain’t Easy - CleanTechnica](https://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/11/big-business-wants-renewable-energy-aint-easy/#D66TtwMPiYQphKHb.99)** > > Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News! Originally published on RMI Outlet by Dan Seif, Bryn Baker Empowered by aggressive climate and energy targets, companies more than ever before are driving the... > [@](#): > > Empowered by aggressive climate and energy targets, companies more than ever before are driving the transition to renewable energy—but that effort is not without hurdles. > > WWF’s Power Forward report, for example, showed that 60 percent of Fortune 100 and Global 100 companies have climate goals. To meet these targets, renewables are high on the hit list, but companies are finding buying and investing in renewable energy particularly challenging, even when they’re putting their shoulders into it. Witness Google’s white paper calling for new approaches to expand renewable electricity procurement options. > > … > > Corporate buyers want to buy clean, renewable power but they can’t buy it directly in many U.S. states. It’s like going to buy a new car, but finding all the cars are the same model and only come in black. Corporate buyers generally would rather buy green power from a supplier like a normal procurement decision than meet their goals project by project. Lack of simple procurement options that meet their needs are driving them to go around utilities. > > All this would be a lot easier if utilities—those in the business of procuring and delivering energy—were able to sell the renewable energy product their customers are looking for ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/91 "2014-03-14T17:18:30Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > That’s a fundamental contradiction. If peak oil is a serious problem, then global warming is self-correcting. None of the IPCC models include a ‘peak oil’ scenario. It’s not a contradiction if we are already past tipping point when it comes to CO2 emissions. Worse, several sources of unconventional oil produce more GHG. What you want to look at is not the IPCC but the IEA 2010 report. > [@](#): > > Basically, peak oil alarmism says that once the increase in consumption outstrips our ability to discover new supplies, the price of oil will skyrocket and cause the economy to crater as our energy costs go through the roof. Oil price has tripled. Crude oil production peaked back in 2005. We’re now using unconventional oil to meet increasing demand, and the IEA argues that that won’t last. > [@](#): > > But if that happens, by definition our emission of greenhouse gases would plummet - far more so than any carbon tax would ever cause. It won’t because we’ll be using coal and other sources of unconventional oil to meet demand. By the time it goes down, positive feedback loops will start kicking in. Actually, several of them have started. > [@](#): > > Another contradiction: Some of the same people that say peak oil will crater the economy believe that we can basically force a peak oil scenario through taxation, without hurting the economy at all. There’s no need to force such a scenario because it’s been taking place for around nine years. > [@](#): > > What’s common between those scenarios? A demand to intervene in the market and force the adoption of alternative energy sources. That two arguments are being used that are fundamentally contradictory should be illuminating. Too late because the oil price has already tripled. > [@](#): > > Another contradiction with the ‘green’ movement (and to be fair, this doesn’t include everyone on that side) is their opposition to fracking and nuclear power. Natural gas is a huge boon to global warming avoidance, because it provides a cheap widely available energy source that emits much less CO2 per btu than do other available sources. Yet there was widespread opposition to fracking from the same people who also oppose nuclear power - yet claim that global warming is the largest threat humanity faces. Peak oil is not about the “green” movement. Fracking, natural gas, and other unconventional oil sources have lower energy returns. Nuclear power does not provide petrochemicals. > [@](#): > > Fracking is the reason the U.S. has actually met the Kyoto targets while Europe has not, despite the U.S. being the ‘bad guy’ and the Europeans all piously signing up for the treaty. US emissions are dropping not because of fracking but because people are driving less. They are driving less because the U.S. economy weakened considerably. It weakened considerably because of a combination of fallout from financial speculation and global oil price tripling. > [@](#): > > Sometimes it makes you think that the real objective is to increase taxes and control of the economy by government, and to put more power in the hands of the institutions the green movement likes. Actually, the best way to increase tax revenues (not taxes) is to do the opposite, which is why the main backers of global warming denialism include Big Business and government junior partners. That’s why IPCC results are watered down and global warming underestimated. That’s also why global unregulated derivatives have a national value of more than a quadrillion dollars. That’s why mainstream news hardly report on global warming and peak oil, preferring to state that they are hoaxes, easy to solve, or both. How else can Big Business encourage people to borrow and spend happily? ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/92 "2014-03-14T17:19:38Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > There was a time when cars ran on ethanol. And in fact, most cars still **can** run on ethanol. If ethanol was cheaper than gas (current price 2.45 a gallon) we would use ethanol instead of gas. > > Diesel designed his engine to run on corn oil (or any vegetable oil) and if corn oil was cheaper than diesel farmers would grow their own fuel. Current bulk price for cheap non food grade vegetable oil is .50 cents a gallon. > > When something gets expensive, people switch to cheaper fuels. Ethanol and biofuels in general have very low energy returns. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/93 "2014-03-14T17:21:30Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > In short, there’s more than enough sequestered carbon deep in the earth to send the climate back to the Cretaceous. What exactly is inhospitable to humans in the Cretaceous climate? Considering what did live and thrive in that period, there won’t be any food shortages. An abundance of food plants mean an abundance of fresh water. Of all the disasters listed above, some _ **have been occurring** _ these past 10,000 years, of the rest we have not one shred of evidence they have ever occurred. “Hyper-canes”, I’m sorry, there’s physical limits on how strong a tropical cyclone can get before the various frictions kick in. Typhoon Tip may not be the biggest possible over the open ocean, but you push a super typhoon up against a continental land mass and things start spinning down right quick. Rising temperatures reduce our CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions from heating our homes. One thing we can do is outlaw air conditioners … because of all things, this is one of pure luxury. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/94 "2014-03-14T17:27:38Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > There are many problems with that argument, aside from the fact that “peak oil” seems to be a continuing fallacy. Obviously the amount of available oil is finite; the question is when the practical economic limits of exploration and extraction will be reached and what shape our climate will be in by then – or more accurately, because there’s huge lag in climate response, what inevitable climate consequences we will be committed to by then. Since we’re already 120 ppm above the typical inter-glacial CO2 maximum, it’s not like we have the luxury to just sit back and see what happens. The economic limits kicked in around nine years ago. The IEA admitted in 2010 that crude oil production peaked back in 2005. We are now using unconventional production to meet increasing demand. U.S. shale production will last for a few more years. In 2010, the IEA reported that we need to move to renewable energy as soon as possible because we face both peak oil and global warming. > [@](#): > > The other problem is that it’s not just oil. Coal reserves are very much larger, and even if coal isn’t convenient in its natural form, it’s convertible to other forms of carbon fuels. In short, there’s more than enough sequestered carbon deep in the earth to send the climate back to the Cretaceous. Which is quite literally where that carbon came from in the first place, and we’re cheerfully putting it all back. Coal has lower energy returns, especially when it has to be converted. Resources that are too deep cannot be extracted because the energy cost will be too high. That’s why even though we’ve used up only around 25 pct of crude oil conventional production is now in a plateau, and we’re forced to use unconventional oil. That won’t last for the same reason. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/95 "2014-03-14T17:29:27Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Whoa, we don’t want our food-grade corn oil spoiling on the shelf, why would we want our fuel-grade corn oil spoiling in the tank? Modern engines will run on kerosene, for a little while. Same with E100, for a little longer … but my new pick-up won’t last until 2028 running E100 all the time. [Another pseudo-citation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Ethanol-based_engines). > > Do you have a citation on the math here? The bigger issue is that oil prices and global warming, not to mention problems concerning phosphorus and other resources, is threatening food supply. On top of that, biofuels have low energy returns. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/96 "2014-03-14T17:39:56Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > The bigger issue is that oil prices and global warming, not to mention problems concerning phosphorus and other resources, is threatening food supply. On top of that, biofuels have low energy returns. Climate Change Denialism at it’s finest … how dare you bring the real and immediate problems of today … oceans level will rise **FIVE FEET** in 200 years … nothing but taxing the living shit of of the middle class will solve this issue. It doesn’t matter how much biofuels you burn, there’s a net zero increase in made-man carbon dioxide. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/97 "2014-03-14T17:44:42Z")
Some sources to consider in light of this topic: The NAS final report on global warming: [https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/sample-page/panel-reports/americas-climate-choices-final-report/](https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/sample-page/panel-reports/americas-climate-choices-final-report/) The IEA 2010 report on peak oil and global warming: [https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,27324,en.html](https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,27324,en.html) In relation to the second link, try my list of reports about peak oil: > **[Google Sites: Sign-in](https://accounts.google.com/v3/signin/identifier?dsh=S2030180174%3A1686374862215341&continue=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fsite%2Fsites%2Fsystem%2Ferrors%2FWebspaceNotFound%3Fpath%3D%2Fpeakoilreports%2F&ffgf=1&followup=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fsite%2Fsites%2Fsystem%2Ferrors%2FWebspaceNotFound%3Fpath%3D%2Fpeakoilreports%2F&ifkv=Af_xneHyW_ZdOqdhydXUZ--e0XetDCMWVVPOYEfB4xTtFSyU0-dtd7dWPcp-5TjcjxtvcODkAJOL&passive=1209600&service=jotspot&flowName=GlifWebSignIn&flowEntry=ServiceLogin)** > > Access Google Sites with a personal Google account or Google Workspace account (for business use). ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/98 "2014-03-14T17:48:49Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Climate Change Denialism at it’s finest … how dare you bring the real and immediate problems of today … oceans level will rise **FIVE FEET** in 200 years … nothing but taxing the living shit of of the middle class will solve this issue. > > It doesn’t matter how much biofuels you burn, there’s a net zero increase in made-man carbon dioxide. The government will not do that because its tax revenues are ultimately dependent on consumer spending. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/99 "2014-03-14T18:22:01Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > The government will not do that because its tax revenues are ultimately dependent on consumer spending. The OP didn’t specify realism … and since everyone else is posting their fantasies, I thought I should too. The Middle Class is begging to pay carbon taxes, they elected Hussian el’Obama with the campaign plank of installing massive taxes on energy. You have to admit, this would be a pretty cool way to control AGW. ---
**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:** [March 14, 2014, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/100 "2014-03-14T18:51:01Z")
Yep, indeed politics are one of them main reasons of the opposition seen here in the previous post. Even businesses are moving away from that inaction and are becoming more active on pressuring government to act. > [@](#): > > Here’s what makes the general silence on climate and the mocking from the self-identified pro-business party so absurd: tackling climate change is the smartest thing we can do for both our public health and our private sector. Reducing carbon emissions from our power plants, cars, and factories cleans the air and saves a lot of money. At the macro level, the burning of coal alone costs the U.S. about $350 billion per year in health (asthma, heart attacks, and so on) and pollution costs. At the micro level, from companies down to households, the opportunities to get lean and save money are vast. > > But more strategically, tackling carbon is an immense economic opportunity. Here’s billionaire and entrepreneur Richard Branson on the upside potential: > > “I’ve described increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as one of the greatest threats to the ongoing prosperity and sustainability of life on the planet. The good news is that creating businesses that will power our growth, and reduce our carbon output while protecting resources, is also the greatest wealth-generating opportunity of our generation. [There is no] choice between growth and reducing our carbon output.” > > This quest will drive innovation and create millions of jobs for some lucky companies and countries. Is this multi-trillion-dollar opportunity something we really want to miss out on? The other major economies are not sitting this one out. Germany is quickly moving its electric grid to renewables. China is committing hundreds of billions of dollars to energy efficiency and much more to the clean economy in general. > > But let’s say you don’t buy the argument that fighting climate change keeps us competitive globally, saves trillions of dollars, and generates new wealth. Then how about the overwhelming national security rationale? Using less oil, for example, reduces funding to petro-dictators around the world. The former head of the CIA, James Woolsey, puts is very bluntly: “Your gas money funds terrorism.” > > On this score the difference between the parties is stark. The DNC’s platform includes the words “climate change” at least 18 times and lists it as an “Emerging Threat” along with cybersecurity, biological weapons, and transnational crime. While “emerging” may not be the word I’d choose, it’s leaps and bounds beyond the GOP’ s party platform, which mentions climate change just once…and again, only to mock it. Their platform complains that the Obama administration has elevated “climate change” (with the sarcastic quotation marks) to the level of a severe threat to our security. > > But let’s be clear: it’s not the Democrats or even President Obama specifically that declared climate change a national security threat. That would be the Pentagon in its Quadrennial Defense Review —two years ago. > > A strong plan to tackle climate change through government policy, business innovation, and citizen action is not just something that’s not optional; it’s preferable. Moving away from carbon to a cleaner economy makes us healthier, more profitable, and more secure. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384.md?page=6)