What can be done (climate change debate)?

Great Debates
201

With your binary glasses and passion for proselytizing your Great Cause, you see two alternatives: Buy into the horror that is coming and do everything possible to avoid it, or stick your head in the sand. I’m not sure how I’m minimizing what your heroes do; I’m just saying Emanuel has written that the uncertainty level of what will happen is high, and I doubt very much is going to get doen–partly because there is general tacit agreement that the uncertainty is high.

For you, the Great Cause of Avoiding ACC Catastrophe trumps all other concerns.

Reagardless of your excitement to Do Something, what will actually happen is that we’ll just bumble along, because the uncertainty of what will occur, and when, is too high.

Before you get too excited about the Texas and Denmark demonstrations of what can be done (whatever that means) you should take a more sober look at whether or not renewables of any kind within any reasonable time span will diminish total CO2 output from fossil fuels. If they don’t (and I’ve given you a chart showing there is no evidence to date that they will) then CO2 is going to continue to rise, and some variant of predicted consequence will occur.

The fact that danger is on the horizon doesn’t mean we can solve for it any more than the impending earthquake that will devastate Tokyo/LA/Mexico City means we can solve for that. We’ll just putter along ameliorating in advance as we have resources and commitment, and doing the best we can post-damage.

The uncertainty of just what will happen with ACC will keep it from being the cause for which every other human need is dropped. The meagreness of return from high-investment efforts like Germany will not do much to persuade the masses that high-cost efforts for low-yield return against uncertain catastrophes is worth sacrificing for.

It is psychologically very rewarding to invest in a crusade against Destruction of the World, and Grand Plans to Save the Planet. But the real world doesn’t work that way.

Think of ACC as sort of a hobby anxiety for the well-heeled, and that should help you put this particular Great Cause in better perspective.

202

As we found out, your whole post here is really based on useless rhetoric and unfounded support from crackpots that are abusing their titles.

Before continuing to insult others by making this only about emotions and their mental state, one should see first if your sources and leaders are not the ones that are truly making a religious crusade to not do a thing and ensuring that what could be an inconvenience is turned into a bigger problem.

And yes, that is Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA). One can’t swing a dead cat by the tail without hitting a Republican denier with the real crusade mentality and power to do nothing. The evidence shows that the ones using religion like Senator Inhofe (that if the senate goes Republican he will gain a more leading seat guiding policy on this) are insisting that “God is out there” and will prevent any harm from coming to us.

Science always remind us that that wishful thinking is not a good thing to follow in the real world, so the only nit to Bill Moyers is that we should not wait for god to help us, nor to allow the powerful to use him for nefarious reasons.

-Carl Sagan, Pale Blue dot.

Before he died, Carl Sagan pointed in the 90’s at the reality and the basic solutions for this issue.

203

Chief Pedant, I wish you would drop your references to religion and proselytizing. People who propose taking action to mitigate climate change aren’t raving about the unverifiable pronouncements of prophets, they are pointing to real science and drawing conclusions. While some of them may yet be unrealistic or not taking into account the Big Picture, you have got.to.stop comparing climate science to faith. I know, Great Cause behavior and so on… stop it.

Beyond that, I agree with you that climate change is already under way and we ought to be prepared to live with it. The difficulty of changing the behavior of the global population is simply too much.

Still, what can be done? Recognizing the limits of my influence, I’ve boiled it down to ‘what can I do?’ LED lightbulbs? Check, but big whoop. I’ll buy some kind of plug-in vehicle eventually, but big deal. I invest money in solar. Did you buy any stock in the company I told you about a few months ago? It has been up as much as 50% since I mentioned it. I made a 100% return on my solar investments in 2013, and I’m up ~20% so far this year. I hope and suspect big gains will continue, based on the observation of the staggering potential for growth in solar power generation worldwide.

Compare to what would have happened if I put my money in Clean Energy Fuels Corp., Exxon, or Chevron. I wouldn’t have ruined my portfolio, but I would not have seen anywhere near the gains I did either.

If I can maintain this level of return, in the not-too-distant future I will literally be a millionaire. Then people will say, “Try2B, you aren’t especially good-looking, unusually intelligent nor particularly talented. How did you become a millionaire?” And I’ll tell them it is the result of investing in solar companies. Hopefully others will follow my example, in a free-market fashion and following their own self-interest, thereby expanding the solar industry by increasing investment in it. (I’d point out that by no means is my entire portfolio in any one thing).

I agree that energy isn’t a zero-sum game, and that new energy added may not offset CO2-based energy. OTOH, a big enough increase in the supply of renewable energy, like solar, plus other developments already underway like big increases in power storage, eventually will displace at least some CO2-based energy.

Will it be enough? Probably not. But I’m just one guy. I have to be prepared to live in a world with higher CO2 levels, even if I think that is a problem and do what I can about it. In the same way, just in case I don’t become a millionaire solar investor, I haven’t quit my job.

204

Its not a balanced objective presentation of the facts so its really just PR, which in this context is propaganda. Indoctrination, not education.

The penny you are talking about is almost a TRILLION dollars a year PLUS massive conservation efforts. There is no way to get the results you want with mild changes in our behaviour and policies. You are proposing potentially crippling policies.

If these things are as profitable as you say, then you don’t really need to push these technologies, they will propagate on their own and we don’t need a “solution” the problem will solve itself. The reason you are pushing for a solution is because these things are NOT really that profitable.

Who is saying that we should run in place? These technologies are moving along at a natural pace. We will see more electric cars in the future. At some point there will be a breakthrough in solar or wind power that will make them competitive enough that we won’t have to subsidize the majority of the cost of producing solar and wind power.

205

Funny, those are based on examples, real work done by industry, government and individuals working together. Not an imaginary thing, imaginary results are part of the common definition of propaganda, but this is not based on imaginary things.

And of course you ignore what even conservative economists are taking the costs of not doing a concerted effort into account.

And that is the point, actually only part of the complex point. There are reports that point at solar and wind as getting close to the expense of the traditional fossil fuels,

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2013/09/xcel-energy-proposes-to-triple-solar.html?page=all

And once one does add the real costs of using fossil fuels then alternatives like wind and solar are **already **cheaper.

One factor needs to happen to accelerate the change. And that is to add the real price to our use of the atmosphere as a sewer.

The problem is that many who look at the issue do point out that that “natural” pace will come at a time when the change is likely to be irreversible or to when the costs will increase more for adaptation solutions.

206

Is it your opinion that these senior scientists – the authors of the IPCC WG2 reports on “Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability” from which that chart is drawn – are incapable of “thinking straight” due to some sort of mental disorder, and occupy themselves with making crazy wild-ass guesses?

You might Google some of the names. I’ll just do the first three for you: Cynthia Rosenzweig is a climatologist at NASA GISS specializing in the relationship of climate change and agriculture. Gino Casassa a specialist in glaciology and hydrology and one of Chile’s most renowned scientists in any field. Anton Imeson is an internationally renowned specialist in desertification, land degradation, and sustainability. There are about 300 others and it would take me several days and a great many pages to list all their qualifications. I’m sure they would not appreciate being accused of being in the grip of a collective mental disorder.

I agree. It seems to be fashionable for both vested interests in denialism and casual cynics to smear climate science with the stigma of being a “religion”. Which was my main point above.

The second paragraph is correct, too, but we need to understand that there are limits to adaptation. It’s not just the amount of climate change as measured by CO2 concentration and consequent new equilibrium conditions that matters to our well-being, it’s the speed of the change. At the present time the speed of climate change – the amount of imbalance, so to speak – is orders of magnitude higher than it ever normally is in nature. Nature doesn’t react well to those kinds of stresses, and it certainly doesn’t maintain a benevolent stability in which its responses are gradual and incremental. So we really have two different problems: the new climate regime toward which we are hurtling with all its risks and unknowns and the inevitable challenge of adaptation regardless of what we do, and secondly the instabilities created by the magnitude of the climate forcings. To believe that this will somehow all end magnificently and beneficially – now that’s religion! And it’s certainly not a religion subscribed to by anyone with any knowledge of how either the climate system or the ecosystem really works.

207

So propaganda must only have imaginary things in it? Propaganda - Wikipedia

What the examples are is anecdote that don’t give the whole story. One of the stories points out that when the government provided a $0.30 subsidy (on energy that I can get for $0.10) the use of the subsidized energy went through the roof and when they lowered the subsidy, the use of the subsidized energy dropped. It seems to be arguing for more of these subsidies without pointing out that the only thing making this technology viable was a 300% subsidy of an energy source.

I understand that there are costs to global warming. There are also costs to taking some of the extreme measures that would stop or reverse global warming.

If you are arguing for the existence of global warming, I don’t disagree with you. Absent a massive shift in consensus, there are a lot of people who know more about this stuff than me who think that the earth is heating up and that human activity is causing the earth to heat up.

Like I said, solar can work in desserts. I suspect that Las Vegas could economically supplement the Power from the Hoover Dam as cost efficiently with solar as they could with natural gas and where this is feasible, I suspect it will happen. But thats going to happen anyways. You don’t have to spend a trillion dollars a year to get people to do things that already make economic sense.

And how do you impose those costs on China and India. I understand that pollution is an externality and I favor internalizing externalities, but what you are proposing would triple or quadruple the heat and energy bill of many Americans unless someone figures out a way to cheaply sequester carbon emmissions. And it might still wouldn’t stop global warming, it would just give large developing economies like China and India more breathing room.

How well understood is that? How much of a consensus is there about that?
Is the notion that once this carbon has been taken out of the ground (in the form of fossil fuels) and put in the air, there is no way to put it back in the ground? you are asking that we spend a trillion dollars a year, every year to speed up the a process that is already occurring. Is there clear and convincing evidence of some great harm that will occur absent these expenditures? Thats a big ask without clear and convincing evidence.

208

[quote=“Damuri_Ajashi, post:207, topic:683384”]

So propaganda must only have imaginary things in it? Propaganda - Wikipedia

Of course not, but the reality is that you call it propaganda because you have no evidence to deny it.

Nowhere I said that subsidies should not be used, in fact they are part of the solution.

You need a cite for that “triple or quadruple heat and energy bill” here.

Of course there are ways to put it back into the ground, but as usual you ignore how much that will cost.

And as for the clear evidence, you are once again going back on a tangent that is not supposed to be part of the discussion, act like if the harm will take place. otherwise you are only negating the costs of adaptation and the damage that is more likely to come, if there was no evidence or the effects were not going to be harmful then you would get your wish of being correct on this. But in the end one should not expect magic to reduce the most likely impacts.

209

Electric cars require oil for manufacturing, especially petrochemicals, as well as many other resources.

Hoping for a breakthrough is not the same as arguing that it will take place. One should also assume that any technologies used will lead to more resource consumption, not less.

Also, there’s lag time and many other predicaments. Read my previous post for details.

210

Ultimately, the problem isn’t dollars as those can be created readily (most money worldwide consists of numbers in hard drives) but energy and resources needed to maintain a global economy:

“Why EROI Matters (Part 1 of 6)”

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3786

The minimum energy return required to meet the needs of countries like the U.S. cannot be met by renewable and other energy sources. Meanwhile, the energy return of oil has gone down since the 1930s. This means that an industrial civilization is not sustainable in the long term.

Also, when population in factored in, then oil production per capita peaked back in 1979:

“Peak oil? What peak oil?”

which isn’t helpful given a growing global middle class, increasing money supply, and a global economy that can only be sustained through continuous economic growth requires increasing resource and energy consumption per capita.

The situation is the same for resource availability in general:

“List of countries by ecological footprint”

In 2007, ave. ecological footprint per capita exceeded biocapacity, and that’s a footprint that will not allow for middle class conveniences including electric cars, electronic gadgets, the infrastructure needed to sustain that, and more.

In short, the global economy and, with that, a middle class lifestyle, are not sustainable. At best, people will have to adjust to localization, probably even lack of solar panels and many components that are made available through oil-dependent manufacturing and delivery systems, and other problems.

211

So right now the vast majority of oil consumption in the US and most of the developed world is cars. You’re saying that if we get rid of that oil consumption would STILL go up because producing the cars would consume oil?

I have no idea what your other posts were about. It seemed like you were having a conversation about peak oil with Chief Pedant and I tuned out as soon as i got a wiff of peak oil.

212

Where did you find that out?

My “whole post” (i.e., my expectation of what will actually be done for AGW, and whether or not it will help) is based on the following:

  1. There is a perception that what will actually come of ACC is uncertain. Comments by thoughtful scientists such as Emanuel–folks clearly on the Alarmist side of the debate–lend credence to that perception. We might sacrifice collectively for catastrophic and proximate threats to well being. We will not do so for future threats.
  2. A burgeoning population seeking to live better will not put future generations above current desire to live better. We all want to live like Al “Strawman” Gore.
  3. The trend of world energy consumption rises for all energy from all sources (nuclear excepted, but more nuclear would diminish CO2 output.

Whether you like it or not, we’re going to consume all the energy we can make from all sources.

We’re going to want a lot more energy for a long, long time.

Here’s the graph you need to solve for, and it’s the one that suggests to me which of us likes to indulge in rhetoric more.

213

If you do not understand why people behave the way they do, why political decisions are made the way they are, and how mass psychology works, I don’t think you’ll understand why the world is as it is. Nothing wrong with that, but it can make daily efforts to effect change a little quixotic.

214

They are wild ass guesses, yes. Worse, they are couched in terms that are risibly weasel-worded for drama:

“Hundreds of millions exposed to increased/decreased water stress…” (Would it be too much trouble to quantify that? Oh; I guess it’s not possible to actually quantify it, because it’s in the future and we are lousy at predicting actual net net effects…)

***“Up to 30% of species at increasing risk of extinction…” ** *(Meaning it could be 3%, and their extinction risk goes from 17 to 19%?)

***“Complex negative effects on small holders, subsistence farmers and fishers…” *** (Complex, negative effects? That clears it up. While the big farmers see larger crops, or northern latitude growing seasons get expanded or CO2 fertilization turns out to be beneficial? What about mentioning that the burgeoning population isn’t going to leave any fish to fish for, anyway?)

***“Increased damage from floods and storms…” * **(As in, increased from one storm to two? Where does that rate if we’re trying to decide whether to put more resources into earthquake-proofing cities? See Emanuel for comments about certainty.)

***“Increasing burden from malnutrition, diarrheal, cardio-respiratory and infectious diseases…” *** (Pardon; could you quantify that for me so I can figure out how much resource to devote to it? Right now I’m trying to scrub particulate matter from Chinese and European air. CO2 production will need to take a back seat…)

Yes; WAGs. Nice guys, I’m sure, and earnest. Devoted. Smart. Participants in many a paper and signers-on to many a sobering Panel Position.

But still, WAGs.

Precisely the kind of un-quantifiable WAGs that diminish a drive to drop what we are doing, sacrifice collectively, bundle up a world initiative, and Save the Planet.

It’s my impression both you and Gb are deeply moved by Names instead of data.

215

I suppose it was the automobile industry and unions that over fifty years or so used their political power to make the States and a lot of other places such that you can’t survive without a car.

It is I guess an example of the consequences of capitalism and democracy. What astonishes me now is that developing countries are still on that path in spite of it all.

216

And all this time I thought Capitalism and Unions (along with democracy) were just meeting public demand.

Is there a secret place this nefarious Plan is stashed? If so, maybe we can find it and thwart the conspiracy for the next fifty years.

I too, am shocked–SHOCKED–that a Tanzanian would aspire to a Mercedes G63 over a bus ride. Nice cars should be reserved for me and Mr Gore.

217

Not just operating cars but manufacturing cars, and not just cars but most products, and not just manufacturing but also food production, and just the developed world but the global economy, and not just oil providing energy but also petrochemicals.

It is irrelevant to wonder about the costs of mitigating climate change through the use of renewable energy because of peak oil. Put simply, with a lack of oil, the world will be forced to use renewable energy whether it wants to or not.

However, returns on renewable energy are not high, and the global economy, which is needed to make electric cars, among other things, is heavily dependent on the use of oil.

But because the same global economy requires continuous economic growth, as seen in a growing global middle class (which will not only require to solar panels and electric cars but manufacture more of both and other components, all of which will require consumption of oil, water, and other resources during the manufacturing and delivery process), then more energy and resource use are inevitable. That means C02 emissions will continue rising, and when it does start dropping, the tipping point for irreversible global warming may have already been reached.

Thus, the world faces long-term effects of global warming plus peak oil, both of which will not make the global economy sustainable.

218

Playing the argument from ignorance card again. If you are not using Judith Curry or Pielke Jr. then you are indeed just wild ass guessing but on the side of using uncertainty once again as your cover. And that covers most of your last useless posts here.

Again, as any cautious person that has home insurance does, uncertainty recommends that we do take care of the problem that your graph describes, you are really just repeating that image that shows the problem like Duane Guish does by repeating the issue of the gaps in the fossil record to declare that evolution is false.

So you need to stop your hijack, We are discussion what to do. the evidence you are constantly avoiding is that the refusal at looking at the data is the real quixotic position from politicians that have to be dealt with as part of the solution.

Already and the position to not do anything is not the one that scientists and economists with experience on the issue recommend. Your latest point about the experts and me and **wolfpup **as “deeply moved by Names instead of data” is asinine. And does imply just the very old fashion denier foolish notion that scientists that are dealing with the data and the numbers are conspiring to make us change.

219

This is a hijack.

Drop it.

The discussion is “what could be done?” not “is anyone psychologically prepared to do it correctly?”.

[ /Moderating ]

220

It is not a conspiracy, the evidence of what is going on is in the open, but your usual sources of information are not informing the people properly about this.

This is another subject related about what we should do BTW, there is problem with the media we have and it is also part of what we should do. What also fascinates me about this issue is that it offers good evidence of how silly is the idea of the right wing that most of the media is liberal.

Using Gore that way only shows that you are out of ideas. Of course that was pointed many times before but then it is not my problem if you want to continue on that ridiculous path. At least that tired “point” is good to show that indeed there is a political angle in all this and it is clear how the merchants of doubt politicized this issue.

It is high time that we take on the ones that are making this a crusade to prevent any change by ignoring what the experts recommend.