The Right Approach to Global Warming

[verte76]

What does life expectancy have to do with the price of tea in China? We're talking about the environment. I don't have more faith in human creativity because the most creative thing humans have done is come up with different ways of polluting the planet.

 

[maycocksean]

What about the article INDY500 posted about the "global cooling" scares of the 1970's, a mere 30 years ago. Were they wrong? Does anyone have any thoughts on what happened to that scenario? Is it possible that the concerns about global warming might end up like the concerns about global cooling?

Also, is it possible that even if the global warming scenario is true, that it will happen gradually over so much time that humanity will also gradually adjust to those changes without an apparent "day after tomorrow" flooding of Manhattan scenario?

 

[verte76]

What about the article INDY500 posted about the "global cooling" scares of the 1970's, a mere 30 years ago. Were they wrong? Does anyone have any thoughts on what happened to that scenario? Is it possible that the concerns about global warming might end up like the concerns about global cooling?

Also, is it possible that even if the global warming scenario is true, that it will happen gradually over so much time that humanity will also gradually adjust to those changes without an apparent "day after tomorrow" flooding of Manhattan scenario?

Answer to first question: yes, it's entirely possible that the concerns about global warming might end up like the concerns about global cooling. They were apparently wrong.
Answer to second question: Again, yes. We may be able to adjust and there be no trauma.

 

[nbcrusader]

What about the article INDY500 posted about the "global cooling" scares of the 1970's, a mere 30 years ago. Were they wrong? Does anyone have any thoughts on what happened to that scenario? Is it possible that the concerns about global warming might end up like the concerns about global cooling?

You can ask the same question regarding all the other scares that were propigated in the last 30 years. For example, acid rain was suppose to strip all foliage from our trees. Once the public stopped buying into the scare, we move on to the next one.

 

[financeguy]

You can ask the same question regarding all the other scares that were propigated in the last 30 years. For example, acid rain was suppose to strip all foliage from our trees. Once the public stopped buying into the scare, we move on to the next one.

What about the Red scare and the Islamofascist scare?

They were creations of the librul media too, I expect?

 

[INDY500]

I don't have more faith in human creativity because the most creative thing humans have done is come up with different ways of polluting the planet.

You should, here's why.

AMBIENT U.S. AIR POLLUTION LEVELS
Years 1976-2002

Ozone--down 31%
Sulfur Dioxides--down 70%
Carbon monoxide--down 75%
Lead--down 98% (due to unleaded gas)
Particulates--down 28%

America has become far more environmentally efficient producing six times more output per ton of emission than we did prior to WWII. Consider this as well, prior to 1900 one of every five deaths was attributable to contaminants in our drinking water. Today, once polluted U. S. lakes and streams are now usable for fishing, recreation and safe for drinking. In addition, land management techniques have dramatically increased crop yields per acre and extracting oil and coal from the ground now leaves virtually no ecological damage.

Prudent government regulations and higher standards are certainly to be given some credit but of much more importance is our free-market economy which protects private property rights, produces wealth and encourages innovation. Here's the dirty (pardon the pun) little secret. Industrialization, population growth and capitalism are NOT the enemies of the environment...but it's protectors, because freer, better educated and wealthier societies can--and do--devote more resources to leaving the planet a cleaner and richer place for the next generation.

P.s. And pesticides actually make us healthier.

 

[melon]

AMBIENT U.S. AIR POLLUTION LEVELS
Years 1976-2002

Ozone--down 31%
Sulfur Dioxides--down 70%
Carbon monoxide--down 75%
Lead--down 98% (due to unleaded gas)
Particulates--down 28%

There's a key gas missing from that list, and that's carbon dioxide. Where that's important is in conjunction with sulfur dioxide, which is a global coolant. I think one of the ironies of the last century is that we had, essentially, two pollutants that were cancelling out each other's effects. But now that we've cut out the global cooling pollutant, the global warming pollutants are going to be more successful.

Melon

 

[melon]

Global warming or not, we're consuming resources at an unsustainable rate, and our economic prosperity is contingent on the whims of unstable Middle East dictatorships and a communist nation that's hellbent on growth, no matter what the cost. I'd say that environmental interests and national security interests here are quite related, so even if you don't buy into global warming, the solution to it will also help our long-term economic growth.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

You should, here's why.

AMBIENT U.S. AIR POLLUTION LEVELS
Years 1976-2002

Ozone--down 31%
Sulfur Dioxides--down 70%
Carbon monoxide--down 75%
Lead--down 98% (due to unleaded gas)
Particulates--down 28%

America has become far more environmentally efficient producing six times more output per ton of emission than we did prior to WWII. Consider this as well, prior to 1900 one of every five deaths was attributable to contaminants in our drinking water. Today, once polluted U. S. lakes and streams are now usable for fishing, recreation and safe for drinking. In addition, land management techniques have dramatically increased crop yields per acre and extracting oil and coal from the ground now leaves virtually no ecological damage.

Prudent government regulations and higher standards are certainly to be given some credit but of much more importance is our free-market economy which protects private property rights, produces wealth and encourages innovation. Here's the dirty (pardon the pun) little secret. Industrialization, population growth and capitalism are NOT the enemies of the environment...but it's protectors, because freer, better educated and wealthier societies can--and do--devote more resources to leaving the planet a cleaner and richer place for the next generation.

P.s. And pesticides actually make us healthier.

and you can thank all those duplicitous scientists and frog-licking hippies you derided in your previous posts for the lakes you now enjoy.

 

[INDY500]

Global warming or not, we're consuming resources at an unsustainable rate, and our economic prosperity is contingent on the whims of unstable Middle East dictatorships and a communist nation that's hellbent on growth, no matter what the cost. I'd say that environmental interests and national security interests here are quite related, so even if you don't buy into global warming, the solution to it will also help our long-term economic growth.

Melon

Yes, how much sense does it make to fight a war in which you're literally funding both sides? A great reason for increased domestic oil production from sources off our coasts and in Anwar Alaska. But predictably, guess who's against that?

 

[Irvine511]

Yes, how much sense does it make to fight a war in which you're literally funding both sides? A great reason for increased domestic oil production from sources off our coasts and in Anwar Alaska. But predictably, guess who's against that?

ANWAR will give us, at most, 30 months of oil.

too great a cost, for such a negligiable benefit.

i'll say it again: GAS TAX!!!!

get people to consume less, and demand greater fuel efficiency from their vehicles, that's the free market solution you and A_W are itching for.

it's really the best idea ever.

 

[INDY500]

and you can thank all those duplicitous scientists and frog-licking hippies you derided in your previous posts for the lakes you now enjoy.

Science and technology I champion, it's propaganda dressed in a white lab coat I'm dubious off. As for the frog-licking hippies, I'll take this

over today's radical environmentalists which are nothing more than

Green on the outside, red on the inside.

 

[Irvine511]

Green on the outside, red on the inside.

too bad he's not around:

 

[AliEnvy]

i'll say it again: GAS TAX!!!!

get people to consume less, and demand greater fuel efficiency from their vehicles, that's the free market solution you and A_W are itching for.

it's really the best idea ever.

Or...rather than a gas tax which goes into government pockets, keep stirring it up in the Middle East so that it looks like free market forces driving up prices 300% in the past 3 years.

I wonder if the oil companies that are swimming in billions of windfall cash are investing in new technology for energy.

 

[Irvine511]

Or...rather than a gas tax which goes into government pockets, keep stirring it up in the Middle East so that it looks like free market forces driving up prices 300% in the past 3 years.

I wonder if the oil companies that are swimming in billions of windfall cash are investing in new technology for energy.

a gas tax which forces car companies to deliver what the consumers will demand -- 100 mpg or more.

it's the free market that gave us the 8 mpg Hummer that stirs up the Middle East so much.

 

[AliEnvy]

a gas tax which forces car companies to deliver what the consumers will demand -- 100 mpg or more.

it's the free market that gave us the 8 mpg Hummer that stirs up the Middle East so much.

I understand what you were suggesting.

What I'm saying is the US government is already driving up the price of oil which will eventually force consumer demand to shift. Big Oil (which is much of the current administration) might as well get richer on the taxpayers' dime and the blood of failed Middle Eastern societies while they can.

 

[INDY500]

too bad he's not around:

Ironically it was those very same Communists of the Soviet Union that in the 1950s, 60s and 70s ACTUALLY WERE the greatest environmental transgressors in history.

Joseph McCarthy...a pioneer in the environmental movement. George Clooney are you listening?

 

[Irvine511]

Ironically it was those very same Communists of the Soviet Union that in the 1950s, 60s and 70s ACTUALLY WERE the greatest environmental transgressors in history.

Joseph McCarthy...a pioneer in the environmental movement. George Clooney are you listening?

i'm not one to defend the Soviets in any way, shape, or form ... but that's a bit of a leap right there at the end ...

"good night and good luck" is a great movie.

 

[nbcrusader]

i'll say it again: GAS TAX!!!!

get people to consume less, and demand greater fuel efficiency from their vehicles, that's the free market solution you and A_W are itching for.

it's really the best idea ever.

I thought the gas tax issue was address well here:

A gas tax is generally ineffective, mainly because we're dealing with inelastic demand here. Gasoline is about on top of the list of examples of inelastic demand in a microeconomics textbook.

Most people do not wake up each morning saying to themselves, "So how can I destroy the environment today?" Most people drive out of necessity. Sure, I lived in a large city for a couple of years, but I can certainly see why people flee them. Between exorbitant housing costs, whether through rentals or mortgages; city taxes (where applicable); and/or jobs that do not pay relative to the cost of living, I can see why people flee cities.

The solution to this problem is not taxation--which will do little to curb inelastic demand, short of busting the economy completely--but through gradual regulation. Sure, it is not necessarily the place of government to interfere, but they certainly have the power to encourage and punish business practices as they see fit. If the government wants more E85 cars, for instance, they could certainly force the issue, much as they forced the issue of fuel efficiency in the 1970s or the elimination of leaded fuel in the 1980s.

 

[Irvine511]

I thought the gas tax issue was address well here:

not all gay people agree on all issues.

though i agree with Melon 90% of the time, we are at odds here and the main point of the gas tax isn't at all addressed by his post -- higher taxation will spur demand for more fuel efficient vehicles which will spur technological innovation to create cars that get upwards of 100mpg. it's a free market solution to an environmental problem.

my other reasons for the gas tax (and lack of sympathy for those who don't live in urban areas but complain about costs) are well documented, and i really don't feel like expounding.

for now.

maybe tomorrow.



(j/k about the first sentence )

 

[verte76]

I agree with you irvine. A gas tax will create a demand for gas-efficient cars. This is a creative use of the free market, so that's what many people will agree will solve the problem with energy.

 

[nbcrusader]

I agree with you irvine. A gas tax will create a demand for gas-efficient cars. This is a creative use of the free market, so that's what many people will agree will solve the problem with energy.

How will it create demand for gas-efficient cars? The last surge in demand for fuel efficient cars occurred in the 70's. Gas prices have risen for how many years since then?

 

[melon]

though i agree with Melon 90% of the time, we are at odds here and the main point of the gas tax isn't at all addressed by his post -- higher taxation will spur demand for more fuel efficient vehicles which will spur technological innovation to create cars that get upwards of 100mpg. it's a free market solution to an environmental problem.

Except that it's not a "free market" solution if spurred by a "gas tax." Our gas prices are already high when analyzed against rather ample supply, but that is the purpose of commodities futures--to drive up the price to spur investment before the tap runs completely dry. And that's what's currently happening.

If you're interested in government intervention somewhere, I'd say the "gas tax" is the wrong way to do it. You're better off threatening a windfall profits tax on Big Oil if it does not demonstrate investment into alternative energy/fuel sources. Obviously, Exxon and the rest are not going to invest in an alternative to oil when they are raking in record profits. What company would ever do this voluntarily?

If that's too drastic, you can also regulate fuel efficiency and legislate a certain percentage of vehicles to be E85+ compatible. Of course, what all of this implies is that you have a government that is capable of flexing its muscle when necessary. When you have a president that has such an incestuous relationship with oil companies, it's no surprise that he's been playing dumb the entire time and acting like he's incapable of doing anything to solve our oil problems.

So, yes, we're going to disagree on gas taxes here, mainly because I believe it to be the most Draconian solution and the one that puts too much unnecessary cruelty on the American public when there are many currently unused policies that could be enacted that could put the pressure on the entities that have all the money and power to actually do anything about it.

Melon

 

[melon]

Ironically it was those very same Communists of the Soviet Union that in the 1950s, 60s and 70s ACTUALLY WERE the greatest environmental transgressors in history.

Joseph McCarthy...a pioneer in the environmental movement. George Clooney are you listening?

Romanticizing fascism is no less hysterical than romanticizing communism, just so you know.

Melon

 

[Rono]

People have to eat a lot more vegetables to get the benefits of a lot less meat.

Actualy i don`t believe that. We are overconsuming meat. The last 50 years the earth population doubled and the meat consumption raised 5 times. Do we realy need to eat so much meat as we do now ? I doubth that. There is another reason why we should lower ore meatconsumption, the use of fresh water. It takes 40 times the amounth of water to produce 1 kilo of annimal protein as vegitalble protein. Fresh water will be a very big problem in the nearby future.

 

[A_Wanderer]

No from raw nutritional value (not the resource question) 100 grams of meat will give a person more than 100 grams of vegetable material, the fact that in 50 years of population doubling meat consumption has gone up five fold is a great thing, the pity is that the increase in consumption isn't enjoyed the world over and indeed has detrimental effects when people in first world countries gorge themselves with too much meat.

Elevated incidences of heart disease and colon cancer are a bit better than malnutrition, we can feed the world and preserve the environment but that requires application of science and technology, if we walk away back to low intensit farming then mankind could well fall victim to a Malthusian catastrophe and will definitely wipe out a lot more ecosystem just to survive.

 

[INDY500]

Romanticizing fascism is no less hysterical than romanticizing communism, just so you know.

Melon

And now it's...
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Deutschland is happy and gay!
We're marching to a faster pace
Look out, here comes the master race!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Rhineland's a fine land once more!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Watch out, Europe
We're going on tour!

 

[Rono]

No from raw nutritional value (not the resource question) 100 grams of meat will give a person more than 100 grams of vegetable material.

How much more ? 40 times more ? 5 times more ?


A lot of land erosion is caused by extensive meatproduction,..maybe i should kill my agriculter teachers from the past.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer

America in recent years has been sweltering through three times more than its normal share of extra-hot summer nights, government weather records show. And that is a particularly dangerous trend.

During heat waves, like the one that now has a grip on much of the East, one of the major causes of heat deaths is the lack of night cooling that would normally allow a stressed body to recover, scientists say.

Some scientists say the trend is a sign of manmade global warming.

A top federal research meteorologist said he "almost fell out of my chair" when he looked over U.S. night minimum temperature records over the past 96 years and saw the skyrocketing trend of hot summer nights.

From 2001 to 2005, on average nearly 30 percent of the nation had "much above normal" average summertime minimum temperatures, according to the National Climatic Data in Asheville, N.C.

By definition, "much above normal" means low temperatures that are in the highest 10 percent on record. On any given year about 10 percent of the country should have "much above normal" summer-night lows.

Yet in both 2005 and 2003, 36 percent of the nation had much above normal summer minimums. In 2002 it was 37 percent. While the highest-ever figure was in the middle of America's brutal Dust Bowl, when 41 percent of the nation had much above normal summer-night temperatures, the rolling five-year average of 2001-05 is a record - by far.

Figures from this year's sweltering summer have not been tabulated yet, but they are expected to be just as high as recent years.

And it is not just the last five years. Each of the past eight years has been far above the normal 10 percent. During the past decade, 23 percent of the nation has had hot summer nights. During the past 15 years, that average has been 20 percent. By comparison, from 1964 to 1968 only 2 percent of the country on average had abnormally hot nights.

"This is unbelievable," said National Climatic Data Center research meteorologist Richard Heim. "Something strange has happened in the last 10 to 15 years on the minimums."

But it is not surprising because climate models, used to forecast global warming, have been predicting this trend for more than 20 years, said Jerry Mahlman, a climate scientist at National Center for Atmospheric Research and a top federal climate modeler.

It is a telltale sign of global warming, Mahlman said: "The smoking gun is still smoking; it's not shooting people yet."

One reason global warming is suspected in summer-night temperatures is that daytime air pollution slightly counteracts warming but is not as prevalent at night, said Bill Chameides, a climate scientist for the advocacy group Environmental Defense.

The records for summer-night low temperatures are part of a U.S. Climate Extremes Index developed by the National Climatic Data Center. Last year, in large part because of record hurricane activity, saw the most extreme weather in the United States since 1910.

 

[verte76]

The global warming trend is obvious to me. I personally take it seriously. But I know this belief has its skeptics and that's OK with me. I want the U.S. to sign Kyoto, but with Bush in the WH it's not going to happen.