*** Official Global Warming Thread ***

[Renton]

Governments virtually ensure that nuclear innovation will be as slow as possible, if not non-existent. AFAIK the only country making any meaningful progress for nuclear is China, probably because they have a billion fucking people who will all be middle class energy users within a generation or two. The stakes are high for them. In America, researchers can't touch nuclear. There's loads of potential in thorium-based fission power, but the work on that was shelved like 70 years ago because it wasn't useful for creating weapons.

[a500lbgorilla]

TED talked about ways to rapidly control the Climate by filling the upper atmosphere with sulphur dioxide. Some volcanic explosion distributed a massive amount of sulphur dioxide droplets in the upper atmosphere which assuredly and rapidly decreased the temperature of the planet. So we've managed to pencil and paper a hack to get us out of yet another mess.

[CoccoBill]

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...global-warming

In other news:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Quote: "I won’t let anyone take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change.”

Senator Ted Cruz
Quote: “According to the satellite data, there has been no significant global warming for the past 18 years.”

Senator Bernie Sanders
Quote: “It’s time for a political revolution that takes on the fossil fuel billionaires, accelerates our transition to clean energy.”

Donald Trump
Quote: “I think there’s a change in weather. I am not a great believer in man-made climate change.”

[MadMojoMonkey]

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...global-warming

This is a pretty good article, and it has excellent links

[wufwugy]

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...global-warming

In other news:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Quote: "I won’t let anyone take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change.”

Senator Ted Cruz
Quote: “According to the satellite data, there has been no significant global warming for the past 18 years.”

Senator Bernie Sanders
Quote: “It’s time for a political revolution that takes on the fossil fuel billionaires, accelerates our transition to clean energy.”

Donald Trump
Quote: “I think there’s a change in weather. I am not a great believer in man-made climate change.”

If I can break this down into "your side" and the "other side," I think your side is fighting for a Pyrrhic victory and the other side is fighting for a real victory even though it loses them the Pyrrhic victory. Let me explain.

Why does it matter if people acknowledge anthropogenic global warming? What good will it do? The answer is that it won't do any good, yet it will make people feel good. The proposed solutions in so-called green and renewable energy are not solutions. In fact, they make things worse, sometimes by being uneconomical (and creating more waste that way) or having hidden carbon footprints higher than the traditional alternatives.

The other side sees giving an inch on this Pyrrhic victory as only making things worse since it would increase the amount of problems caused by these uneconomical alternatives by getting more people behind them. Furthermore, the problems that can be solved, both in humanity and with regards to AGW, are more likely to be solved through traditional methods because of their economical nature.

Something to keep in mind: there are conservationists and environmentalists. They have a great deal of overlap in what they care about. On those issues, the former are typically successful at preserving what they intend and the latter are not. The different techniques they use are similar to the different techniques proposed in the climate change debate.

[CoccoBill]

^Well, I see it differently. "My side" acknowledges a problem that needs addressing, the "other side" does not. What should be done and what would be viable are a subject for an entirely different discussion, first we must decide to act.

What we could do, right now, for example:

- Replace coal and natural gas with nuclear, solar, geothermal, wind etc.
- Carbon taxes
- Emission and fuel economy regulations
- Stop deforestation
- Carbon harvesting and storage

What you're in essence saying, is that not all of those methods are viable or economical, so we shouldn't do anything. I might be in agreement that it's starting to be too late avoid a shitty outcome, but I don't have any stock options to lose on fossil fuels, and I do actually give a damn, so I'm all for at least trying.

[wufwugy]

What you're in essence saying, is that not all of those methods are viable or economical, so we shouldn't do anything.

This isn't my point. I think doing what you propose is not economical and taking a handful of measures that the typical environmentalist doesn't like are the economical ones and would have positive benefit on the AGW issue.

I might be in agreement that it's starting to be too late avoid a shitty outcome

It isn't too late. The "outcome" hasn't been assessed by those who claim it's coming. Additionally, it's important to weigh both outcomes. As far as I can tell, the outcomes that would come from the proposed solutions would be a far greater disaster than what it seems could possibly happen in a worst-case scenario.

Well, I see it differently. "My side" acknowledges a problem that needs addressing, the "other side" does not.

The proposals by your side don't address the problem. This is why I call it Pyrrhic. The other side tends to not think there is a problem that needs addressing. Some of this comes from ignorance and some comes from not wanting to fan the flames of your side's fervor in addressing the problem wrongly. Where the other side is largely ignorant on the existence of climate change, your side is largely ignorant on effective measures to deal with it.

Replace coal and natural gas with nuclear, solar, geothermal, wind etc.

This can work in only small ways. At this point, it would make the economies and a large number of people in the West significantly worse off and it would make billions in developing countries so much worse than that that westerns would have a hard time fathoming it.

Carbon taxes

Cap and trade has benefit here, but carbon taxes do not. Cap and trade can provide incentive to economize on energy in ways that could put a minor dent (but a dent nonetheless) in global emissions. A carbon tax would result in a reduction of living standards for the average person and a transfer of wealth and power to those whose behavior is not cost prohibitive from the tax.

Emission and fuel economy regulations

These tend to result in higher indirect emissions and many unintended consequences. Here is a video claiming that electric cars create a greater negative externality than gas cars. This is only one small aspect of the topic you mentioned.

Stop deforestation

This would be great, but environmentalists would cringe at what it would take to actually get this done. Sadly, they probably wouldn't cringe at how much worse off their proposed methods would make people in developing countries. In developed countries, reforestation can be a thing, but it's not on the environmentalism radar. If you would like my opinion on why, I can give it, but I'm not giving it now because it involves insulting the typical environmentalist for their ignorance.

Carbon harvesting and storage

This is ungodly expensive. It's not hyperbole to say that doing this to any effective level would throw the modern world into chaos and living standards would plunge to depths not know for a long, long time.

The only real hope regarding sequestration would be an economy so robust and advanced that it develops the technology to do so. Creating an unending crisis in the economy won't do that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@CoccoBill: Your first paragraph is right on the money.

All those other methods are a drop in the bucket. The only real, clean, safe solution is nuclear.

The problem is that it's really hard to convince people that the constantly spewing smokestacks are more dangerous to everyone's health than isolated incidents of nuclear disasters.

[a500lbgorilla]

@CoccoBill: Your first paragraph is right on the money.

All those other methods are a drop in the bucket. The only real, clean, safe solution is nuclear.

The problem is that it's really hard to convince people that the constantly spewing smokestacks are more dangerous to everyone's health than isolated incidents of nuclear disasters.

World leaders love to over leverage their resources. Why cut back on the raw productive labor of fossil fuels when you can leverage its wealth surplus to counter-act its rot?

The only real hope regarding sequestration would be an economy so robust and advanced that it develops the technology to do so. Creating an unending crisis in the economy won't do that.

See?

Leaders of the world know how to bounce from bigger and bigger sources of power until they summit. If the only solution to climate change is to slow down, it's never going to be accepted across the world's leadership.

Even today, Putin reaffirmed that he's going to see his country suffer economically for this year and the next, and for as far as I can tell, it's because he knows how to hold power and it has nothing to do with suring up the economics of Russia.

edit I would like to add, I do admire their ability to leap from power to bigger power and can't say with any sense that there isn't a solution to be had - just that that's the gamble we're in and all I've got is to find a sense of our luck.

[wufwugy]

It wouldn't be accepted by anybody, including you and me. The people, including every non-ultra-hippie-homeless, would revolt, even the ones who today think AGW is the worst thing the world has ever seen. If the people were serious about combating AGW like they say, they'd have to do things like give up their iphones. Fat chance that would happen, and not just because they would have abandoned the crusade long before it came to that since they'd be getting damn hungry and damn tired of having such huge costs for things they today take for granted.

[a500lbgorilla]

I think I would, if it came to that. I'm adaptable, just resistant to forfeiture. I'll admit I've become mindful of eating less meat on the back of common media talking about meat being a great vector of attack for cutting emissions.

[wufwugy]

I'm thrilled to see that you're cognizant of how it relates on a personal level. I'll add that I think cutting back on meat represents <0.01% of the amount of cutbacks it would take.

There would be comedic irony at least. Can you imagine how great the protest from the "health foods" crowd would be once organic farming is abolished due to its cost-ineffectiveness and carbon footprint? Combine this with about million other equal-to-greater problems, and you get some sense as to why the problem just will not be solved by economic cutbacks.

[a500lbgorilla]

Nature will force people to cut back. And human nature has us on a course of over-leveraging ourselves as far as we can go. Will we make it to the stars? Will we filter the atmosphere? Will we move cities and adapt to an ever changing planet?

Who knows!

I do. No, maybe, yes.

[wufwugy]

Nature will force people to cut back.

It could. I don't think it would though. Markets are a pseudo-natural phenomenon, and they have the nature to solve these sorts of problems.

And human nature has us on a course of over-leveraging ourselves as far as we can go.

On the issue of AGW, does it? People talk about worst-case scenario problems like mass ice sheet melt as if they're unable to be mitigated and as if measures to stop them provide only net benefit. But really what we're looking at is the cost of turning the world into the Netherlands or the far greater cost of dropping economic activity enough that ice sheets won't melt.

Eventually, we're gonna see global carbon use on the decline because of technology. Maybe in 2100 there will be significantly less Antarctic ice and there will be some other great distortions like in seafood, but I'm sure people won't give a shit since they'll be rigged to virtual reality for virtually everything and carbon emissions will be dropping enough that some other disaster like toxic breathable levels of CO2 in the air will not be reached (if there's even enough carbon to burn to get to that ridiculously high PPM in the first place).

[Renton]

Over-fishing of the oceans is probably a larger long term extinction event risk than any carbon emissions. And it, unlike global warming, does not have any foreseeable imminent solutions. All that has to happen for global warming to slow down is for humans to become rich enough to be willing to pay for carbon sinks. The over-fishing problem is intrinsic to the concept of having a resource that is owned-by-nobody-in-particular.

[a500lbgorilla]

I should like to know more.

[CoccoBill]

Well, I guess overpopulation is the underlying issue here, all the other ones derive from it. And wuf, again, I (and certainly not "my side", whatever that is) didn't propose a plan of action. I proposed _something_ must be done, which 50% of the candidates do not. If you have better alternatives than the ones I listed, I'd be happy to hear them.

[wufwugy]

Well, I guess overpopulation is the underlying issue here, all the other ones derive from it. And wuf, again, I (and certainly not "my side", whatever that is) didn't propose a plan of action. I proposed _something_ must be done, which 50% of the candidates do not. If you have better alternatives than the ones I listed, I'd be happy to hear them.

The only solution I think to be realistic enough is to deregulate markets on the margins. Eventually the cost of AGW effects will be higher than some other costs, and then people will throw money and intentions at them. Deregulation of markets allow this to happen more effectively and also allows for greater expansion of technology, which would make handling the problem easier.

As for the "pie in the sky" solutions (read: ones that won't happen in practice but are great in theory):

Privatize virtually everything. Fisheries and rain forests are getting stripped bare all the while governments yield autonomy over them. The regulations that governments tend to place on these are ineffective. One example for why this is the case is that the government of Brazil has deep incentive for its citizens to become wealthier and to not riot. This undermines its desire and ability to protect the rain forest. But private entities would not have the same incentive. Theirs would fall heavily on protecting the property. Privatization wouldn't halt all destruction of environments, but would produce better results than the current situation. Fisheries are an example of something privatization would help immensely. Rain forests are a tougher nut to crack, but they can still be cracked. It would involve tons of money from wealthy people in US and Europe buying up the property just to keep it safe, and some would involve making it easier for companies across the world to reforest and log, thereby reducing the price of lumber and disincentivizing logging the rain forest.

As for specific government policies, there really aren't that many that can address this. What we want is stuff that incentivizes growth of environmental-friendly energy yet doesn't deter market innovation within industry and doesn't increase costs. Cap and trade can do a small bit. Deregulation of nuclear can probably do a noticeable chunk. What we want to avoid are policies like Obama's famous "cash for clunkers." That wasn't specifically about energy savings, but the logic of it is used for energy stuff. The policies cost more energy even though they appear to be saving energy. They appear to save energy since people use more efficient products, but they cost more energy since the marginal benefit of continual use of the old product is much more energy efficient, yet that benefit is not realized because the product is replaced before it becomes uneconomical.

It seems counter-intuitive, but economic growth is a solution. The world needs inventors and innovators. The energy savings from ecommerce is incredible. It is but one example of innovations that come at a faster rate with more people engaging in the modern economy.

[CoccoBill]

So you do think there are things that could be done but you support a candidate that won't. Why?

[CoccoBill]

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...george-monbiot

[wufwugy]

So you do think there are things that could be done but you support a candidate that won't. Why?

The candidate I support falls significantly on the side of supporting policies that solve this and similar problems. What did I say that suggested otherwise?

[wufwugy]

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...george-monbiot

This article gets academically technical things (example: markets) remarkably wrong. It's as bad as if somebody wrote an article on how gravity is wrong and he egregiously mis-defines gravity to the point that the idea isn't coherent to physicists in the first place.

[ilikeaces86]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Pretty good site.

[CoccoBill]

https://twitter.com/hankgreen/status...35525169930241

We gonna need that superconductor.

[oskar]

We're doing the Futurama Ice Cube solution... I cannot contain my excitement!

[CoccoBill]

https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/202...-barbara-moran

[MadMojoMonkey]

https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/202...-barbara-moran

"We deserve a shot at rising to the occasion."

Exactly.

Glad I stuck with it to the end. That line is set up nicely and so worth it.