The Off Topic Topic

[crazy canuck]

And that was completely true. And what do you know, we were inspired to act and fix the problem before it was too late.

We are not acting this time.

The problem with the ozone never got solved. It it listed as a risk for someone visiting patagonia or antarctica.

There is a difference between solving the problem by banning the release of chemicals into the atmosphere that were destroying the ozone layer and waiting for the ozone layer to regenerate completely.

In any event, I don't think there is really anything we (meaning the US) can do to significantly change the trajectory of global warming. Anything we do to slow consumption just makes the consumption in other countries cheaper. It seems a much more effective way to reduce the impact of global warming would be to take steps to slow or halt the production/exploitation of fossil fuels. That doesn't seem very likely.

There is a lot the US and can do to reduce emissions. 

[Grey Fox]

Nuking China & India out of existence isn't really an option tho.

[alfred russel]

There is a lot the US and can do to reduce emissions.

Question 1: And significantly impact global emissions? Agreed there is a lot of minor stuff that can be done...not sure what can have a big impact though.

Question 2: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are a stock value. They are in part the result of the release of carbon that was previously sequestered in fossil fuels underground. Emissions are a flow value of the contribution of new greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. Since we already see global warming with the current stock value, why would you think there is any acceptable emission level?

[Syt]

2011 CO2 emmissions per capita:

[derspiess]

How should we act this time, Tim?

Reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions.  Of course we are kind of doing that.

Still to many farting cows.  We're phooked.

[Syt]

I don't know who I want to punch in the face more. Tim or derspiess. I consider just smashing their heads against one another.

[crazy canuck]

There is a lot the US and can do to reduce emissions.

Question 1: And significantly impact global emissions? Agreed there is a lot of minor stuff that can be done...not sure what can have a big impact though.

Question 2: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are a stock value. They are in part the result of the release of carbon that was previously sequestered in fossil fuels underground. Emissions are a flow value of the contribution of new greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. Since we already see global warming with the current stock value, why would you think there is any acceptable emission level?

A1: Not sure what you mean by significant.  Surely the real question you should be asking is what is the cost of doing nothing compared to the cost of doing something.

A2: Because I read before forming a view.  You should start with the latest UN study on climate change.

[crazy canuck]

I don't know who I want to punch in the face more. Tim or derspiess. I consider just smashing their heads against one another.

The thing is, if it is too close to call Derspice has already lost.

[derspiess]

I don't know who I want to punch in the face more. Tim or derspiess. I consider just smashing their heads against one another.

I'm just ribbing you guys. 

[alfred russel]

2011 CO2 emmissions per capita:

Paradoxically, that shows why just cutting consumption in the first world isn't going to be dramatically effective. The rest of the world is better than the first world in a large part because:
1) industrial activity is concentrated in the first world (per capita)
2) the first world can outbid the developing world for scarce resources

As you put in place controls to limit consumption in the first world, demand falls. Those third world countries that currently can't afford many fossil fuels when oil is at $100 a barrel will suddenly be able to afford them as the price falls. There are so many cheap sources of oil, I'm not sure the long term prognosis for global warming is good if we assume we will exploit all of them to zero (even if we leave untapped shale and other more challenging sources).

At the same time, in a global economy it is now quite easy to move production to other countries to take advantage of less stringent regulation there.

Case in point: the US puts a bunch of regulations on the burning of coal. The US reduces the amount of coal it burns. The US is now exporting a bunch of coal to China.

[crazy canuck]

Case in point: the US puts a bunch of regulations on the burning of coal. The US reduces the amount of coal it burns. The US is now exporting a bunch of coal to China.

Are you suggesting that Chinese demand for coal is caused by US regulation of electric coal plants?

[alfred russel]

A1: Not sure what you mean by significant.  Surely the real question you should be asking is what is the cost of doing nothing compared to the cost of doing something.

A2: Because I read before forming a view.  You should start with the latest UN study on climate change.

I'm not really into reading UN studies. My guess of what they said:

UN: Things with climate change look really really bad. We need to cut emissions quickly or we are going to be fucked.

My point of view: Things with climate change look really really bad. We are fucked. (unless smart people are wrong)

I'm guessing they don't have a section addressing the differences in their conclusion and my point of view. If they do, I'd be happy to read that section. In any event, I think there is a institutional bias toward proposing a solution: "we are fucked and there is not really anything we can do about it" isn't something you hear much from government institutions charged with studying issues and proposing courses of action.

[derspiess]

I'm going to dress up as ocean acidification for Halloween.

[alfred russel]

Case in point: the US puts a bunch of regulations on the burning of coal. The US reduces the amount of coal it burns. The US is now exporting a bunch of coal to China.

Are you suggesting that Chinese demand for coal is caused by US regulation of electric coal plants?

You didn't read my posts (or read them closely).

They may be (economic activity in the US may have relocated to some extent to China based on the changes in the relative cost of energy).

But to what extent that happened doesn't matter. US regulation reduced the demand for coal in the US, which made it available for world supply and decreased the cost in China. This increased the consumption there.

The point here is that regulations aimed at reducing emissions failed to the extent that coal simply got exported to China. What would have been successful is to make the mining of coal in the US illegal (or significantly less common). There seems to be less interest in that politically, but that is unfortunate because it seems to be the more effective mechanism.

[crazy canuck]

I'm not really into reading UN studies.

Now there is a shocker.