The Climate of Man

That's an area of interest to me too, monica, just how hard would it be to take significant steps to curb global warming?

0 Replies

Turn off your computer and all other powered devices in your home now, also only flush once a day. See, it's easy to make a start. Very Happy

0 Replies

Hi sozobe -- My understanding, partly from climate of man III, is that *really* cutting emissions will take quite a bit. And cost quite a bit. That said, there are tons of things that can be done now (e.g., the US passenger vehicle fleet gets 5% LESS fuel economy than in the 80s -- we could fix that easily enough) and there's just the lack of political will to do it. In my mind, that means "ordinary" people aren't tuned in and pressuring their political leaders for the proper regulatory incentives, while meanwhile the oil/gas/coal/auto industries are expressing themselves very clearly that they oppose things like including "light trucks" (including SUVs) in pollution control standards (which would effectively force higher MPG) and increasing CAFE standards (which would directly do so). As was said in the climate of man series, the big problem is the true cost of emitting the carbon is not paid by the emitter. It is the classic negative externality problem (in econ terms) that pollution has always been, just even more broadly spread and therefore even harder to deal with.

I agreed with the general point in CoM III that when Pres. Bush says he wants to do more research for groundbreaking new technologies instead of taking practical steps now, he's making a false dichotomy -- the answer to that either/or is yes. Americans are not going to put up with real deprivation. But there is so much we can do before we get there it's not even funny. As for Kyoto costing millions of jobs, I just don't see it. As I mentioned above, all these cities are planning to do it using fairly easy fixes. The problem with Kyoto is it doesn't go far enough and doesn't include developing nations, which as Kolbert pointed out was always because it was going to be a 2 step process -- developed countries lead and then fold in the developing countries. Now we have the lovely situation where *some* developed countries are leading and we need to fold in developing countries . . . and the US. To me this is a political problem that needs a political solution.

Anyway, I think the answer is it's going to be quite hard to really deal with this problem, but as you pointed out a ways back, it just gets harder as time goes by.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

That's an area of interest to me too, monica, just how hard would it be to take significant steps to curb global warming?

As I think I said in one of my earlier posts, we in Germany are paying five dollars per gallon of fuel, more than three of which are taxes, and each of us is emitting about half as much greenhouse gasses on average as each of you does. Germany is a little behind the USA economically -- but that was true even before we started reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and anyway we are still running a reasonably prosperous and attractive society here. I can't give you a figure on "how hard" it was to get there, but we're certainly not suffering much. For example, we can use our computers, and we even flush multiple times a day.

As best I can tell, the global warming debate concerns a choice between two non-catastrophic futures that different people may find differently attractive. But it's grossly overhyped by most pundits on both sides of the issue, who make up catastrophic scenarios to scare the other side into submission. Quite pitiful, but somewhat amusing.

0 Replies

Part of what I took away from the articles (and no, I still haven't re-read), is that the problem is that there isn't really any halfway. If greenhouse gas emissions are drastically reduced, but still not reduced by enough (and "enough" is truly drastic), the feedback loop will begin. And once the feedback loop has begun, it's that much harder -- or impossible -- to stop it.

At any rate, there are all kinds of good reasons to be more energy efficient, including less dependence on oil and the political implications thereof. So I'm comfortable agitating for that, without waiting to be completely convinced of the dangers of global warming as laid out in Kolbert's article.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Part of what I took away from the articles (and no, I still haven't re-read), is that the problem is that there isn't really any halfway. If greenhouse gas emissions are drastically reduced, but still not reduced by enough (and "enough" is truly drastic), the feedback loop will begin. And once the feedback loop has begun, it's that much harder -- or impossible -- to stop it.

I guess that is what I meant when I said that Kolbert is dishonest/negligent not in what she says, but in what she doesn't say. Yes there is feedback, but there are contributions of positive feedback (like, melting ice shelfs make the Arctic sea darker, meaning that more sunlight gets absorbed), as well as negative feedback (like, warmer oceans sustain more CO2-absorbing algae). Talkative as she is, Ms Kolbert never attempts to make a plausible case that the sum of all feedback is positive. Indeed, I don't remember her mentioning any contributions of negative feedback at all. If she didn't, that would be misleading by omission. In my opinion, it would be no better than saying "we have it from a high-up source that Saddam has WMDs" -- while neglecting to mention that the codename of the source is "curveball", and why.

Sozobe wrote:

At any rate, there are all kinds of good reasons to be more energy efficient, including less dependence on oil and the political implications thereof.

I would have said the political implications are an argument for oil imports. After all, the Mullahs in Teheran and the proto-commies in Venezuela need your dollars even more than you need their oil. In fact, given your government's foreign policy, little else gives them a stake in your well-being. Are you sure you're comfortable taking that stake away from them?

Sozobe wrote:

So I'm comfortable agitating for that, without waiting to be completely convinced of the dangers of global warming as laid out in Kolbert's article.

Or in other words, you, too, don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. That's perfectly fair game, but I feel just as comfortable agitating against it as you feel agitating for it. Smile

0 Replies

Naturally I have to agree with Sozobe here. The political implications of reduced oil dependence in the US (that's where I think we are all assuming you're from Smile

) are good. One of my friends flew next to another banker in first class one day. They got to talking and turns out the banker owned a Prius (and a Range Rover). As he put it to my friend, "I use the electric car to get to and from the train station. I don't really need it, but *$)! the Saudis." Amen.

I'm trying not to be drawn into the Sec. Rice analogy. I'll just quote this guy Sokolow, employed by the radical environmental organizations bp and Ford: "The earth is a twitchy system. It's clear from the record that it does things that we don't fully understand. And we're not going to understand them [or, I would add, relatedly, have complete information on what the impacts would be] in the time period we have to make these decisions. We just know they're there."
CoM III at 57. The downside of taking climate change seriously if it doesn't turn out to be seriously problematic -- and even the middle-of-the-road theories are quite problematic for some, just not all -- is wasted money making us fuel efficient, less reliant on fossil fuels and bringing us to the next step in fuel type development. The downside of not taking climate change seriously if it does turn out to be seriously problematic or even catastrophic, which even your level-headed econ types agree could happen, is a wrecked planet. Not a tough call for me.

As for whether there is any value in a middle road -- I have been reading various things that argue climate change will not be particularly horrible for US citizens (if you don't mind moving, not going to the beach, sea walls, etc.) BUT that slower and less climate change is much more likely to be manageable than rapid and more climate change. Some believe more rapid climate change also may be more likely to start the irreversible feedbacks e.g. melting the Greenland ice sheet. (BTW Kolbert did mention one possible + feedback, more plants growing (and sucking up CO2) in the melted permafrost. She did not mention increased algae (which I haven't come across yet in other reading) or increased plant growth (which I have) however.) So even if we are *just* slowing it down, it is worth doing so that those in following generations have more time to adapt. I find it unutterably sad to think that that is what it may come down to though.

See now THIS is why I never balance my checkbook!

0 Replies

monica38 wrote:

Naturally I have to agree with Sozobe here. The political implications of reduced oil dependence in the US (that's where I think we are all assuming you're from ) are good.

Two points here: First, speaking as a German, I have to point out that the posters here on A2K tend to be very, very good at avoiding the fallacy that "all the world is like America, or at least it ought to be." Like any community, we have our share of narrow-minded idiots, but among the many people worth talking to, nobody has ever made me feel that my perspective as a German is somehow out of place, unwelcome, or depreciated. You will see this for yourself if you choose to stick around here and visit some of the other threads. (And I hope you will, because it's nice to have you here, even if your politics is all wrong. Wink

)

Second, my country has been in a state of 'energy slavery' for almost a century now. We have a little oil in the North Sea, but it isn't enough for us by a long shot. We are importing the bulk of our oil, and always have been. So I am in a position to tell you that our 'energy slavery' really feels no different than your 'energy dependence', Scotland's 'energy independence', or Norway's 'energy slave-owner-dom' If you cut through the buzzwords, everybody pays the same $60 per barrel, no matter where that barrel comes from. Believe me, energy independence is not the big deal Americans think it is.

Monica38 wrote:

The downside of taking climate change seriously if it doesn't turn out to be seriously problematic -- and even the middle-of-the-road theories are quite problematic for some, just not all -- is wasted money making us fuel efficient, less reliant on fossil fuels and bringing us to the next step in fuel type development.

Money isn't what the downside is, only what it's measured in. The true downside is Bangladeshis dying of Malaria because money that could have been efficiently invested in dikes has been invested inefficiently in CO2 curbing instead. It is Africans dying of thirst and typhus because there is only so much money to do good with, and every dollar spent on global warming prevention can not be spent on drilling wells. It is all kinds of good stuff that won't happen because politicians have decided that the money to fund it be spent on CO2 reductions instead. With respect, don't you realize how pretentious it is of you to tell me that my position is just about money, while your position is about saving the planet? Do you really think you're so much holier than me? If so, I'll have more to say about this as soon as I've stopped beating my wife.

Monica38 wrote:

not going to the beach, sea walls, etc.

You first posted your point about the beach when I was absent from A2K for quite some time. Sorry if I'm sounding sarcastic, but it's not a coincidence that the beach begins where the water ends. I mention this because you appear to imply that when the sea rises, the beach stays where it is, so you end up without beach because it's all under water. It doesn't, and you won't! Rather, erosion will extend the beach a couple dozen yards inland. True, a few houses that were built too close to the beach may have to be abandoned or torn down. But according to the IPCC, we're talking about a sea level rise smaller than the typical amplitude of tidal waves; and we're talking about American houses, whose typical lifespan is shorter than the timescale we're talking about, and whose typical architecture is so crappy that tearing them down will actually make them prettier. Why not give your grandchildren the opportunity to finally get American houses right? Wink

Monica38 wrote:

(BTW Kolbert did mention one possible + feedback, more plants growing (and sucking up CO2) in the melted permafrost. She did not mention increased algae (which I haven't come across yet in other reading) or increased plant growth (which I have) however.)

Okay -- thanks for refreshing my memory! My source for the algae part is Townsend, Harper, Begon. Essentials of Ecology. Blackwell (2002). But since most plant photosynthesis happens in the algae of the oceans, my datapoint is really just a special case of yours.

0 Replies

U-oh --

On re-reading my last post, I realize that I lost control of my snotty side again. That was unwarranted, especially since we had a consensus on the particular point Monica and Sozobe had raised: While I continue to believe that curbing global warming is more trouble than it's worth, I agree that curbing it anyway wouldn't hurt us rich nations terribly.

So, sorry about my ranting.

0 Replies

Thanks for your last post Thomas, I have to say I was quite taken aback by the previous one. I certainly did not mean to offend or suggest that you are all about money or anything like that. I also never said anything about "energy slavery" -- which sounds like some kind of weird buzzword -- or a similar thing. I do feel that we Americans spend a lot of $$ and even lives on policies that we would not pursue if we were not so dependent on oil from the middle east. It would be better not to be importing so much that we are required to do that. I am even further out of my depth on geopolitics than I am on climate change, so I'll leave it at that.

I certainly understand $$ is fungible, although I'm not at all sure whether the $$ we will spend, for example, developing more fuel efficient cars would otherwise go to water development projects in Africa. But your examples are interesting. The stuff I have read about climate change impacts in the US is relatively sanguine due to our large land area (e.g. people will move) and strong (relative to some countries) public health system. These analyses, while not directly addressing the issue, all suggest that developing countries -- and low-lying Bangladesh is often mentioned by name -- will have a much harder time of it. As for Africa, more drought may not be a super huge problem in the US (although personally I think it is), but it sure will be in Africa. I suspect due to the much higher impacts on these areas, and their much lesser ability to adapt due to fewer resources to start with, stemming climate change will benefit Africa and Bangladesh more than it will many other places. Whether it's more than immediate investments in infrastructure they need now, I don't know; but nor do I see it as the real trade off.

My point about beach use seems quite petty in comparison, but I have to add I find your suggestion that they will just move inland implausible. I'm no expert (surprise surprise) on beach formation, but I'm guessing they will not be able to migrate effecitively in only 100 years or so, particularly because many are already built up (and already being "renourished" with imported sand). I can guarantee you that those I am familiar with will not simply move inland like that. (Insulting American architecture is not going to get a rise out of me. Smile

) Cheers!

0 Replies

monica38 wrote:

Thanks for your last post Thomas, I have to say I was quite taken aback by the previous one. I certainly did not mean to offend or suggest that you are all about money or anything like that.

I'm sorry you were taken aback, and I assure you I never took offense by anything you said. What you saw was just my rhetoric spinning out of control.

monica38 wrote:

I also never said anything about "energy slavery" -- which sounds like some kind of weird buzzword -- or a similar thing.

You did say "oil dependence" though, and I took that to mean something similar as "energy dependence" meant in your 2004 presidential campaign. I made up the words "energy slavery" and "energy slaveholderdom" as parodies "[oil/energy] dependence", which I believe is a similarly empty buzzword. So that point was half serious, half sarcastic on my part.

monica38 wrote:

I certainly understand $$ is fungible, although I'm not at all sure whether the $$ we will spend, for example, developing more fuel efficient cars would otherwise go to water development projects in Africa. But your examples are interesting.

Thanks. Your uncertainty is understandable, as it is always difficult to account for where individual dollars are going. But the way I think about it, there is a certain, finite amount of dollars that voters are willing to let their government spend on projects that do not serve any voter's immediate self-interest. Global warming prevention competes for that slice of the budget with all those other projects that are aimed at preventing floods in Bangladesh, taming malaria in Indonesia, and so forth. And given those alternatives, I don't believe CO2 curbs are the most efficient use of those funds.

monica wrote:

These analyses, while not directly addressing the issue, all suggest that developing countries -- and low-lying Bangladesh is often mentioned by name -- will have a much harder time of it.

I agree. Global warming hits tropical countries the hardest, mostly because it is especially hard on their agriculture, and because these countries are too poor to afford protection. The question here is, given that you want to control floods in Bangladesh etc. with a finite budget, how much of that budget should you invest in new river dikes (which is how the Netherlands controlled their floods), and how much should you spend on curbing global warming? My impression, from reading newspaper articles by development economists, is that the best use of our finite resources is to spend (almost) all the money on dikes.

monica38 wrote:

My point about beach use seems quite petty in comparison, but I have to add I find your suggestion that they will just move inland implausible.

Needless to say, I am no more of an expert on this than you are. But for what it's worth, in our high school geography class, we spent a few weeks studying erosion, especially of the Rhine riverbed and the German share of the North- and Baltic sea coasts. I don't remember the title of our schoolbook, and you may not read German anyway. But as best I can remember, the kind of erosion we are talking about does operate on the timescale of years and decades. We also learned there that our coastlines have been constantly changing for millenia, meaning before global warming. They will no doubt continue to do so, and you may well survive many a beach that you hold dear. But I don't believe that global warming contributes much to making this particular situation worse.

And I'm glad we agree on American architecture. Wink

0 Replies

Re: The Climate of Man

sozobe wrote:

Just read the third in of three articles in the New Yorker by Elizabeth Kolbert. They've hit me pretty hard. Does anyone have any rational, scientifically-based rebuttal?

I'd certainly like it if the portrait she paints is inaccurate or alarmist, but right now it seems pretty watertight. (So to speak.) If someone can't convince me that there are significant weaknesses, I'm ready to shift into high activist mode.

Here they are all online:

The Climate of Man I:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050425fa_fact3

The Climate of Man II:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050502fa_fact3

The Climate of Man III:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050509fa_fact3

Interview with Elizabeth Kolbert:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?050425on_onlineonly01

It's too late sozobe, the earth is turning over and there is nothing anybody can do to stop it. Others may say different, and only time will tell. I truly want to be wrong.

0 Replies

Re: The Climate of Man

Thomas wrote:

I just finished reading the first article. Here's my first impression, which I hope to follow up more verbosely once I've finished the other two articles.

sozobe wrote:
Just read the third in of three articles in the New Yorker by Elizabeth Kolbert. They've hit me pretty hard. Does anyone have any rational, scientifically-based rebuttal?

No I don't. But since you said the word 'scientifically-based', I want to start by pointing out that the foundation of all science is falsifiable theories. All those smart people working on the global warming problem, and all that spectacular supercomputing power that's being thrown at its simulation, cannot change the fact that their prediction -- global warming, possibly catastrophic, 100 years in the future -- are unfalsifiable for all practical purposes. Therefore I find it an exaggeration to call the findings Ms. Kolbert reports about scientific at this point. That does not keep the activist side of the global warming debate from demanding decisive action from all humankind. In fact, the people arguing this side make it very clear that they find it inappropriate to insist on testing the key hypothesis against reality before taking action on it. See for example this excerpt from Mrs. Kolbert's article:

In article 1, Elizabeth Kolbert wrote:

It's not a total show-stopper -- sometimes you have to act on uncertain information. But I would like to point out to you, Soz, that the people who got you into activist mode are demanding a much lower standard of proof of themselves than you have just requested from those who would rebut them.

Sozobe wrote:
I'd certainly like it if the portrait she paints is inaccurate or alarmist, but right now it seems pretty watertight.

Judging from the first article, my impression is that Ms. Colbert has invested an impressive amount of research work, but that her story is alarmist for all the things she doesn't report. But I don't want to get into the things she didn't talk about after reading the first article, only to find that she did talk about them in one of the other two. So I'll leave it at that for now, but I'll be back.

I hope your right sir.

0 Replies

Hi AngeliqueEast -- Please don't despair. There ARE things we can do and it's NOT hopeless. Even though we are locked in to a certain amount of climate change, there is quite a bit of disagreement about how bad it really is AND even the middle of the road folks (e.g. the Pew center on climate change) agree that how fast it happens and to what degree matters. Please don't throw in the towel. We need all interested and concerned folks working on this.

0 Replies

Thanks for the kind words monica, I'm not in despair at all. The earth is traveling it's natural course, but man and his abuse of the land have made matters worse. It's nice to hear that some people want to help, but I believe nothing can be done, and the earth will continue it's course. I feel at peace with myself, and the world. I'm not afraid. I just observe humanities reaction thats all.

Please continue with your discussion I will not interrupt again.

0 Replies

Oh, feel free to contribute, Angelique.

Also, thanks for the clarification, Thomas, I hadn't taken any offense tho.

0 Replies

Thanks sozobe

0 Replies

I need help..please ASAP on the climate of man-III
I have read this paper 3 times..I really am not sure what I am reading and you may think I am stupid but this subject does appeal to me at all..Could anyone help me summarize this for my class..If so please send it to my email [email protected]

0 Replies

The Climate of Man

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know