UH OH, Global cooling looming?

Parent Cafe
161

<p>Christcorp,</p>

<p>Unfortunately (and fortunately in some ways), your arguments are not necessarily in line with what is more likely to happen.</p>

<p>For one, you’re assuming that the money that oil brings the Middle East is necessarily bringing stability. Some argue it brings Dutch Disease and autocracy. Israel had neither oil nor much more than “sand,” and managed to develop an economy (with aid, of course.) It’s not like we can’t imagine a world where oil-based economies find other things to sell.</p>

<p>Secondly, WE most certainly can afford to use less oil. Hell, look at Japan and their per capita use of fuel. Sure, Japan is a compact country and all that, but nobody can argue that they don’t have a high standard of living. They just don’t all drive huge SUVs, live in gigantic fuel inefficient houses, and expect to pay $1 for what should cost $5.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Not really. Many who are saying things are doing so based on what facts and theory (to explain those facts) they have. If anything, it’s the status-quo mindedness of the denialists that is emotion based (i.e. “we’ll lose our way of life.”)</p>

<p>I don’t think that the ECONOMISTS and POLITICAL SCIENTISTS who are discussing these issues are ignoring the salient politico-economic issues, either. I think you have a fairly good segment of the social science field that are looking into the effects. </p>

<p>And really, I hate to say it, but you know what? Things will be MUCH MUCH worse for everyone if global warming is a fact and we don’t take steps to stop it. It’ll be the difference between some economic slowing and a severe economic halt.</p>

<p>Oh, and the laissez-faire argument fails on the grounds that industries in developing countries will NEVER choose to go efficient if they can help it. They’d rather pass the externalities on to others, simply because it costs them less in the short-run. That’s why some regulations may be necessary. Plus, the laissez-faire argument doesn’t tell us much about what the old people who can’t afford fuel to heat their homes do, either.</p>

162

<p>Thanks, UCLAri - well put. Yes, if the overwhelming majority of scientists studying this problem are not wrong, corrupt, etc. as they’ve been accused of being, then the consequences of ignoring the conclusions of their studies will be quite serious for future generations. (Not so much for mine.)</p>

<p>To reiterate the point I’ve been trying to make for a while: I can’t help but figure that people parroting the constant accusation that people concerned about global warming are “screaming” and “emotional”, “hyping” an “alarmist scenario”, etc. are encouraged to use those ad hominem attacks on opposing viewpoints because the corporations with the most to lose (short-term) have experience using those same corrupt rhetorical tactics against reformers in the past, and have “seeded” the argument with that bile. The fact that Fox News’ “science columnist” who leads this charge - Steven Milloy - is an old tobacco PR man is not surprising to me. The tone is the same, the arguments are close analogs of the old tobacco arguments. It’s systematic corporate poisoning of the public discourse in classic form.</p>

163

<p>I must qualify my post for a second and say that I do NOT have the answers as to whether or not global warming is: 1) man-made; 2) natural; or 3) a mixture of both.</p>

<p>I do, however, believe that climate change can only lead to problems for many people in many places, and if we can do something to stall it (not stop it, of course), then we should. It’s one thing for the people in Riverside to dream of beach-front property, but it’s another thing to explain where the millions of people in coastal cities will go (assuming the doom scenarios of rising water levels are right.)</p>

<p>Even assuming we don’t see catastrophic changes in water levels, what of changing rainfall patterns? Agriculture will dry up in some places, leaving us to find new places to grow food.</p>

<p>Don’t get me wrong: I don’t see the end of human civilization as we know it coming any time soon. I think that that’s a bit too hasty of a conclusion that a lot of people seem to strangely… relish. However, I do believe that the attitude that “we can’t do nothin’ so we’ll do nothin’ dangit” is silly. Plenty of places are moving in the right direction, and so can we.</p>

<p>And yes, we can do it without letting the Chinese win/muck it up/do anything drastic/become a giant force of good, evil, whatever. I swear, everything this day is “well, China…” You all sound like American businesspeople in the 80’s talking about Japan.</p>

<p>We all know how THAT turned out…</p>

164

<p>“I must qualify my post for a second and say that I do NOT have the answers as to whether or not global warming is: 1) man-made; 2) natural; or 3) a mixture of both.”</p>

<p>I agree completely. I do happen to think that there actually are many global warming alarmists, people who are all about their emotions. I meet them daily on 42nd Street and Sixth Avenue when they are soliciting signatures for their petitions on behalf of Greenpeace. I wouldn’t say that the scientists studying the issue are “alarmists” or hysterics, but sounding an early alarm can be a good thing. That said, I can understand the disagreement on what causes global warming and what its consequences will be, but for countless reasons, I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with the benefits of conservation and alternate fuel sources. My republican daughter who is now planning to be a conservation biologist rather than a biology teacher, has been writing to President Bush regularly to offer her suggestions about alternative energy since his inauguration.</p>

165

<p>Decided to return. I am learning a lot here! There have been a few convincing paragraphs explaining why a majority is right. Can anyone here post some specific solutions to the problem of reversing a rise in the temperature of our planet. Not “sign on to Kyoto”, “ride a bicycle”, or simlar ideas. Specifics, like gas rationing or mileage rationing, restricting airplane flight hours, shutting down factories, etc.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Feel free to expand the list if necessary. If “this is not the appropriate forum” for a respone, I’ll understand. I fully agree with UCLAri’s early comments about having the right tools for the task. Thanks</p>

166

<p>what I find hysterical about the Global Warming (undecided yet as if it is a manmade thing or just a natural cycle) is that both times Congress has had a hearing on it, those days have been SNOWED in! :)</p>

<p>"December 06, 2007
Global Warming Vote Comes With 2 Inches Of Snow On The Ground/Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) Is Getting Livid </p>

<p>Global Warming Vote on Snowy Day in Washington</p>

<p>Senate committee debates expensive climate change bill as two inches of snow blanket D.C."
[A</a> Far Right Conservative Point Of View](<a href=“http://mariestwocents.blogspot.com/2007/12/global-warming-vote-comes-with-2-inches.html]A”>A Far Right Conservative Point Of View)</p>

<p>by the way I’m not a far right conservative, that was just the first spot i found a link to. Also, Can we explain how Baghdad got snow yesterday ? It was the first time it happened in a century</p>

167

<p>I think that the best things we can do are: 1. Subsidize (publicly or privately) the development of more efficient technologies; 2. Develop more pollution credit systems (perhaps internationalized ones that will allow developing industries abroad purchase credits); 3. Put into place incentives to develop and use mass transportation, as “icky” as many Americans may think that sounds.</p>

168

<p>“Feel free to expand the list if necessary. If “this is not the appropriate forum” for a respone, I’ll understand. I fully agree with UCLAri’s early comments about having the right tools for the task. Thanks”</p>

<p>I live in a community whose quality of life is severely limited by the lack of public transportation. The number one thing on my list would be a commitment to public transportation.</p>

169

<p>Thanks UCLAri. Where does the money used to purchase credits go?</p>

170

<p>dtex50,</p>

<p>Here’s a good page on how the credit system works: [Emissions</a> trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading]Emissions”>Emissions trading - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>The takeaway is that basically it’s a trading system. “I get so many credits, and if I don’t pollute as much, I sell them to you, Mr. Polluter.” The money pretty much just gets pushed around the market.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Good heavens, yes. I constantly hear people here in SD and LA talk about the “freedom” of a car. Real freedom was being able to go anywhere you wanted in Tokyo without needing to worry about parking, gas, tolls, other drivers, flat tires…</p>

171

<p>Not sure you want to use Tokyo as an good example. Yeah, mass transit is a way of life there, but so is standing in those rail cars packed in like sardines. They even have to use metro cops to “push” people into the cars like meat packers.</p>

<p>Not sure most Americans would be comfortable not even being able to move their arms while they get downtown. Claustrophobia, anyone?</p>

172

<p>Bullet, the alternative is that everyone has cars and the roads become maxed out. We have, here, the longest average commuting time in the entire country and it often exceeds two hours each way every day. I’d rather be squished than spend twenty hours a week just commuting.</p>

173

<p>Dtex50 - see my post #157, last page. Photovoltaics produce electricity without generating air pollution, contributing to global warming, consuming irreplaceable natural resources or sending money to Saudi Arabia. Win-win-win. Also, it’s a massively dispersed energy source, so transmission facilities are spared the task of transmitting energy from one place to another, making wide-scale blackouts less likely. We could increase our generation of power from this source fifty-fold with remarkably little effort. It’s a project which pays for itself - a PV installation essentially amounts to buying your next X years worth of electricity by paying for it up-front. Yet Germans installed more PV generation last year than the US. There’s no urgency, and few mechanisms for accelerating the pace at which it gets done. Why do you suppose that is?</p>

174

<p>bulletandpima,</p>

<p>A lot of that terrible congestion has been relieved since the 80s and 90s. I did live there, so I have a good idea just how “bad” it is. Some days are bad, but most days are no worse than a busy day in NYC.</p>

<p>But like Zoosermom said, is it really a whole lot better being stuck in traffic going 10 MPH?</p>

175

<p>Zooermom,</p>

<p>You may not mind the crush, but I’m sure most Americans, who live and die by the freedom they feel driving in thier own cars (screaming at the guy on talk radio, answering their cell phones, eating breakfast, applying make-up, shaving, etc. Yeah, I’ve seen it all at 70 mph and in a traffic snarl).</p>

<p>Let’s face it. Car ownership and the willingness to commute are now part and parcel ofthe American fabric. It’s easy to say “let’s swith to mass transit”, it’s harder to convince the American public to use it. </p>

<p>Don’t get me wrong, I’m a supporter of using mass transit when it is convienent. Spent 3 years in the DC area “slugging” back and forth everyday to work. (BTW, what a great system, and it remain that way because the governement has not stepped in to screw it up. It took a while to convince my elderly mother about my ignoring her advise about taking rides from stangers, twice a day, everyday, for 5 days a week!)</p>

<p>Mass transit, I’m all for it. Bt I’m afraid the majority of America needs a shift in the mind-set before they’ll accept it.</p>

176

<p>bulletandpima,</p>

<p>Millions of New Yorkers use mass transit every day. What’s the difference between NYC and Los Angeles?</p>

<p>BTW, slugging sucks IMO (never mind that it’s not “mass transit” to begin with…) I’d rather take Metro…</p>

177

<p>Understand the NY and LA mass transit system is heavily used. How about the guy working in Raliegh who lives 15 miles away? Or the guy in Cinncinatti?
Or Pittsburgh? or the other 90% of Americans who don’t live in the NY / LA metropolitan area? Mass transit exists there, but the majority still uses their own cars to get back and forth to work. </p>

<p>How about getting to the local groacery store? Mine is 5 miles away, mimimum. As America moved to the suburbs, we gave away the convenience of living on within a few block radius of as most of our basic services. While commuting to work adds to the problem, it’s only a part of it. Let’s face it, it takes a village. Unfortunately, that village is spread out over a wider area.</p>

<p>As to slugging, couldn’t disagree with you more there. The system I’m talking about is in DC, where those who used slugging made it to downtown in 25 minutes (via the HOV lanes), and those who didn’t needed 70 minutes, at least. The pick-up points were at the same locations as the Mass transit bus lines. My wait for a person willing to slug me in: 5 minutes tops. The wait for a bus: If I didn’t time it right, we’re talking 20+ minutes. My commuter nightmares usually began when I left work early (before the HOV lanes inDC opened up to outbound traffic, thus no one needed to pick up sluggers). If Ididn’t catch the 1230 bus, I was stuck at my desk an extra 90 minutes waitign for the next one.) I’m sorry you think the slugging experience is bad, but as for me, I swear by it! </p>

<p>Anyone else here use the slug system in DC before? What’s your opinion if you did?</p>

178

<p>“Mass transit, I’m all for it. Bt I’m afraid the majority of America needs a shift in the mind-set before they’ll accept it.”</p>

<p>That was why it was on my wish list!</p>

179

<p>kulge - “Yet Germans installed more PV generation last year than the US”. Impressive that a country half the size of my state with 4x the population has that PV capacity. I am a fan of PV, having designed a small system for my greenhouse. The system runs a pair of small 12v fans (24/7)and only cost $900 (BP panel, controller, pair of deep-cycle gel batteries, low-impedence Cu cable), with a few watts to spare. Now, if I could just find a friendly power company to buy those extra watts at an inflated price…</p>

180

<p>Let’s see. So far we have energy credits. Well that either stops production or drives it overseas. Then we have more global energy use moving the goods back from overseas. Next we can tax the hell out of energy and with what result? A dead and dying economy and lifestyle. Then we can use alternate energy sources. Kluge is big on photovoltaics. We have had this discussion before. You literally need to cover several States with PV’s to even begin to replace our current energy consumption. Scientific American currently has an article speculating about the possibilities of solar on a large scale. It is weird and looks more destructive to our planet than even the dire consequences of global warming. Wind power is also not practical. The size of the wind farms would be massive, not even considering the costs. Mass transit can make a difference in many areas, but not where I live. There is not central flow of commuters. People live and travel to different locations. We would need to bulldoze and start over.</p>

<p>We need a source of inexpensive energy that can be implemented on a large scale and which will not release CO2. I only know of one. Of course, we will need to learn how to handle the radioactive wastes and we can expect a few accidents. It might take another 10 or 20 years, but that is the direction we will take.</p>