Global Worries (was: global warming)
kevin....@mail.mei.com
Hello,
Richard Foy <rf...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<rfoyEA7...@netcom.com>...
> In article <337d6522...@news.idiscover.co.uk>,
> Guru George <gurug...@sugarland.idiscover.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Sat, 10 May 1997 14:52:27 GMT, rf...@netcom.com (Richard
Foy) wrote:
> >>In article <337374...@rockisland.com>,
<gen...@rockisland.com> wrote:
> >>> Or perhaps the oil companies are even more vulnerable to losing
> >>>litigation since the gasoline we use does not come with a warning
> >>>saying: "The use of this product may be harmful to humans. If this is
> >>>a problem for you use some other product to run your auto."
> >>> It puts a whole different spin on the Global Warming issue,
> >>> aye what?
> >>
> >>This is a very interesting thought. I wonder however if the time
> >>involved in the various changes and the great difficulty of proof of
> >>cause and effect is such as to make it not too useful in minimizing
> >>such changes.
I think the above statement deserves far more discussion and
thought than offered by the quick "brush off" it is given below...
> >Yeah, better to shoot first and ask questions later, eh?
>
> That is one way of summarizing it.
> Another might be:
> "Look before you leap." or "Penny wise, Pound foolish." or........
> There are aphorisms on every side of every issue.
Assorted forms of Darwinism, chaos theory and John Holland's work on
complex adaptive systems suggest things are far more complex than
we can ever hope to understand. This applies to economies (can central
control really adapt fast enough to "manage" and distribute goods
and services effectively?) as well as to ecosystems (do we really know
what damage can result if we are too invasive in our use of resources?).
And of course both systems (growing economies and our ecosystem)
greatly impact each other and in some ways appear to be contradictory.
One is often left feeling that we are just not smart enough to understand
it all and it is probably true, IMO, that we are not. There may be a
"systems level" intelligence not seen by the individual players. This is
what John Holland's book "Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity"
is all about. Dr. Holland is professor of engineering, mathematics, and
computer sciences at the University of Michigan in the United States. He
is considered the "father" of the computer science of genetic algorithms.
Indeed, can anything or anyone "born of the system" ever hope to
understand the entire system?? I don't think so. But is this a reason to
adopt a "hands off" or "minimally invasive" policy as far as humanity and
it's impact on the environment and use of resources? Is not humanity
and our very intelligence a product of that same ecosystem?? Are all
potential advancements (fossil fuels, genetic engineering, nuclear power,
etc.) to be curtailed due to what MIGHT happen 50 or more years down
the road? Are we to accept only the negative possibilities and at the
same time deny the PROBABILITY that better alternatives will be
provided by tomorrow's technology?
Evolution has always meant change and it seems unnatural to me to
believe that humans are a source of trouble rather than a fundamental
step in the next stage of this system's evolution. The new seldom
occurs without the "destruction" of the old. That is NOT to say that
we shouldn't be cognizant of and have concerns about our impact on this
planet. But I do not believe that we should be so concerned about every
last detail and every single species on this planet (evolution has always
meant competition and I think we do agree that it is all perhaps too
complex to understand anyway) that we deny ourselves the possibilities of
further evolution (whatever forms that might take) and opportunities for
further discovery in what may be a boundless universe of energy and
resources, as well as a boundless universe for personal discovery and
growth.
Please read physicist Freeman Dyson's work on that subject...
http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr/dyson1.html
--
Kevin Jessup, software engineer
Marquette Medical Systems Required disclaimer: Any opinions
Milwaukee, WI USA expressed above are my own and not
kevin....@mail.mei.com necessarily those of my employer.
http://www.mei.com (Even though they should be. ;-))
PGP encrypted Email preferred
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Ed
On Thu, 15 May 1997 09:41:33 -0600, kevin....@mail.mei.com wrote:
>One is often left feeling that we are just not smart enough to understand
>it all and it is probably true, IMO, that we are not. There may be a
>"systems level" intelligence not seen by the individual players. This is
>what John Holland's book "Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity"
>is all about. Dr. Holland is professor of engineering, mathematics, and
>computer sciences at the University of Michigan in the United States. He
>is considered the "father" of the computer science of genetic algorithms.
>
>Indeed, can anything or anyone "born of the system" ever hope to
>understand the entire system?? I don't think so. But is this a reason to
I really don't see why not, although it's quite clear that we don't
understand it right now.
Furthermore, perfect understanding is not needed.
I can't see any reason to think that we have some incapacity for
understanding the universe. We've been doing pretty good so far!
>Evolution has always meant change and it seems unnatural to me to
>believe that humans are a source of trouble rather than a fundamental
>step in the next stage of this system's evolution. The new seldom
Guess what, Mother Nature doesn't give a flying fuck about what seems
natural to you. Just because we evolved this way is no guarentee of
anything.
Furthermore, what do you mean by the next step in this systems
evolution? The next step is whatever happens next, up to and including
the extinction of all life on earth. Unless you think there's an old
white guy with a long beard running the whole thing and making sure it
all works out.
Remember, evolutiuon has no purpose or end. There are no organized
rational steps of progress. Whatever happens, happens. Just like goats
can create the sahara and destroy their own environment, there is
nothing that says we can't do the same.
>occurs without the "destruction" of the old. That is NOT to say that
>we shouldn't be cognizant of and have concerns about our impact on this
>planet. But I do not believe that we should be so concerned about every
>last detail and every single species on this planet (evolution has always
>meant competition and I think we do agree that it is all perhaps too
>complex to understand anyway) that we deny ourselves the possibilities of
>further evolution (whatever forms that might take) and opportunities for
>further discovery in what may be a boundless universe of energy and
>resources, as well as a boundless universe for personal discovery and
>growth.
Oh please, give me a break. Hey, I'll make a deal, I won't worry about
every last detail and every single species, if you START worrying
about the fact that one forth of the mamal species on earth are
endangered right now. We're not talking about some obscure butterfly
from the rainforest here, we're talking about one quarter of the
mammal species!!!
This is not a tiny detail. This is a major problem.
I think all of this is just wishful thinking, plain and simple. You
have replaced a watchful diety with watchful forces of nature, you
have overlaid your christian view of a progressive history on the
reality of this planet's biosphere. I'm sure it makes you feel better
about driving your car and living in an energy wasting house, but it
doesn't really make any sense.
You just can't fool nature with such reasoning!
>
>Please read physicist Freeman Dyson's work on that subject...
>
> http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr/dyson1.html
>
I've read your pages on Dyson, but what does it really say? That we
can survive if we make the right decisions. What if we make the wrong
ones?
Kevin Jessup
Ed <edw...@idcomm.com> wrote in article
<337b3750...@superego.idcomm.com>...
> >Indeed, can anything or anyone "born of the system" ever hope to
> >understand the entire system?? I don't think so. But is this a reason
to
>
> I really don't see why not
Yet you claim to have read Dyson's article dealing with
infinite possibilities and the similarities of his
proposals to Goedel's Theorem. And you still claim
we can understand it all?
> >Evolution has always meant change and it seems unnatural to me to
> >believe that humans are a source of trouble rather than a fundamental
> >step in the next stage of this system's evolution. The new seldom
>
> Guess what, Mother Nature doesn't give a flying fuck
Ooooooooooh....We've progressed from a scientific discussion to
naughty words already. Great job, Ed. Please, jump in any time
with your clever insight and prose.
> Just because we evolved this way is no guarentee of
> anything.
Agreed. Yet in one sentence you claim we have
the potential to understand the entire system and then,
in the next, imply we are destined for gloom and doom.
Which is it?
How does one evolve or learn without making mistakes
and adapting? This was what part of what I was trying
to discuss in my reference to John Holland's book.
> Furthermore, what do you mean by the next step in this systems
> evolution?
That man is the first creature with the capacity to modify
himself and his environment with so much power. Evolution
is not just new creatures coming and going within the
existing system. It can also mean changing the rules
of the system. Some people thus forecast doom and gloom
scenarios. Others prefer optimism.
> The next step is whatever happens next, up to and including
> the extinction of all life on earth.
Thanks for illustrating the point.
> Unless you think there's an old
> white guy with a long beard running the whole thing and making sure it
> all works out.
I'm agnostic.
> Remember, evolutiuon has no purpose or end. There are no organized
> rational steps of progress. Whatever happens, happens.
So I guess you haven't read or even heard of John Holland's book.
That was the purpose of my post: to discuss the theory of complex
adaptive systems as applied to ecosystems, economic systems and
man's enormous potential to impact both. You, however, have
opted for a flame war. This was posted to SCI.environment.
Is your response to me typical of your other follow-ups on
these subjects?
> >That is NOT to say that
> >we shouldn't be cognizant of and have concerns about our impact on this
> >planet. But I do not believe that we should be so concerned about
every
> >last detail and every single species on this planet (evolution has
always
> >meant competition and I think we do agree that it is all perhaps too
> >complex to understand anyway) that we deny ourselves the possibilities
of
> >further evolution (whatever forms that might take) and opportunities for
> >further discovery in what may be a boundless universe of energy and
> >resources, as well as a boundless universe for personal discovery and
> >growth.
>
> Oh please, give me a break.
So you basically you don't agree with that philosophy.
Fine. And your alternative is...
> START worrying
> about the fact that one forth of the mamal species on earth are
> endangered right now. We're not talking about some obscure butterfly
> from the rainforest here, we're talking about one quarter of the
> mammal species!!!
...man as guardian. As overseer. Conservation above all
else?? I am not suggesting there are no problems. I am
not suggesting man cannot do better as far as his impact
on other species. What I had asked for was a disscussion
on adaptation and the theory of complex adaptive systems.
You seem bent on turning this into a "green vs capitalism"
war.
Chaos theory suggests we live "on the edge". Too far and
we die due to too much change. Your concern, I believe.
Too little and we stagnate and also die. I had hoped for
a calm discussion as applied to ecosystems, man's quest for
knowledge and economic growth and a median between the two.
Unfortunately you seem intent on a flame war.
Perhaps someone else cares to respond via Email. It appears
Newsgroup-based discussions such as this seldom, if ever,
result in knowledge gained by both "sides".
Ed
On 17 May 1997 14:41:42 GMT, "Kevin Jessup"
<kevin....@mail.mei.com> wrote:
----------
> From: Kevin Jessup <kevin....@mail.mei.com>
> > I really don't see why not
>
> Yet you claim to have read Dyson's article dealing with
> infinite possibilities and the similarities of his
> proposals to Goedel's Theorem. And you still claim
> we can understand it all?
Hey, whatever you want to believe you can believe. When quantum
physics was first "discovered" it seemed like there were a lot of
things that could never be fully explained, but we've made a lot of
progress and new ways of dealing with these kinds of problems have
been found. The status of weather prediction today would probably have
been considered unbelievable 30 years ago.
So who the hell knows? The conceptual tools that we use change all
them time. Impossible to understand everything with current conceptual
tools, sure. Impossible with future ways of looking at things - how
can anyone say?
But I do know that there's no reason to say "Oh well, we can't
understand it all anyway, so what difference does it make what we do?"
> > Guess what, Mother Nature doesn't give a flying fuck
>
> Ooooooooooh....We've progressed from a scientific discussion to
> naughty words already. Great job, Ed. Please, jump in any time
> with your clever insight and prose.
Sorry, I'd rather not get into a discussion of why americans have so
many puritanical problems with language right now, though I think it's
a very interesting subject. Sufice it to say that if you don't want to
read it, you don't have to.
>
> > Just because we evolved this way is no guarentee of
> > anything.
>
> Agreed. Yet in one sentence you claim we have
> the potential to understand the entire system and then,
> in the next, imply we are destined for gloom and doom.
> Which is it?
I am not implying, you are infering. I make no mention of destiny. I
have little interest in the topic because it is certainly something no
person can speak athoritatively.
Certainly we have the potential to either survive or die out. We have
the potential to either preserve most of the species we have around,
or wipe most of the out.
We're not doing to well so far, but I remain optimistic that with some
hard work and effort we can save a lot and slow the damage to the
rest.
Not, however, if we sit around telling ourselves it's all part of
evolution anyway.
>
> How does one evolve or learn without making mistakes
> and adapting? This was what part of what I was trying
> to discuss in my reference to John Holland's book.
That does not mean we should embrace our mistakes in the hope of
learning more from them!!
Now we know that it's a mistake to destroy our environment. So why
don't we try and stop?
>
>
> > Furthermore, what do you mean by the next step in this systems
> > evolution?
>
> That man is the first creature with the capacity to modify
> himself and his environment with so much power. Evolution
> is not just new creatures coming and going within the
> existing system. It can also mean changing the rules
> of the system. Some people thus forecast doom and gloom
> scenarios. Others prefer optimism.
I would put that: some people see a problem and try to address it,
others prefer to sit around hoping somehow it will all work out.
We understand enough to know that the current american lifestyle
(yours and mine) is not sustainable. We can chage it or sit around and
hope someone or something comes along to save us at the last minute.
If you like to call that optimism, then I am certainly not an
optimist.
>
> > The next step is whatever happens next, up to and including
> > the extinction of all life on earth.
>
> Thanks for illustrating the point.
I thought you're point was that mankind was relatively safe because:
"it seems unnatural to me to believe that humans are a source of
trouble rather than a fundamental
step in the next stage of this system's evolution."
> So I guess you haven't read or even heard of John Holland's book.
> That was the purpose of my post: to discuss the theory of complex
> adaptive systems as applied to ecosystems, economic systems and
> man's enormous potential to impact both. You, however, have
> opted for a flame war. This was posted to SCI.environment.
> Is your response to me typical of your other follow-ups on
> these subjects?
>
Sorry if I offended!
>
> > >That is NOT to say that
> > >we shouldn't be cognizant of and have concerns about our impact on this
> > >planet. But I do not believe that we should be so concerned about
> every
> > >last detail and every single species on this planet (evolution has
> always
> > >meant competition and I think we do agree that it is all perhaps too
> > >complex to understand anyway) that we deny ourselves the possibilities
> of
> > >further evolution (whatever forms that might take) and opportunities for
> > >further discovery in what may be a boundless universe of energy and
> > >resources, as well as a boundless universe for personal discovery and
> > >growth.
> >
> > Oh please, give me a break.
>
> So you basically you don't agree with that philosophy.
> Fine. And your alternative is...
That we should stop engaing in rationalizations of our massive
destructive impact on the ecosystems of this planet and instead focus
on trying to reduce that destruction. I'm sorry, I thought I had made
that more clear.
I'm not impressed by hand-waving that seeks to justify the needless
extinction of 50% of the Earth's biota, which is where we'll be in our
lifetime without some changes.
>
> > START worrying
> > about the fact that one forth of the mamal species on earth are
> > endangered right now. We're not talking about some obscure butterfly
> > from the rainforest here, we're talking about one quarter of the
> > mammal species!!!
>
> ....man as guardian. As overseer. Conservation above all
> else?? I am not suggesting there are no problems. I am
> not suggesting man cannot do better as far as his impact
> on other species. What I had asked for was a disscussion
> on adaptation and the theory of complex adaptive systems.
> You seem bent on turning this into a "green vs capitalism"
> war.
I'm a big fan of capitalism actually. Your attitude of justificatiuon
for these actions based on the fact that it's all part of evolution is
rather annoying to me. Sorry if I got too snitty.
Capitalism is a good reason not to screw up the earth's environment
too much. Can't make much profit if we'll struggling just to survive
in the wake of environmental disaster.
>
> Chaos theory suggests we live "on the edge". Too far and
> we die due to too much change. Your concern, I believe.
> Too little and we stagnate and also die. I had hoped for
> a calm discussion as applied to ecosystems, man's quest for
> knowledge and economic growth and a median between the two.
> Unfortunately you seem intent on a flame war.
Well you keep saying it but I only said "fuck" once!
I read the Jurasic Park sequel too (which had that bit about chaos
theory), but that doesn't mean we can't change our method of relating
to the earth.
>
> Perhaps someone else cares to respond via Email. It appears
> Newsgroup-based discussions such as this seldom, if ever,
> results in knowledge gained by both "sides".
Maybe you just don't like it when someone disagrees with you?
Greig Ebeling
On Mon, 19 May 1997 15:32:41 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>I would put that: some people see a problem and try to address it,
>others prefer to sit around hoping somehow it will all work out.
>
>We understand enough to know that the current american lifestyle
>(yours and mine) is not sustainable. We can chage it or sit around and
>hope someone or something comes along to save us at the last minute.
>If you like to call that optimism, then I am certainly not an
>optimist.
I have never seen or heard anyone suggest that we should "sit around
hoping". This simply a straw man.
IMHO those who are sceptical of the current hysteria over global
warming are trying to prevent rash actions which may be wasteful of
resources, resources which may be better spent on more immediate
problems.
There are many potential solutions to the greenhouse problem, should
it be proved to have a negative effect on the environment. Running in
circles, demanding that the sky is falling, is not one of them.
...Greig
********************
Add .au to email me
********************
John McCarthy
Edward ... includes:
I think "those who are sceptical of the current hysteria"
are actually those who are uncomfortable with an unwelcome
scientific fact. I think there's a large backlash against
this kind of scientific discovery, just as there was to the
assertion that the earth isn't flat.
The 1997 May 16 _Science_ includes
Climate Change: Greenhouse Forecasting Still Cloudy
Richard A. Kerr
An international panel has suggested that global warming has
arrived, but many scientists say it will be a decade before
computer models can confidently link the warming to human
activities
The headlines a year and a half ago positively brimmed with
assurance: "Global Warming: No Longer in Doubt," "Man
Adversely Affecting Climate, Experts Conclude," "Experts
Agree Humans Have 'Discernible' Effect on Climate," "Climate
Panel Is Confident of Man's Link to Warming." The official
summary statement of the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that had prompted the
headlines seemed reasonably confident, too: "... the balance
of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human
influence on global climate." But as negotiators prepare to
gather in Bonn in July to discuss a climate treaty that
could require nations to adopt expensive policies for
limiting their emissions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases, many climate experts caution that it is
not at all clear yet that human activities have begun to
warm the planet--or how bad greenhouse warming will be when
it arrives.
What had inspired the media excitement was the IPCC's
conclusion that the half-degree rise in global temperature
since the late 19th century may bear a "fingerprint" of
human activity. The patchy distribution of the warming
around the globe looks much like the distinctive pattern
expected if the heat-trapping gases being poured into the
atmosphere were beginning to warm the planet, the report
said. But IPCC scientists now say that neither the public
nor many scientists appreciate how many if's, and's, and
but's peppered the report. "It's unfortunate that many
people read the media hype before they read the [IPCC]
chapter" on the detection of greenhouse warming, says
climate modeler Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in Livermore, California, the lead
author of the chapter. "I think the caveats are there. We
say quite clearly that few scientists would say the
attribution issue was a done deal."
There's more including an editorial by John Zillman,
President of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
I'll summarize some of it later, but the gist is that while the
modellers basically adhere to their statement of last year, they
say the policy makers demanded more than the scientists were able
to deliver.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Ed
Whether global warming is happening because of anthropogenic forcing
may not be entirely clear, but it is only one environmental problem,
and by no means the most dangerous (IMHO). What about the ozone hole?
What about decrease in biodiversity, what about regional climate
change and it's possible long term effects on global climate?
The scientific fact I am refering to is not the (probable) fact of
global warming, but the certain fact that we can damage the global
environment.
You want to argue what approach we should take to deal with these
various problems, that's fine. But don't argue that there really are
no problems, because there clearly are.
I remember reading in one of your posts, John, that if everyone had to
move out of the Brazilian rainforest because it's needed by the
globa,l climate, that it wouldn't stop material progress on earth. I
agree with that.
But what if we have to move everyone out, as you postulate, but we
simply don't get it together and the climate starts to change. Then it
will be too late!!
Let's do a little cost benifit analysis here, and don't forget that
risk has to be added into the analysis, just as every good business
does.
On 20 May 1997 10:45:58 -0700, John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu>
wrote:
>Edward ... includes:
>
> I think "those who are sceptical of the current hysteria"
> are actually those who are uncomfortable with an unwelcome
> scientific fact. I think there's a large backlash against
> this kind of scientific discovery, just as there was to the
> assertion that the earth isn't flat.
>
>The 1997 May 16 _Science_ includes
>
> Climate Change: Greenhouse Forecasting Still Cloudy
>
>I'll summarize some of it later, but the gist is that while the
John McCarthy
Ed includes:
Whether global warming is happening because of anthropogenic
forcing may not be entirely clear, but it is only one
environmental problem, and by no means the most dangerous
(IMHO). What about the ozone hole? What about decrease in
biodiversity, what about regional climate change and it's
possible long term effects on global climate?
The scientific fact I am refering to is not the (probable)
fact of global warming, but the certain fact that we can
damage the global environment.
You want to argue what approach we should take to deal with
these various problems, that's fine. But don't argue that
there really are no problems, because there clearly are.
At this point, I'm puzzled. Suppose I grant that in principle
that there are problems but am skeptical of each of the three Ed
has mentioned. What then?
John McCarthy
Ed includes:
I guess what bugged me so much in the original post was the
similarity it had to "social darwinism", the horrible
rationalizations used by the europeans for the most
despicible acts of violence and theft, acts almost unequaled
in history for the scope of their barbarity. I would not
like to see our society make the same mistake again and use
evolution to justify our needless destruction of so many
species.
Social Darwinism was a late 19th century and early 20th century
belief. It wasn't used to justify colonialism but rather to
justify limiting governmental charity and limiting protectionism.
Michael Tobis
Of course politicians would like to be able to say that
there is unequivocal evidence that human activities
are causing the observed changes, and of course the
scientists would prefer a proper statistical statement,
which falls short of certainty.
However, the best estimate of climate sensitivity to
greenhouse gas accumulation based solely on observations
*is* substantially larger than zero. And, as IPCC *did* say,
the balance of evidence *supports* a discernible anthropogenic
change already.
So it depends on how you ask the question. Saying that
a global warming signal has not been unequivocally
detected is responding to a misguded question. The
accumulation of greenhouse gases, and the effect of
greenhouse gases on radiative physics are not open
scientific questions to first or even second order.
Exactly how the climate system will respond to these
changes is as yet known only crudely and with much uncertainty,
the changes are only in the earliest stages of
emerging from the background variability, and long
term climate records are far from complete. Thus the
identification of an unnatural climate change with
statistical certainty must wait until significantly
after such change has started.
Proposing that policy ignore the issue until the signal
is detected with certainty is proposing to ignore existing
information. The chances that greenhouse gases will
continue to accumulate at an accelerating rate without ever
seriously inconveniencing anybody are slim given what we
already know. This is because the radiative forcing of
the atmosphere has already changed substantially, and
trends indicate this change accelerating into the foreseeable
future.
This is indeed inconvenient. However, it seems to me
that those arguing against overreaction should be arguing
*for* prudent early action. Once the changes become obvious
and obviously disruptive, the likelihood of an extreme
over-reaction would increase, wouldn't it?
Should Mr Greenspan be restrained from raising interest rates
until *after* double digit inflation sets in? That would seem
to follow from the same logic as the detection argument. Why
should anything be done about hyperinflation before it is
unequivocally detected?
mt
D. Braun
On 20 May 1997, John McCarthy wrote:
> Ed includes:
>
> Whether global warming is happening because of anthropogenic
> forcing may not be entirely clear, but it is only one
> environmental problem, and by no means the most dangerous
> (IMHO). What about the ozone hole? What about decrease in
> biodiversity, what about regional climate change and it's
> possible long term effects on global climate?
>
> The scientific fact I am refering to is not the (probable)
> fact of global warming, but the certain fact that we can
> damage the global environment.
>
> You want to argue what approach we should take to deal with
> these various problems, that's fine. But don't argue that
> there really are no problems, because there clearly are.
>
> At this point, I'm puzzled. Suppose I grant that in principle
> that there are problems but am skeptical of each of the three Ed
> has mentioned. What then?
>
That is the point of the newsgroups. Post a factual, verifiable, ballanced
argument. However, because you often verbally
fight unfairly, its often a waste of time. Do you remember our argument
over the biodiversity crisis, in which you claimed that it was no problem
because we can genetically manipulate organisms?
(About a year ago or more). I just browse a little now, but felt
compelled to respond to your post. I have to get a grip on these
compulsions.
--Dave Braun
Ed
On Tue, 20 May 1997 11:02:19 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
Ebeling) wrote:
>I have never seen or heard anyone suggest that we should "sit around
>hoping". This simply a straw man.
>
>IMHO those who are sceptical of the current hysteria over global
>warming are trying to prevent rash actions which may be wasteful of
>resources, resources which may be better spent on more immediate
>problems.
>
>There are many potential solutions to the greenhouse problem, should
>it be proved to have a negative effect on the environment. Running in
>circles, demanding that the sky is falling, is not one of them.
Running around in circles?
Demanding that the sky is falling?
What was that you said about strawmen?
What I am doing, rather than running around in circles, or talking
about the sky falling (an obvious impossibility) is trying to change
my lifestyle to reduce the damaging effects it's having, and trying to
get other people to change theirs with similar goals.
I think "those who are sceptical of the current hysteria" are actually
those who are uncomfortable with an unwelcome scientific fact. I think
there's a large backlash against this kind of scientific discovery,
just as there was to the assertion that the earth isn't flat.
I also think that calls to "prevent rash actions" are always welcome,
but I wonder if you understand that our day to day actions are truely
rash, in that we are endangering the very systems upon which we
completely depend for survival. We are not risking this after careful
deliberation of the consequences, we are doing it because it's the way
we always did it (though not always on this scale). We are doing it
because it is convenient today, with no thought whatsoever of what the
world is going to look like 100 or 200 or 500 years from now.
In the old days we did not have to think on this scale, just as there
was a time when european society did not even know about the new
world. But those days are past and we all need to give some serious
thought to this issue.
Greig Ebeling
On Tue, 20 May 1997 18:48:57 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>
>Whether global warming is happening because of anthropogenic forcing
>may not be entirely clear, but it is only one environmental problem,
>and by no means the most dangerous (IMHO). What about the ozone hole?
Care to show some evidence of environmental damage caused by ozone
depletion?
>What about decrease in biodiversity, what about regional climate
>change and it's possible long term effects on global climate?
>
>The scientific fact I am refering to is not the (probable) fact of
>global warming, but the certain fact that we can damage the global
>environment.
>
>You want to argue what approach we should take to deal with these
>various problems, that's fine. But don't argue that there really are
>no problems, because there clearly are.
No, there are no problems. Only potential problems (at present). And
the best thing to do at the moment is to speculate over possible
solutions.
>I remember reading in one of your posts, John, that if everyone had to
>move out of the Brazilian rainforest because it's needed by the
>globa,l climate, that it wouldn't stop material progress on earth. I
>agree with that.
>
>But what if we have to move everyone out, as you postulate, but we
>simply don't get it together and the climate starts to change. Then it
>will be too late!!
It MAY be too late, but I doubt it.
>Let's do a little cost benifit analysis here, and don't forget that
>risk has to be added into the analysis, just as every good business
>does.
I agree. But before we can do that, we have to have a clear
understanding of the potential negative effects of greenhouse warming,
and their costs. At present we know nothing.
Greig Ebeling
On Tue, 20 May 1997 16:14:28 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>On Tue, 20 May 1997 11:02:19 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
>Ebeling) wrote:
>
>>There are many potential solutions to the greenhouse problem, should
>>it be proved to have a negative effect on the environment. Running in
>>circles, demanding that the sky is falling, is not one of them.
>
>Running around in circles?
>
>Demanding that the sky is falling?
>
>What was that you said about strawmen?
Touche'
>What I am doing, rather than running around in circles, or talking
>about the sky falling (an obvious impossibility) is trying to change
>my lifestyle to reduce the damaging effects it's having, and trying to
>get other people to change theirs with similar goals.
>
>I think "those who are sceptical of the current hysteria" are actually
>those who are uncomfortable with an unwelcome scientific fact.
Scientific fact? Please cite your reference.
>I think
>there's a large backlash against this kind of scientific discovery,
>just as there was to the assertion that the earth isn't flat.
My reading of history suggested that the flat-earthers were/are
religious zealots, whose beliefs relied on faith, not rational
individuals concerned with solid evidence.
>I also think that calls to "prevent rash actions" are always welcome,
>but I wonder if you understand that our day to day actions are truely
>rash, in that we are endangering the very systems upon which we
>completely depend for survival. We are not risking this after careful
>deliberation of the consequences, we are doing it because it's the way
>we always did it (though not always on this scale). We are doing it
>because it is convenient today, with no thought whatsoever of what the
>world is going to look like 100 or 200 or 500 years from now.
Could people living 500 years ago in the Dark Ages, have imagined the
level of knowledge we have attained, or the degree of comfort in which
many of us live, and many more have the opportunity of attaining?
Why then do you assume that future generations will not build on what
we have, improve it, and build a better world?
>In the old days we did not have to think on this scale, just as there
>was a time when european society did not even know about the new
>world. But those days are past and we all need to give some serious
>thought to this issue.
There were many in "the old days" who believed that the only matter of
importance was the potential wrath of God.
Ed
On 20 May 1997 15:01:02 -0700, John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu>
wrote:
>
> You want to argue what approach we should take to deal with
> these various problems, that's fine. But don't argue that
> there really are no problems, because there clearly are.
>
>At this point, I'm puzzled. Suppose I grant that in principle
>that there are problems but am skeptical of each of the three Ed
>has mentioned. What then?
Then you are in disagreement with the scientific concensus on each
issue. (The global warming one less so than the other two).
The whole point of doing science it that you have to accept the truth
when you find it, not continue to deny it because you don't like it.
In answer to your question, I would have to say that you should either
contribute to the scientific concensus with some research findings
that show why you are correct and the ozone hole scientists are wrong
(to pick one example). If you can't do that, and can't accept and
understand their findings, then I don't know what you should do.
Ed
On Wed, 21 May 1997 13:12:44 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
Ebeling) wrote:
>On Tue, 20 May 1997 18:48:57 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>
>>
>>Whether global warming is happening because of anthropogenic forcing
>>may not be entirely clear, but it is only one environmental problem,
>>and by no means the most dangerous (IMHO). What about the ozone hole?
>
>Care to show some evidence of environmental damage caused by ozone
>depletion?
The ozone depletion is the environmental damage.
>>You want to argue what approach we should take to deal with these
>>various problems, that's fine. But don't argue that there really are
>>no problems, because there clearly are.
>
>No, there are no problems. Only potential problems (at present). And
>the best thing to do at the moment is to speculate over possible
>solutions.
I think you would like to believe this and so would I, but there are
problems.
I am tempted to try and use some analogy like the early symptoms of
disease, which can be ignored, for a little while. But I guess I
really don't like metaphors.
If you have nothing to refute the ozone hole scientists, who have
pretty much reached consensus on this issue, then I don't think your
opinion has a great deal of weight. I've worked with those scientists,
seen their data and talked with them about their findings. They've
sent planes into the antarctic straosphere to get data for there
conclusions, they have a satellite data record from TOMS, etc. - where
is your data?
>
>>I remember reading in one of your posts, John, that if everyone had to
>>move out of the Brazilian rainforest because it's needed by the
>>globa,l climate, that it wouldn't stop material progress on earth. I
>>agree with that.
>>
>>But what if we have to move everyone out, as you postulate, but we
>>simply don't get it together and the climate starts to change. Then it
>>will be too late!!
>
>It MAY be too late, but I doubt it.
Based on what exactly? Inate faith that because it never happened
before to us, it won't ever happen?
Really, I am very interested in why you don't think there can be a
point at which it is too late to recover the stability of our climate
and life systems. Complex systems in nature often change dramatically.
>
>>Let's do a little cost benifit analysis here, and don't forget that
>>risk has to be added into the analysis, just as every good business
>>does.
>
>I agree. But before we can do that, we have to have a clear
>understanding of the potential negative effects of greenhouse warming,
>and their costs. At present we know nothing.
Perhaps you know nothing, but we, as a sociey, have actually spent a
lot of money on the science. The IPCC was just the tip of the iceburg.
We know a great deal, in fact. Problem is, lots of people (you
included) don't like the answers.
Ed
On Wed, 21 May 1997 13:12:41 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
Ebeling) wrote:
>>I think "those who are sceptical of the current hysteria" are actually
>>those who are uncomfortable with an unwelcome scientific fact.
>
>Scientific fact? Please cite your reference.
Eh? For which one? Let's take the ozone hole as an example since I am
quite familiar with the data involved, from my days working at NASA.
I could look up some references but I really doubt you would ever go
find them. Are you really serious about this? Anyway, a quick glance
at the ozone faq list will provide numerous references. Shall I get it
for you? You can easily find if on the web.
>
>>I think
>>there's a large backlash against this kind of scientific discovery,
>>just as there was to the assertion that the earth isn't flat.
>
>My reading of history suggested that the flat-earthers were/are
>religious zealots, whose beliefs relied on faith, not rational
>individuals concerned with solid evidence.
Yes, that is exactly my point.
>Could people living 500 years ago in the Dark Ages, have imagined the
>level of knowledge we have attained, or the degree of comfort in which
>many of us live, and many more have the opportunity of attaining?
>
>Why then do you assume that future generations will not build on what
>we have, improve it, and build a better world?
Because it's worked so far, it's bound to continue working. Is that
the substance of your reasoning?
I don't think that's very good reasoning at all!
Since you ask, the reason I think this is that we have finally done
something new, as a species. For the last few million years we didn't
do much exciting stuff, but then modern science was invented and
WOW!!! what a lot of changes since then.
So perhaps the real question is: why do you think it will stay the
same?
>
>>In the old days we did not have to think on this scale, just as there
>>was a time when european society did not even know about the new
>>world. But those days are past and we all need to give some serious
>>thought to this issue.
>
>There were many in "the old days" who believed that the only matter of
>importance was the potential wrath of God.
Sorry, what exactly is your point here? Personally I'm not too worried
about God. I'm more worried about people. God I trust to manage
everything well. People I trust to make lots of mistakes.
One thing that we have to guide us is science, and it's what got us
this far. Now the science is telling us that we are causing
environmental problems, and all of a sudden you don't want to listen
to it any more.
DON'T claim that there is a great deal of scientific dispute over the
causes of the ozone hole (that is, whether it was caused by us or
not). The smoking gun has been found and that's clear from reading the
research in this area which I strongly encourage anyone to do, if they
have the time.
But I'm sure you didn't object to scientific findings concerning the
nature of the electron and say "where is the reference!?" When the
matter doesn't concern you politically you are perhaps willing to
accept the scientific concensus without much question!
But hey, that's OK. It's still science and if you are not convinced
then study away and contact the scientists and get the data. Actually
I could easily help anyone get the raw data for this stuff if you
really want it.
John McCarthy
edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) writes:
On 20 May 1997 15:01:02 -0700, John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu>
wrote:
>
> You want to argue what approach we should take to deal with
> these various problems, that's fine. But don't argue that
> there really are no problems, because there clearly are.
>
>At this point, I'm puzzled. Suppose I grant that in principle
>that there are problems but am skeptical of each of the three Ed
>has mentioned. What then?
Then you are in disagreement with the scientific concensus
on each issue. (The global warming one less so than the
other two).
The whole point of doing science it that you have to accept
the truth when you find it, not continue to deny it because
you don't like it.
In answer to your question, I would have to say that you
should either contribute to the scientific concensus with
some research findings that show why you are correct and the
ozone hole scientists are wrong (to pick one example). If
you can't do that, and can't accept and understand their
findings, then I don't know what you should do.
1. According to the articles in last Friday's _Science_, the IPCC
scientists themselves think their work was over-interpreted.
2. As a layman in climate science, am I not entitled to consider
the opinion of scientists who are in the minority, especially as
my opinion that the IPCC scientists were pressured by the policy
makers and the NGOs seems to be supported.
3. Does Ed promise to support majority specialist scientific
opinion on every issue, e.g. nuclear energy and genetic
engineering?
Greig Ebeling
On Wed, 21 May 1997 17:08:41 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>On Wed, 21 May 1997 13:12:41 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
>Ebeling) wrote:
>
>>Scientific fact? Please cite your reference.
>
>Eh? For which one? Let's take the ozone hole as an example since I am
>quite familiar with the data involved, from my days working at NASA.
>
>I could look up some references but I really doubt you would ever go
>find them. Are you really serious about this? Anyway, a quick glance
>at the ozone faq list will provide numerous references. Shall I get it
>for you? You can easily find if on the web.
I do not doubt the scientific findings which link CFCs to ozone
depletion. What I am after is a scientific reference which shows a
quantifiable negative impact from ozone depletion or greenhouse
warming.
>>My reading of history suggested that the flat-earthers were/are
>>religious zealots, whose beliefs relied on faith, not rational
>>individuals concerned with solid evidence.
>
>Yes, that is exactly my point.
You have clearly placed your faith in the hypothesis that increased
CO2 will result in global warming, and you may be correct. What I am
calling for is evidence that it will cause harm, sufficient to warrant
the harm which will certainly be caused by CO2 emission controls.
>>Could people living 500 years ago in the Dark Ages, have imagined the
>>level of knowledge we have attained, or the degree of comfort in which
>>many of us live, and many more have the opportunity of attaining?
>>
>>Why then do you assume that future generations will not build on what
>>we have, improve it, and build a better world?
>
>Because it's worked so far, it's bound to continue working. Is that
>the substance of your reasoning?
>
>I don't think that's very good reasoning at all!
Because a plausible hypothesis exists, that is reason to believe it
must be true, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support
the hypothesis. Is that your idea of scientific reasoning?
>Since you ask, the reason I think this is that we have finally done
>something new, as a species. For the last few million years we didn't
>do much exciting stuff, but then modern science was invented and
>WOW!!! what a lot of changes since then.
>
>So perhaps the real question is: why do you think it will stay the
>same?
I don't, that is my point.
>>There were many in "the old days" who believed that the only matter of
>>importance was the potential wrath of God.
>
>Sorry, what exactly is your point here?
Humans have come a long way since "the old days" toward taking control
of our destiny. There is no reason to believe that we will not
succeed.
>Personally I'm not too worried
>about God. I'm more worried about people. God I trust to manage
>everything well. People I trust to make lots of mistakes.
You are perhaps right, but we learn from mistakes too.
>One thing that we have to guide us is science, and it's what got us
>this far. Now the science is telling us that we are causing
>environmental problems, and all of a sudden you don't want to listen
>to it any more.
No, I have faith in its use to solve our problems. There are many
unresolved environmental problems and many potential solutions, and
limited resources to use. Let us consider all the possibilities, and
respond in good time. Let us not assume the worst, panic, and punish
ourselves unnecessarily.
Greig Ebeling
On Wed, 21 May 1997 16:58:48 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>On Wed, 21 May 1997 13:12:44 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
>Ebeling) wrote:
>
>>Care to show some evidence of environmental damage caused by ozone
>>depletion?
>
>The ozone depletion is the environmental damage.
If ozone depletion does not harm anyone or any thing, then what does
it matter? I'll come back to this later...
>>No, there are no problems. Only potential problems (at present). And
>>the best thing to do at the moment is to speculate over possible
>>solutions.
>
>I think you would like to believe this and so would I, but there are
>problems.
>
>I am tempted to try and use some analogy like the early symptoms of
>disease, which can be ignored, for a little while. But I guess I
>really don't like metaphors.
The situation with the greenhouse effect, is that you have diagnosed
the disease, before being certain that there are any symptoms, or more
importantly whether the disease is so bad, that it is worth an effort
to avoid it.
>If you have nothing to refute the ozone hole scientists, who have
>pretty much reached consensus on this issue, then I don't think your
>opinion has a great deal of weight. I've worked with those scientists,
>seen their data and talked with them about their findings. They've
>sent planes into the antarctic straosphere to get data for there
>conclusions, they have a satellite data record from TOMS, etc. - where
>is your data?
Hang on. I didn't say that I refuted the ozone scientists. I have
spent much time learning about the issue, and believe that there is
little doubt that CFCs have exacerbated polar ozone depletion
markedly.
What I question is, whether it matters. I have yet to see any
reasonable attempt at quantifying the negative effects of ozone
depletion, and balancing that against the resources expended on the
implementation of the Montreal protocol.
>>It MAY be too late, but I doubt it.
>
>Based on what exactly? Inate faith that because it never happened
>before to us, it won't ever happen?
On what do you place your faith that 'disaster in imminent'? I have
yet to see you attempt to post anything akin to supporting evidence
for your assertions. My beliefs are based on my confidence that no
such evidence exists, at least none that quantifies the negative
effects (if any) of global warming or ozone depletion.
>Really, I am very interested in why you don't think there can be a
>point at which it is too late to recover the stability of our climate
>and life systems. Complex systems in nature often change dramatically.
Certainly, but there is some strong support for the notion that the
upper limit of earth's temperature is controlled by a strong feed-back
mechanism based on albedo.
>>I agree. But before we can do that, we have to have a clear
>>understanding of the potential negative effects of greenhouse warming,
>>and their costs. At present we know nothing.
>
>Perhaps you know nothing, but we, as a sociey, have actually spent a
>lot of money on the science. The IPCC was just the tip of the iceburg.
>We know a great deal, in fact. Problem is, lots of people (you
>included) don't like the answers.
So surprise me, and show me how much we "as a society" know. Show me
a measurement of the environmental impact of greenhouse warming and
ozone depletion.
Todd M. Bolton
Greig Ebeling wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 May 1997 17:08:41 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 21 May 1997 13:12:41 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
> >Ebeling) wrote:
> >
> >>Scientific fact? Please cite your reference.
> >
> >Eh? For which one? Let's take the ozone hole as an example since I am
> >quite familiar with the data involved, from my days working at NASA.
> >
> >I could look up some references but I really doubt you would ever go
> >find them. Are you really serious about this? Anyway, a quick glance
> >at the ozone faq list will provide numerous references. Shall I get it
> >for you? You can easily find if on the web.
>
> I do not doubt the scientific findings which link CFCs to ozone
> depletion. What I am after is a scientific reference which shows a
> quantifiable negative impact from ozone depletion or greenhouse
> warming.
>
> >>My reading of history suggested that the flat-earthers were/are
> >>religious zealots, whose beliefs relied on faith, not rational
> >>individuals concerned with solid evidence.
> >
> >Yes, that is exactly my point.
>
> You have clearly placed your faith in the hypothesis that increased
> CO2 will result in global warming, and you may be correct. What I am
> calling for is evidence that it will cause harm, sufficient to warrant
> the harm which will certainly be caused by CO2 emission controls.
>
>
Greig,
What is your scientific evidence that CO2 emission controls will cause
harm? And, obviously, what will suffer the "harm"? What form will the
harm take? How long will it be before the harm becomes obvious?
Brian Sandle
Greig Ebeling (egg...@sydney.dialix.oz) wrote:
:
: No, there are no problems. Only potential problems (at present). And
: the best thing to do at the moment is to speculate over possible
: solutions.
You mean that there are no problems that _you_ _know_?
So then you mean you _know_ there are potential problems?
And when we say anthropogenic potential problems, we must speculate about
whether reduction in bird/frog populations will increase the termite
populations. They produce largest amounts of methane, an important
greenhouse gas.
Brian Sandle
Ed
On 21 May 1997 19:30:58 -0700, John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu>
wrote:
>1. According to the articles in last Friday's _Science_, the IPCC
>scientists themselves think their work was over-interpreted.
Sure, I think I already mentioned that global warming was the least
apparent (or should I say least provable) of the three problems
mentioned.
>
>2. As a layman in climate science, am I not entitled to consider
>the opinion of scientists who are in the minority, especially as
>my opinion that the IPCC scientists were pressured by the policy
>makers and the NGOs seems to be supported.
You are entitled to consider whatever you like and whomever you like.
Have I said you weren't?
Having worked in the Earth Science community for many years I would be
suprised if much pressure can be exerted on the IPCC. I would be more
likely to believe that any attempt to pressure them would come from
the other direction anyway (i.e. powerful interests trying to minimize
environmental worries).
Actually I don't think that they were significantly pressured one way
or the other.
>
>3. Does Ed promise to support majority specialist scientific
>opinion on every issue, e.g. nuclear energy and genetic
>engineering?
I don't quite follow you here. In terms of scientific fact (if there
is such a thing) I'm inclined to go with the scientific concensus if
one has been reached. Isn't this the whole idea of doing science? If I
could prove a better answer, then I would, and perhaps change the
concensus (or perhaps just be a kook). Smart money is on the
scientific concensus, because it does adapt to model reality.
To answer you specifically, if a nuclear scientist tells me something
about the science of what goes on inside a nuke plant, I probabably
wouldn't think she was lying.
James Davis
Greig Ebeling wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 May 1997 18:48:57 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>
> >
> >Whether global warming is happening because of anthropogenic forcing
> >may not be entirely clear, but it is only one environmental problem,
> >and by no means the most dangerous (IMHO). What about the ozone hole?
>
> depletion?
>
Increased skin cancer in southern hemisphere, changes in species
diversity in alpine zones, changes in UVB, UVA ratios and the occurance
of UVC wavelengths at particular times of year over the arctic with
corrosponding damage to ice borne algae
> >What about decrease in biodiversity, what about regional climate
> >change and it's possible long term effects on global climate?
> >The scientific fact I am refering to is not the (probable) fact of
> >global warming, but the certain fact that we can damage the global
> >environment.
> >You want to argue what approach we should take to deal with these
> >various problems, that's fine. But don't argue that there really are
> >no problems, because there clearly are.
> No, there are no problems. Only potential problems (at present). And
> the best thing to do at the moment is to speculate over possible
> solutions.
There are current problems, just one for example is increased ambient
CO2 concentrations effect on long intergeneration plant species
inability to adaptat, another exampple is of course the ozone depleting
compounds depleting ozone.
> >I remember reading in one of your posts, John, that if everyone had to
> >move out of the Brazilian rainforest because it's needed by the
> >globa,l climate, that it wouldn't stop material progress on earth. I
> >agree with that.
> >But what if we have to move everyone out, as you postulate, but we
> >simply don't get it together and the climate starts to change. Then it
> >will be too late!!
> It MAY be too late, but I doubt it.
on what basis do you doubt it?
> >Let's do a little cost benifit analysis here, and don't forget that
> >risk has to be added into the analysis, just as every good business
> >does.
> I agree. But before we can do that, we have to have a clear
> understanding of the potential negative effects of greenhouse warming,
> and their costs. At present we know nothing.
we don't even know if it is in fact warming, cooling, effect increasing
etc.
Kym Horsell
In article <338455ee...@news.ip.net.au>,
Greig Ebeling <egg...@sydney.dialix.oz> wrote:
[...]
>I do not doubt the scientific findings which link CFCs to ozone
>depletion. What I am after is a scientific reference which shows a
>quantifiable negative impact from ozone depletion or greenhouse
>warming.
Ahh... latest fallback position noted...
--
R. Kym Horsell
KHor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym
R. Eric Swanson
In article <x4hk9ku...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>, j...@steam.stanford.edu
says...
>
In article <x4hk9ku...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>, j...@steam.stanford.edu says...
>
>The 1997 May 16 _Science_ includes
>
> Climate Change: Greenhouse Forecasting Still Cloudy
>
>
> An international panel has suggested that global warming has
> arrived, but many scientists say it will be a decade before
> computer models can confidently link the warming to human
> activities
>
Yes, one of Richard Kerr's better articles.
I especially like the discussion on the model parameterizations which
result from the limitations of currently available computers
However, I am a little surprised that Kerr makes such a big thing of
the uncertainty in the climate models. If the models were perfect,
we would need one... The others are there as a check to counter the
possibility that any one may be way off the mark. The uncertainty is
not a new problem. Indeed, Michael Schlesinger, in writing a report
comparint the models of the day, said "Thus we know that not all of
these simulations can be correct, and perhaps all could be wrong"
(Reviews of Geophysics, 25, p670, 1987).
You missed the punch line in Kerr's report. The last paragraph states:
"There is no excuse for complacency, many climate scientists say.
Basic theory, this century's warming, and geologic climate records
all suggest that increasing carbon dioxide will warm the planet..."
>There's more including an editorial by John Zillman,
>President of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
>
>I'll summarize some of it later, but the gist is that while the
>modellers basically adhere to their statement of last year, they
>say the policy makers demanded more than the scientists were able
>to deliver.
>
>--
>John McCarthy
I an sure that the climate community is more cautious these days, after
many attacks from people who do not understand the science.
No one wants to be the first to make a dire prediction, only to be
shown to be wrong later. This is especially true in light of Syukuro
Manabe's coupled atmosphere-ocean model, which has suggested that
the global thermohaline circulation might be shut down permanently
as the CO2 increases.
Maybe the next generation of super computer will provide the answer.
But, if the answer is bad, we may all be in Deep Blue Do.... :-)
Eric Swanson
Ed
On Thu, 22 May 1997 14:25:32 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
Ebeling) wrote:
>On Wed, 21 May 1997 16:58:48 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 May 1997 13:12:44 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
>>Ebeling) wrote:
>>
>>>Care to show some evidence of environmental damage caused by ozone
>>>depletion?
>>
>>The ozone depletion is the environmental damage.
>
>If ozone depletion does not harm anyone or any thing, then what does
>it matter? I'll come back to this later...
Doesn't matter a bit!
As soon as you understand the Earth's systems enough to provide
reasonable assurence that you know exactly what the effects will be
over the next 100 thousand years, then I might be inclined to listen
to this line of reasoning.
Meanwhile we're just ignorant savages chipping away pieces of the
edifice upon which we absolutely depend for life. In the absence of
much knowledge about what changes we will cause, it's really pretty
stupid.
>The situation with the greenhouse effect, is that you have diagnosed
>the disease, before being certain that there are any symptoms, or more
>importantly whether the disease is so bad, that it is worth an effort
>to avoid it.
See, I hate analogies!
Let's just put it this way: there is enough science to be really
concerned about this problem. Even the earth scientists who don't
believe we have seen global warming yet are still not comfortable with
the situation. Certainly it is beyond dispute that we ARE adding a lot
ot CO2 and that from everything we know (which is a lot but FAR from
complete) this could cause some problems.
>Hang on. I didn't say that I refuted the ozone scientists. I have
>spent much time learning about the issue, and believe that there is
>little doubt that CFCs have exacerbated polar ozone depletion
>markedly.
>
>What I question is, whether it matters. I have yet to see any
>reasonable attempt at quantifying the negative effects of ozone
>depletion, and balancing that against the resources expended on the
>implementation of the Montreal protocol.
Don't you see the danger of unanticipated results?
We live in a remarkably stable and complicated system here, and a look
at the other planets shows that there's really no great reason why
earth has to look this way. So let's not screw it up eh?
>On what do you place your faith that 'disaster in imminent'? I have
>yet to see you attempt to post anything akin to supporting evidence
>for your assertions. My beliefs are based on my confidence that no
>such evidence exists, at least none that quantifies the negative
>effects (if any) of global warming or ozone depletion.
Eh? What faith of imminent disaster?
All I'm saying is that we already know we're doing the stupid thing
right now. So let's stop. You and I have no possible way of knowing
how much of this sort of change our climate and environment can cope
with without a shift into some other equilibrium. All I'm saying is we
should stop BEFORE we find out that we've gone too far.
You seem to admit that this could happen, but you also think we should
just keep going until we KNOW we've screwed it up, and then try to fix
it. Where is the sense in that?
>
>>Really, I am very interested in why you don't think there can be a
>>point at which it is too late to recover the stability of our climate
>>and life systems. Complex systems in nature often change dramatically.
>
>Certainly, but there is some strong support for the notion that the
>upper limit of earth's temperature is controlled by a strong feed-back
>mechanism based on albedo.
Fine, this is a great theory to hang our lives on, but wouldn't it
just make more sense to find this out by modeling instead of by
actually trying it?
>So surprise me, and show me how much we "as a society" know. Show me
>a measurement of the environmental impact of greenhouse warming and
>ozone depletion.
How can we know what the impact is so soon?
That doesn't mean that there is no impact.
Even if there is no impact from either of these changes, what about
our next change to the climate?
Finally, should we just continue making changes in our global systems
just because we can't figure out how they might damage it? Or should
we take a policy of changing as little as possible until we know
better what effects we will have?
Ed
On Thu, 22 May 1997 14:25:35 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
Ebeling) wrote:
>I do not doubt the scientific findings which link CFCs to ozone
>depletion. What I am after is a scientific reference which shows a
>quantifiable negative impact from ozone depletion or greenhouse
>warming.
Did you ever hear of risk management?
>You have clearly placed your faith in the hypothesis that increased
>CO2 will result in global warming, and you may be correct. What I am
>calling for is evidence that it will cause harm, sufficient to warrant
>the harm which will certainly be caused by CO2 emission controls.
Harm? Or cost?
Actually I can easily see ways in which we could reduce our emissions
by as much as 50% without any real harm or even cost (long term).
Enegry conservation techniqes have come a LONG way in the last 20
years, but that's not reflected in our daily lives yet. If we replaced
all the fridges, air conditioners, windows, washer-dryers, and cars in
america we would not only cut our greeenhouse gasses dramatically, we
would also be spending less money on electricity and oil, and we would
be less dependant on foriegn oil to boot.
Now unless you catagorize having to replace a fridge as "harm" I
really don't see what your problem is.
Balanced against the risks (which are real if small) of global
environmental disaster, it all sounds pretty smart to me!
>>Because it's worked so far, it's bound to continue working. Is that
>>the substance of your reasoning?
>>
>>I don't think that's very good reasoning at all!
>
>Because a plausible hypothesis exists, that is reason to believe it
>must be true, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support
>the hypothesis. Is that your idea of scientific reasoning?
Actually I'm thinking more if engineering than science here,
specifically safety when human lives depend on it. What is the benifit
of modifying our climate vs. the risk of damage? A few hundred
thousand sports-utility vehicles? This is what we are risking disaster
for?
What plausible hypothosis are you refering too, BTW?
I note also that you are probably more than willing to risk your life
on plausible hypothoses every time you step into a plane, train, or
car.
>
>>Since you ask, the reason I think this is that we have finally done
>>something new, as a species. For the last few million years we didn't
>>do much exciting stuff, but then modern science was invented and
>>WOW!!! what a lot of changes since then.
>>
>>So perhaps the real question is: why do you think it will stay the
>>same?
>
>I don't, that is my point.
And random climate changes sound good to you?
>Humans have come a long way since "the old days" toward taking control
>of our destiny. There is no reason to believe that we will not
>succeed.
Your faith is very touching but remains faith. It is scientific FACT
that we can damage the environment. You are claiming that we haven't
done it yet globally, in a serious way.
I'm saying you may be right but that's certainly no reason to continue
trying!!!
>
>>Personally I'm not too worried
>>about God. I'm more worried about people. God I trust to manage
>>everything well. People I trust to make lots of mistakes.
>
>You are perhaps right, but we learn from mistakes too.
Not often enough for me to share your faith.
>
>>One thing that we have to guide us is science, and it's what got us
>>this far. Now the science is telling us that we are causing
>>environmental problems, and all of a sudden you don't want to listen
>>to it any more.
>
>No, I have faith in its use to solve our problems. There are many
>unresolved environmental problems and many potential solutions, and
>limited resources to use. Let us consider all the possibilities, and
>respond in good time. Let us not assume the worst, panic, and punish
>ourselves unnecessarily.
We are not treating our resources as limited, and that is the very
problem. We act (and you wish to continue to act) as if nature were
limitless and capable of absorbing infinite damage. I'm just asking
that you slow down your personal damage. Is that too much to ask?
John McCarthy
Ed includes:
Now unless you catagorize having to replace a fridge as
"harm" I really don't see what your problem is.
Indeed it is harm. Small harm if it is just a refrigerator. Replacing all
cars by worse ones would be more substantial harm.
If more economical cars and refrigerators make economic sense,
then people will buy them without "having to", but Ed is
proposing that we all "have to" pay for his hobby.
Richard Foy
In article <x4hiv09...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>,
John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Ed includes:
>
>
> Now unless you catagorize having to replace a fridge as
> "harm" I really don't see what your problem is.
>
>Indeed it is harm. Small harm if it is just a refrigerator. Replacing all
>cars by worse ones would be more substantial harm.
>
>If more economical cars and refrigerators make economic sense,
>then people will buy them without "having to", but Ed is
>proposing that we all "have to" pay for his hobby.
People don't necessarily make purchase decisions on a basis of
economic sense.
--
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Greig Ebeling
On Fri, 23 May 1997 15:44:05 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>On Thu, 22 May 1997 14:25:35 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
>Ebeling) wrote:
>
>>I do not doubt the scientific findings which link CFCs to ozone
>>depletion. What I am after is a scientific reference which shows a
>>quantifiable negative impact from ozone depletion or greenhouse
>>warming.
>
>Did you ever hear of risk management?
I did a course in it at uni. I just don't know what this has to do
with an attempt at quantifying the negative effects.
>>You have clearly placed your faith in the hypothesis that increased
>>CO2 will result in global warming, and you may be correct. What I am
>>calling for is evidence that it will cause harm, sufficient to warrant
>>the harm which will certainly be caused by CO2 emission controls.
>
>Harm? Or cost?
Both.
>Actually I can easily see ways in which we could reduce our emissions
>by as much as 50% without any real harm or even cost (long term).
>Enegry conservation techniqes have come a LONG way in the last 20
>years, but that's not reflected in our daily lives yet.
Energy conservation has been active in the general community since the
early 70s. It has the potential to assist in energy savings, but will
do little more than stem the exponential rise in demand.
>If we replaced
>all the fridges, air conditioners, windows, washer-dryers, and cars in
>america we would not only cut our greeenhouse gasses dramatically, we
>would also be spending less money on electricity and oil, and we would
>be less dependant on foriegn oil to boot.
Replace them with what? More fridges etc? Why wouldn't we simply
update the old goods, with new, when the old goods die? This will
happen anyway, and it will (as I said) simply stem the rise in demand.
Is that it? Is that your plan to reduce energy consumption by 50%.?
You really are away with fairies mate.
>Now unless you catagorize having to replace a fridge as "harm" I
>really don't see what your problem is.
I'm starting to see what your problem is ;-)
>Balanced against the risks (which are real if small) of global
>environmental disaster, it all sounds pretty smart to me!
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
>>Because a plausible hypothesis exists, that is reason to believe it
>>must be true, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support
>>the hypothesis. Is that your idea of scientific reasoning?
>
>Actually I'm thinking more if engineering than science here,
>specifically safety when human lives depend on it. What is the benifit
>of modifying our climate vs. the risk of damage? A few hundred
>thousand sports-utility vehicles? This is what we are risking disaster
>for?
To control CO2 emission properly we are talking about modifying our
entire energy infrastructure. I agree that there are ways to avoid
waste, but conservation will do little more than give us a warm inner
glow.
[snip]
>Your faith is very touching but remains faith. It is scientific FACT
>that we can damage the environment. You are claiming that we haven't
>done it yet globally, in a serious way.
>
>I'm saying you may be right but that's certainly no reason to continue
>trying!!!
Of course not. The reason why we "continue trying", is because the
alternatives are expensive and potentially harmful.
[snip]
>We are not treating our resources as limited, and that is the very
>problem. We act (and you wish to continue to act) as if nature were
>limitless and capable of absorbing infinite damage.
Energy resources are plentiful (we have enough for millions of years).
However, human resources are scarce. Bear in mind, that we live in a
world where half the human population are hungry. We are not in a
position to deny ourselves, or make that decision on behalf of
others, an opportunity for improvement in living standards.
>I'm just asking
>that you slow down your personal damage. Is that too much to ask?
It is too little to have any effect. I had assumed that you were
serious about stemming CO2 emissions. Was I mistaken in that
assumption?
Greig Ebeling
On Fri, 23 May 1997 15:33:51 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>Let's just put it this way: there is enough science to be really
>concerned about this problem. Even the earth scientists who don't
>believe we have seen global warming yet are still not comfortable with
>the situation. Certainly it is beyond dispute that we ARE adding a lot
>ot CO2 and that from everything we know (which is a lot but FAR from
>complete) this could cause some problems.
Yes, I agree that it could cause problems. But it is too early to
start expending valuable resources on solutions, when we don't yet
know whether there is a problem, or more importantly, whether the
solution adequately addresses the (as yet unidentified) problem.
>Don't you see the danger of unanticipated results?
No. Not yet.
>We live in a remarkably stable and complicated system here, and a look
>at the other planets shows that there's really no great reason why
>earth has to look this way. So let's not screw it up eh?
I agree. Let us expend our limited resources in the best and most
efficient way.
>All I'm saying is that we already know we're doing the stupid thing
>right now. So let's stop.
It is NOT just simply a matter of deciding to stop, and then stopping.
We live in a world which is heavily dependent on energy, and the
technological infrastructure is largely composed of fossil fuels as a
source. "Just stopping" is an extremely expensive proposition, in
terms of resources. It will cost money, jobs, standard of living,
opportunity for developing countries, and perhaps even lives.
Now a relatively painless changeover to non-CO2 emitting technology
(eg nuclear) is possible, given time and planning, and I would be for
it (since I like nuclear, and I don't like acid rain). But we are
talking about decades of careful implementation. Not a simple
decision to "just stop".
> You and I have no possible way of knowing
>how much of this sort of change our climate and environment can cope
>with without a shift into some other equilibrium. All I'm saying is we
>should stop BEFORE we find out that we've gone too far.
And I certainly hope that this occurs, but IMHO the time is not now.
>You seem to admit that this could happen, but you also think we should
>just keep going until we KNOW we've screwed it up, and then try to fix
>it. Where is the sense in that?
That is not my reasoning, and never has been.
>>Certainly, but there is some strong support for the notion that the
>>upper limit of earth's temperature is controlled by a strong feed-back
>>mechanism based on albedo.
>
>Fine, this is a great theory to hang our lives on, but wouldn't it
>just make more sense to find this out by modeling instead of by
>actually trying it?
The work is being done, but is not complete yet. I look forward to
seeing some firm conclusions, on which to base a plan of action. But
these conclusions have not yet appeared.
>>So surprise me, and show me how much we "as a society" know. Show me
>>a measurement of the environmental impact of greenhouse warming and
>>ozone depletion.
>
>How can we know what the impact is so soon?
Exactly!
>That doesn't mean that there is no impact.
I agree.
>Even if there is no impact from either of these changes, what about
>our next change to the climate?
Well, that is a bridge we have yet to cross.
>Finally, should we just continue making changes in our global systems
>just because we can't figure out how they might damage it? Or should
>we take a policy of changing as little as possible until we know
>better what effects we will have?
All very well in principle, but you are ignoring the very many
practical problems associated with implementing this course.
So, let's see some practical solutions. How do you propose that
multilateral phase-out of fossil fuels be implemented, and what do you
propose it be replaced with?
Greig Ebeling
On Thu, 22 May 1997 19:12:44 -0400, "Todd M. Bolton"
<tmbo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Greig Ebeling wrote:
>>
>> You have clearly placed your faith in the hypothesis that increased
>> CO2 will result in global warming, and you may be correct. What I am
>> calling for is evidence that it will cause harm, sufficient to warrant
>> the harm which will certainly be caused by CO2 emission controls.
>>
>Greig,
>
>What is your scientific evidence that CO2 emission controls will cause
>harm? And, obviously, what will suffer the "harm"? What form will the
>harm take? How long will it be before the harm becomes obvious?
There is no scientific evidence, since nobody has attempted to
quantify the effects of any practical solutions. We simply haven't
got to that point yet.
However, at a qualitative level, there is plenty of reason for
emission controls to cause harm.
Emission controls (particularly if implemented carelessly) will
certainly cost money, and that money will come out of our pockets. It
will also come out of the pockets of people in undeveloped countries.
At the very least , controls will create imbalance in trade, which
will cost jobs, and a drop in standard of living.
More importantly, financial (and other) resources expended on CO2
emission controls, are resources which are not available for other
environmental and humanitarian projects. There are many current
issues worthy of funding. And without funding, real harm will occur.
Greig Ebeling
On Fri, 23 May 1997 11:54:02 -0700, James Davis
<jrd...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Greig Ebeling wrote:
>>
>> Care to show some evidence of environmental damage caused by ozone
>> depletion?
>
>Increased skin cancer in southern hemisphere,
This is not evidence of anything to do with ozone depletion. From
Parson's excellent FAQ:
"Subject: 5.) Is ozone loss to blame for the melanoma upsurge?
A few physicians have said so, but most others think not.
[Skolnick] [van der Leun and de Gruijl]
First of all, UV-B has not, so far, increased very much, at least
in the US and Europe.
Second, melanoma takes 10-20 years to develop. There hasn't been
enough time for ozone depletion to play a significant role.
Third, the melanoma epidemic has been going on since the 1940's.
Recent increases in rates may just reflect better reporting, or
the popularity of suntans in the '60's and '70's. (This becomes
more likely if UV-A is in fact involved.)"
>changes in species
>diversity in alpine zones,
Again, this is highly speculative wrt ozone depletion.
>changes in UVB, UVA ratios
This is not evidence of bio harm, as such. There is also little
evidence that UV variations are significant wrt health effects.
>and the occurance
>of UVC wavelengths at particular times of year over the arctic with
>corrosponding damage to ice borne algae
Also unconvincing. Again from the FAQ
"In one field study, [Smith et al.]. measured the photosynthetic
productivity of the phytoplankton in the "marginal ice zone" (MIZ),
[...]
They concluded that the UV-B increase brought about an overall
decrease of 6-12% in phytoplankton productivity. Since the "hole"
lasts for about 10-12 weeks, this corresponds to an overall decrease
of 2-4% for the year. The natural variability in phytoplankton
productivity from year to year is estimated to be about + or - 25%,
so the _immediate_ effects of the ozone hole, while real, are far
from catastrophic."
The limited effects on other marine life, is thought to be mainly due
to natural reflex to UV stimulus, ie adapting, swimming deeper, etc.
[...]
>> No, there are no problems. Only potential problems (at present). And
>> the best thing to do at the moment is to speculate over possible
>> solutions.
>
>There are current problems, just one for example is increased ambient
>CO2 concentrations effect on long intergeneration plant species
>inability to adaptat,
I have not heard of this. Please supply a reference.
>another exampple is of course the ozone depleting
>compounds depleting ozone.
Again this has yet to be shown to be a problem.
[snip]
>> I agree. But before we can do that, we have to have a clear
>> understanding of the potential negative effects of greenhouse warming,
>> and their costs. At present we know nothing.
>
>we don't even know if it is in fact warming, cooling, effect increasing
>etc.
I agree. All the more reason to discuss and plan, but not to panic
and start expending valuable resources.
Richard Foy
In article <3386f9b1...@news.ip.net.au>,
Greig Ebeling <egg...@sydney.dialix.oz> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 May 1997 15:33:51 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>
>It is NOT just simply a matter of deciding to stop, and then stopping.
>
>
>We live in a world which is heavily dependent on energy, and the
>technological infrastructure is largely composed of fossil fuels as a
>source. "Just stopping" is an extremely expensive proposition, in
>terms of resources. It will cost money, jobs, standard of living,
>opportunity for developing countries, and perhaps even lives.
It all depends on what "just stopping" means. If it means stopping
using fossil fuels immediately you are right. If it means stopping
the increase in use of fossil fuels you are not near as right and
maybe wrong. If it means stopping the promotion of using fossil fuels
and start promoting the use of solar then it will save money for
consumers, create new jobs and raise the standard of living.
>
>Now a relatively painless changeover to non-CO2 emitting technology
>(eg nuclear) is possible, given time and planning, and I would be for
>it (since I like nuclear, and I don't like acid rain). But we are
>talking about decades of careful implementation. Not a simple
>decision to "just stop".
Switching to nuclear would not be painless. Rightly or wrongly there
are far too many people who object to nuclear energy to make it
painless at least in the US to signifiantly increase its use here.
Rich Puchalsky
Greig Ebeling (egg...@sydney.dialix.oz) wrote:
: Also unconvincing. Again from the FAQ
: "In one field study, [Smith et al.]. measured the photosynthetic
: productivity of the phytoplankton in the "marginal ice zone" (MIZ),
: [...]
: They concluded that the UV-B increase brought about an overall
: decrease of 6-12% in phytoplankton productivity. Since the "hole"
: lasts for about 10-12 weeks, this corresponds to an overall decrease
: of 2-4% for the year. The natural variability in phytoplankton
: productivity from year to year is estimated to be about + or - 25%,
: so the _immediate_ effects of the ozone hole, while real, are far
: from catastrophic."
Did you really read the underlines around that _immediate_? An overall
decrease of 2-4% can add up to an very large change over many years. Look
at the carbon budget numbers for an example. The man-made contribution
is small in comparison to the natural terms, but even so it throws the
cycle out of balance and causes a long-term build up of carbon in the
atmosphere.
Now if phytoplankton productivity is seen only in terms of oxygen, it's
unlikely we'll be running out of oxygen any time soon. But phytoplankton
are the base for a tremendous number of food chains. We really don't know
what a long term decrease of 2-4% will do.
jw
In <5ltace$7...@spool.cs.wisc.edu> to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael
Tobis) writes:
>
>Proposing that policy ignore the issue until the signal
>is detected with certainty is proposing to ignore existing
>information.
Not to ignore it as input for *study* - merely as a trigger
for precipitous action.
>The chances that greenhouse gases will
>continue to accumulate at an accelerating rate without ever
>seriously inconveniencing anybody are slim given what we
>already know.
But that is not the real issue.
It could be true that the accumulation will
some day inconvenience somebody; but that is
not a sufficient reason for immediately
inconveniencing everybody.
One needs to balance the prospect of possible
future inconvenience to some people against
(1) the possibility of future *benefits* to other
people, or even to the same people, from the same
accumulation;
(2) the certainty of direct economic costs of
curbing greenhouse emissions;
(3) the certainty of indirect economic
costs of regulation: e.g., reduced competition,
de facto cartelization;
(4) the social, political and moral costs of
further restrictions on human freedom; the danger of
creeping totalitarianism;
(5) the possibility of future environmental and other
problems becoming less tractable than they would be
if the economy had been allowed to grow faster.
Of these, (4) seems to me the most serious, and
then (3); but any one of the five appears
quite sufficient to outweigh the vague prospect
of some inconvenience to somebody some day.
Greig Ebeling
On Sun, 25 May 1997 11:57:13 GMT, rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) wrote:
>[...] If it means stopping the promotion of using fossil fuels
>and start promoting the use of solar then it will save money for
>consumers, create new jobs and raise the standard of living.
Exactly how do you imagine that promoting the use of solar will save
money? Solar is several times as expensive as conventional sources.
I therefore fail to see how our SOL will rise.
>Switching to nuclear would not be painless. Rightly or wrongly there
>are far too many people who object to nuclear energy to make it
>painless at least in the US to signifiantly increase its use here.
I agree that the "painlessness" of replacement with nuclear is
dependent on public perception. I was referring to the situation from
an economic viewpoint only.
Greig Ebeling
On 25 May 1997 15:29:20 GMT, ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) wrote:
>Now if phytoplankton productivity is seen only in terms of oxygen, it's
>unlikely we'll be running out of oxygen any time soon. But phytoplankton
>are the base for a tremendous number of food chains. We really don't know
>what a long term decrease of 2-4% will do.
The study was on only one type of phytoplankton, living in a
restricted environment in Antarctica. The 2-4% figure is NOT a global
average.
gen...@rockisland.com
Greig Ebeling wrote:
>
>
> So, let's see some practical solutions. How do you propose that
> multilateral phase-out of fossil fuels be implemented, and what do you
> propose it be replaced with?
Encourage other markets by increasing the cost of fossil fuel energy.
Use the revenue to fund R&D on both new effeciencies and new systems for
power. OR if you are concerned about the effect that might have on the
economy sell bonds that appreciate in value as the need to decrease
fossil fuels become more apparent. OR you sell lottery tickets where the
proceeds go to energy research. OR you could just fund research via
plain old bonds--like war bonds. OR you could form a company that will
produce products geared to a globally warmed Earth. Would you buy Stock?
OR you can provide tax incentives tied to Carbon Credits. I think there
are other ideas as well though I think this is enough to start.
The paractical issue addressed here is the need to get the seed money
rolling to fund change. The phase out can then be left to the market. Or
you can try to legislate change. OR...
Your turn.
Dan Gottlieb
http://www.rockisland.com/~genian/bannedbooks.html
Geoff Henderson
In article <338455ca...@news.ip.net.au>,
egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>So surprise me, and show me how much we "as a society" know. Show me
>a measurement of the environmental impact of greenhouse warming and
>ozone depletion.
Try rising insurance premiums because of climate related disasters for
a start. But then you need to try to extrapolate such costs into the
future. Are you an economist? No, neither am I, but as an engineer I
suspect I have more economic training than a scientist, if that is what
Greig Ebeling is.
Which doesn't matter a hill of beans in this case, because I doubt the
accuracy of any projections of environmental cost of climate change
(the IPCC refers to these in the SAR as being in the range US$5-125 per
tonne of carbon released). I am sure that Greig Ebeling doubts the
accuracy of these costs also.
Where Greig Ebeling and I would differ is that:
a) I recognise the threat that such a range of costs represents
and believe that alone is sufficient justification for the
precautionary principle to try to avoid such costs (let alone the costs
of climate "surprises" like Antarctica melting, triggering a new ice
age or a runaway greenhouse effect which are all possibilities with a
finite (and I suspect non-trivial) probability)
b) I know that we can cheaply do something to avoid climate
change by embracing the polluter pays principle and requiring
tree-planting or any other cost-competitive form of carbon
sequestration. In New Zealand, tree planting to achieve net emissions
stabilisation at 1990 levels would cost as little as US$5/tonne, but
still the government procrastinates on the issue. (Yes I know that we
have to go further than just stabilising net emissions, but this would
be a start and send the right signals for all non-CO2 emitting forms of
generation, whether it is wind power (my favourite) or nuclear power
(Greig Ebeling's favourite)).
And we have to find alternatives to fossil fuels in the long run
anyway, so why don't we grasp the nettle and do what economic theory
tells us to (apply the polluter pays principle)?
Geoff Henderson
jw
In <3385b621...@superego.idcomm.com> edw...@idcomm.com (Ed)
writes:
>On Thu, 22 May 1997 14:25:32 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
>Ebeling) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 May 1997 16:58:48 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 May 1997 13:12:44 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
>>>
>>>>Care to show some evidence of environmental damage caused by ozone
>>>>depletion?
>>>
>>
>>If ozone depletion does not harm anyone or any thing, then what does
Hear hear! Environmental damage is whatever makes the
environment less benign for people. Not just any *change*!
Change is often for the better.
>Doesn't matter a bit!
True.
>As soon as you understand the Earth's systems enough to provide
>reasonable assurence that you know exactly what the effects will be
>over the next 100 thousand years, then I might be inclined to listen
>to this line of reasoning.
How exquisitely silly. Any opinion different from your
own must be based on a 100,000 years weather forecast,
no less; your own is somehow exempt.
Can you predict the consequences of
ozone *non-depletion* in a 100,000 years. What if *they*
will be terrible, eh?
>Meanwhile we're just ignorant savages chipping away pieces of the
>edifice upon which we absolutely depend for life.
Like the statue of Oz the terrible god of Ozone?
Taboo! Taboo!
But... *if* we are such ignorant savages, how should we know
*what edifice* we depend upon? Of course, to ask such
sceptical questions, one has to stop thinking
like a superstitious savage...
jw
In <3386fa0b...@news.ip.net.au> egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
In addition, extra controls of any kind reduce economic
freedom and market efficiency. Instead of competing
to please the consumer, corporations compete to please
the regulator. Those who are good at it, those corporations
whose own bureaucracy is only a revolving door away from
the regulating bureaucracy, acquire a stake in the system
and use it to keep competition away; they form a de facto
cartel. With every set of controls, we take a step
towards a command-and-control economy - even more
dangerous if it is international. This is creeping
global totalitarianism - a real danger, far worse
than any imagined danger of CO2 emissions.
You want to diminish emissions, enviromentalists?
Fine: relax controls on the nuclear industry. This
will reduce chemical pollution *and* regulation
pollution all at once.
Tom Warren
jw wrote:
With every set of controls, we take a step
> towards a command-and-control economy - even more
> dangerous if it is international. This is creeping
> global totalitarianism - a real danger, far worse
> than any imagined danger of CO2 emissions.
And allowing corporate greed to run rampant and unchecked would produce
another from of Global Totalitarianism. Yeah, cartels are real
responsive and benevolent. Do you think the free market will EVER
willingly consider the cost of services provided by the biosphere to
business? Also, the deaths of all the amphibians across the planet
wouldn't mean a damn thing to any board of shareholders, not until it's
way too late. Wake up.I challenge you to go see your economics professor
for the latest on how environmental costs have to be taken into account,
and how it's done. If you want a real free market, howabout getting
corporations to pay for the environmental costs of doing business?
Excuse me, but I don't want Shell Petroleum in charge of my air and
water supplies.
> You want to diminish emissions, enviromentalists?
> Fine: relax controls on the nuclear industry. This
> will reduce chemical pollution *and* regulation
> pollution all at once.
You wanna explain to us what you're going to do with the nuclear waste?
And we're to trust you to do it without regulation???
You scare me, bud, you really do.
Tom
jw
In <5mc4g4$p...@supernews.com> Tom Warren
<Lskritor@SPAM*BLOCK.wizard.com> writes:
>
>jw wrote:
> With every set of controls, we take a step
>> towards a command-and-control economy - even more
>> dangerous if it is international. This is creeping
>> global totalitarianism - a real danger, far worse
>> than any imagined danger of CO2 emissions.
>
>And allowing corporate greed to run rampant and unchecked would
produce
>another from of Global Totalitarianism.
Just the opposite!
In a free market, economic power is decentralized;
and political power is separated from economic power.
Central controls centralize economic power and
join it with political power: this is the
road to totalitarian, all-embracing power.
When it's done in the name of a "sacred cause"
like environment protection, then ideological
power is added to the political and the economic.
And *that* triad is the perfect recipe for
totalitarianism.
We had a brown menace and a red
menace - its new incarnation is green.
The other two won locally but failed to conquer
the world. The new ideological power-grab is
international and global. This is the *real*
environmental danger: the danger of
environmentalism. It needs to be
be stopped - at any cost.
>Yeah, cartels are real
>responsive and benevolent.
No - and that was just my point! Haven't you learned to
read? Or did you conceal it on purpose?
Controls cartelize industry.
As I wrote *immediately before* what you quoted:
>Instead of competing to please the consumer,
>corporations compete to please
>the regulator. Those who are good at it, those corporations
>whose own bureaucracy is only a revolving door away from
>the regulating bureaucracy, acquire a stake in the system
>and use it to keep competition away; they form a de facto
>cartel.
See?
>Do you think the free market will EVER
>willingly consider the cost of services provided by the biosphere to
>business?
No, if we ever have a free market,
it won't consider such absurd, self-serving
ecobabble.
Services, in an economic or legal sense,
are provided by people. "Services by biosphere"
is Orwellian doubletalk. The intention behind
it is obviously to claim obligations for the
"services". But the claim is made, of course, not
by the biosphere (an abstraction) but by certain
people pretending to speak in the biosphere's name!
It is a fantastic scam.
- You owe me $33 trillion. Ms. Fortune.
- You are crazy.
- Here is the estimate; you owe that much
to the sun that has shined for you. And I, ma'am,
take the trouble to speak for the sun!
jw
[correcting the prefixes to clarify attributions]
Tom Warren
jw wrote:
> No - and that was just my point! Haven't you learned to
> read? Or did you conceal it on purpose?
Careful, one might get the idea I'd struck a nerve. Why do these things
always degenerate into personal attacks?
> Controls cartelize industry.
>
> As I wrote *immediately before* what you quoted:
>
> >>Instead of competing to please the consumer,
> >>corporations compete to please
> >>the regulator. Those who are good at it, those corporations
> >>whose own bureaucracy is only a revolving door away from
> >>the regulating bureaucracy, acquire a stake in the system
> >>and use it to keep competition away; they form a de facto
> >>cartel.
This is as theoretical as it gets, and not very good economic theory,
even as "econo-babble" goes. You need to take a real hard look at the
real world, and how markets operate. (And don't take this as a defense
of bureaucracies, just a plea for a little sanity about the altruism of
corporations.) Sure, IF (read this "if" about nine times, please) things
behaved in the world markets the way they do in your obviously outdated
textbooks, you would be right. They don't. They never will. You my
castigate the eco-freaks as much as you want and belittle their concerns
as threatening, but your own pie in the sky econ theory reeks of the
same kind of illogic oif whoich you accuse them.
>
> >Do you think the free market will EVER
> >willingly consider the cost of services provided by the biosphere to
> >business?
>
> No, if we ever have a free market,
> it won't consider such absurd, self-serving
> ecobabble.
>
See, this is where you are behind the times in your economic
indoctrination. All through economics these days it is becoming clearer
and clearer that the service the environment provides to the economy is
equal to trillions. Businesses are learning that to ignore the costs of
"environmental services" is too risky. Yes, it's true, some corporations
are learning to factor in environmental costs. it's not absurd
ecobabble. That you think so show how far out of touch you are with this
economic system you are so proud of. There are many economists now
involved in promoting new accounting systems that take this into
account. Of course I will not convince you of this, but it's true none
the less.
> Services, in an economic or legal sense,
> are provided by people. "Services by biosphere"
> is Orwellian doubletalk.
Okay, hide your head in the sand. I'll give you one example of a service
not provided by people. A natural aquifer. If you are a business, and
you own a little piece of one, you sure get upset when it all of a
sudden depletes. All of a sudden you're paying hundreds to haul water
when before the biosphere was providing you the service merely for the
cost of pumping the water. You don't think these economic factors aren't
being worried over by corporate accountants?
Go ahead, flame away.
Tom
Tom Warren
Pardon a double posting from me, group, here's a second thought:
jw wrote:
> Services, in an economic or legal sense,
> are provided by people. "Services by biosphere"
> is Orwellian doubletalk. The intention behind
> it is obviously to claim obligations for the
> "services". But the claim is made, of course, not
> by the biosphere (an abstraction) but by certain
> people pretending to speak in the biosphere's name!
> It is a fantastic scam.
Actually jw, after posting my reply to you, it ocurred to me that you
might just pass my response off as another rant, or some eco-freak you
don't know rambling on in what you call eco-babble. I'm not much of a
rabid environmentalist, but I damn sure like the truth. Truth is that
"abstraction" called the biosphere contributes $33 trillion a year to
the economy.
Instead of ranting/flaming anymore, I challenge anyone following this
thread to go pursue a little rational truth. Here are some references
for you, jw, and anybody else interested in the reality of the subject
we are ... um ... "discussing".
For the current information about the whole area of economics and
ecology, try looking at the Institute for Ecological Economics at the
University of Maryland. This is run by economists, jw, not eco-freaks.
Open your mind and see what they have to say.
http://kabir.umd.edu/miiee/miiee.html
For a rational discussion of the limits of markets, and their inability
to cope with environmental concerns, see the article in "Scientist" by
Dr. Joel Cohen (not Orwellian doubletalk, but a damn good population
scientist showing you the facts.)
http://www.the-scientist.library.upenn.edu/yr1996/mar/opin_960318.html
Better yet, read his book, "How Many People Can the Earth Support?"
(which was reviewed favorably by "The Economist.", BTW, not a very
environmentally conscious magazine, I trust you'd agree.)
Wake up, jw, see what the facts are.
Don't bother to reply if you don't go to the websites.
Tom
Ed
On Sat, 24 May 1997 15:02:30 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
Ebeling) wrote:
>>All I'm saying is that we already know we're doing the stupid thing
>>right now. So let's stop.
>
>It is NOT just simply a matter of deciding to stop, and then stopping.
>
>
>We live in a world which is heavily dependent on energy, and the
>technological infrastructure is largely composed of fossil fuels as a
>source. "Just stopping" is an extremely expensive proposition, in
>terms of resources. It will cost money, jobs, standard of living,
>opportunity for developing countries, and perhaps even lives.
>
>Now a relatively painless changeover to non-CO2 emitting technology
>(eg nuclear) is possible, given time and planning, and I would be for
>it (since I like nuclear, and I don't like acid rain). But we are
>talking about decades of careful implementation. Not a simple
>decision to "just stop".
On the countrary, we can easily "just stop", or at least come a lot
closer to it, without significantly impacting our lifestyle. Most
houses use 10 times the electrcity they need to, in order to supply
the services really required.
>
>> You and I have no possible way of knowing
>>how much of this sort of change our climate and environment can cope
>>with without a shift into some other equilibrium. All I'm saying is we
>>should stop BEFORE we find out that we've gone too far.
>
>And I certainly hope that this occurs, but IMHO the time is not now.
OK, well here we must agree to disagree. You're willing to spin the
barrel and take one (at least) more round of Russian Roulette. I'm
not.
>
>>You seem to admit that this could happen, but you also think we should
>>just keep going until we KNOW we've screwed it up, and then try to fix
>>it. Where is the sense in that?
>
>That is not my reasoning, and never has been.
I guess I'm having trouble following it. You really seem to me to be
relying on science to find and prove the big disaster in time for it
to be avoided.
From an engineering point of view this does not strike me as a good
safety rule!
>>Fine, this is a great theory to hang our lives on, but wouldn't it
>>just make more sense to find this out by modeling instead of by
>>actually trying it?
>
>The work is being done, but is not complete yet. I look forward to
>seeing some firm conclusions, on which to base a plan of action. But
>these conclusions have not yet appeared.
What if the damage is already too advanced when proof comes in?
What if we can reduce our effects without significantly impacting our
lifestyles?
>
>>>So surprise me, and show me how much we "as a society" know. Show me
>>>a measurement of the environmental impact of greenhouse warming and
>>>ozone depletion.
>>
>>How can we know what the impact is so soon?
>
>Exactly!
???
If we find out in 100 years that it had no effect, you have the last
laugh.
If we find out in 100 years that it triggered the death of the oceans,
then no one will be laughing.
All I'm asking is this: is the air conditioning in our cars really
worth all this risk?
>
>>Finally, should we just continue making changes in our global systems
>>just because we can't figure out how they might damage it? Or should
>>we take a policy of changing as little as possible until we know
>>better what effects we will have?
>
>All very well in principle, but you are ignoring the very many
>practical problems associated with implementing this course.
On the contrary, I'm confronting them head on right now in my personal
life. I'm actually a bit suprised at all the technology (some of it
millenia old, most of it very new) that exist but which we are
ignoring (mostly).
>
>So, let's see some practical solutions. How do you propose that
>multilateral phase-out of fossil fuels be implemented, and what do you
>propose it be replaced with?
Ah, now we're talking!!!
I recomend tax breaks for replacement of electrical appliences with
superefficient versions. I recomend higher fossile fuel taxes and tax
breaks for renewable resources (to compensate for the externalities of
power generation).
I would also recomend a change in the capital gains tax to stop
penalizing those who want to downgrade their housing!
I think it should be a national priority to be independant in power
generation!! Why do we need to import all this oil and then WASTE
it??? Is it really better to go to war in the gulf then to reoutfit
ourselves with better appliences?
Actually what I really propose is that YOU go out and buy a florecent
bulb and replace one of your incandecant ones.
Of course, I'm an energy nut and always will be. As an engineer I've
taken a long look at how we get, use and waste energy and I think
there's a much better way. After I finish my own independent energy
system (talk to me in a year), I'll be happy to give some more
practical advice.
BTW I'm in the market for a washing machine that uses very low
electricity and low water too (not as crucial). Anyone got any
suggestions?
Thanks!
Ed
On 26 May 1997 07:17:39 GMT, jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>>As soon as you understand the Earth's systems enough to provide
>>reasonable assurence that you know exactly what the effects will be
>>over the next 100 thousand years, then I might be inclined to listen
>>to this line of reasoning.
>
>How exquisitely silly. Any opinion different from your
>own must be based on a 100,000 years weather forecast,
>no less; your own is somehow exempt.
>Can you predict the consequences of
>ozone *non-depletion* in a 100,000 years. What if *they*
>will be terrible, eh?
I don't know, it's just so confrontational and yet so monolithic and
untouchable, I really don't know what to say to try and show you what
I'm really thinking.
I guess I have an engineer's training and an engineer's attitude
towards risk and human fallibility. Perhaps you come from a different
background and can more comfortably contemplate anthropogenic global
environmental change. I find it very scary.
Eric Therkelsen
Ed wrote:
>
> On 21 May 1997 19:30:58 -0700, John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
.
.
.
> >3. Does Ed promise to support majority specialist scientific
> >opinion on every issue, e.g. nuclear energy and genetic
> >engineering?
>
> I don't quite follow you here. In terms of scientific fact (if there
> is such a thing) I'm inclined to go with the scientific concensus if
> one has been reached. Isn't this the whole idea of doing science? If I
> could prove a better answer, then I would, and perhaps change the
> concensus (or perhaps just be a kook). Smart money is on the
> scientific concensus, because it does adapt to model reality.
>
> To answer you specifically, if a nuclear scientist tells me something
> about the science of what goes on inside a nuke plant, I probabably
> wouldn't think she was lying.
Ed and John are approaching a very important point about the function
and abilities of scientists, one that appears to be poorly or not at all
understood by some of the participants in this sometimes incoherent
debate. Scientists work very hard at understanding the short-term and
somewhat restricted consequences of certain actions, like what would
happen tomorrow if a certain pump and its backups in a nuclear power
plant were to fail. Conscientious ones (as I think the vast majority
are) also perform calculations, where feasible, of the certainty of
their predictions; of course, certain sciences provide better tools for
estimating error probabilities than others.
However, no conscientious scientist would claim to be any better at
moral and ethical decisions, or those outside his/her area of specialty,
than anyone else (whether we should allow human cloning, for example),
and anyone who believes those who say they are is a fool. To put it
another way, consensus of main-stream scientists about factual matters
in their fields may not be always perfectly correct, but it isusually
the best information available. Not so for the larger issues.
Now, no one is either completely conscientious or free of foolishness,
but a highly emotional debate like this one might be a little more
useful if there were clearer distinctions between scientifically derived
answers to questions of fact, and the opinions and preferences of
scientists when they are speaking as citizens at large about the long
term consequences.
How to do this? In the short run, scientists could probably be more
careful in separating one role from another in their publications,
especially in those aimed at the lay public. In the longer run, more
people understanding what science is and scientists do could help with
the mistrust.
...Eric Therkelsen
jw
In <338a42c3...@superego.idcomm.com> edw...@idcomm.com (Ed)
writes:
I am an engineer (software engineer) by trade; a
mathematician by education.
Also, I have a long-term interest in philosophy
and in history. From all of these four points of view,
I am a confirmed fallibilist, a firm believer in
Murphy's law and in unforeseen consequences of action.
This is one of the reasons I am so sceptical of the
climatic predictions based on nothing but models -
which have never been properly validated by successful
predictions; and still more of actions based
on unvalidated predictions. To act so is to ask
for trouble.
It is even more true because the proposed
tinkering is not merely with nature but with
society and economics. This is always a terrible idea.
Fallibility in this case becomes
almost a certainty of failure.
As for anthropogenic climate changes, they are
no more scary than non-anthropogenic changes.
Climate has always been changing, sometimes disastrously.
At present it seems to be improving, becoming milder
in many areas, where lower temperatures (night and winter)
are rising, but not upper temperatures (day and summer).
Hurricanes are getting less frequent and less severe.
Vegetation is growing more abundant. This is nice.
But what is especially reassuring is
the fact that now, apparently, we can appreciably
influence climate. This means that
*if* climatic change ever takes a clearly undesirable
direction, then we will have the wherewithal to intervene
and reverse the change. E.g., we can warm the planet with
greenhouse gasses, or cool it with opaque particulates -
or warm globally and selectively cool by area.
If we act when the data is clear and
unmistakable, then our action is less likely to be
erroneous. And even if it is erroneous,
it can then be corrected through trial and error - a
less uncertain approach than action based
on long-term predictions based on flawed theoretical
models.
Such future corrective action, having precise,
well-defined goals, can be cost-effective.
It would also be based on a better understanding
of climatic mechanisms than is available now;
and on specific knowledge of the situation.
It is likely to be far less costly than blindly slowing
down economic progress *now* - with the costs compounded
exponentially through the years.
If we grow fast enough, long enough,
compound interest will give us the economic means to
deal with future global challenges.
These challenges can vary infinitely: from a new ice age
to a falling asteroid, to epidemics, to nuclear terrorism, etc.
We can't predict the next peril - therefore can't
prevent it *now*. The prudent course, then, is to
increase, as fast as possible, mankind's wealth,
knowledge and technological power - so that
when the unknown challenge comes, we can cope with it.
Reducing our energy use goes in just
the opposite direction. Like many actions based on blind
fear, it would be reckless and dangerous.
jw
In <5mdoc3$h...@supernews.com> Tom Warren
<Lskritor@SPAM*BLOCK.wizard.com> writes:
>jw wrote:
>> Controls cartelize industry.
>>
>> As I wrote *immediately before* what you quoted:
>>
>> >>Instead of competing to please the consumer,
>> >>corporations compete to please
>> >>the regulator. Those who are good at it, those corporations
>> >>whose own bureaucracy is only a revolving door away from
>> >>the regulating bureaucracy, acquire a stake in the system
>> >>and use it to keep competition away; they form a de facto
>> >>cartel.
>
>This is as theoretical as it gets,
No, it's true to life. This is why very large
corporations tend to support regulations, while
smaller ones hate them.
>and not very good economic theory,
How would you know?
Ed
On 27 May 1997 05:41:36 GMT, jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>I am an engineer (software engineer) by trade; a
>mathematician by education.
>Also, I have a long-term interest in philosophy
>and in history. From all of these four points of view,
>I am a confirmed fallibilist, a firm believer in
>Murphy's law and in unforeseen consequences of action.
>
>This is one of the reasons I am so sceptical of the
>climatic predictions based on nothing but models -
>which have never been properly validated by successful
>predictions; and still more of actions based
>on unvalidated predictions. To act so is to ask
>for trouble.
We are always acting on something. Right now we are acting on the
assumption that we pretty much can't do much damage to nature. We know
this assumption is false, not just from model prediction, but from
actual observed damage to environmental systems. This is not something
vague, it is a solid and noticible as the damage to the amazon from
satellite.
>
>It is even more true because the proposed
>tinkering is not merely with nature but with
>society and economics. This is always a terrible idea.
>Fallibility in this case becomes
>almost a certainty of failure.
???
Are we not always tinkering with society and economics?
>
>As for anthropogenic climate changes, they are
>no more scary than non-anthropogenic changes.
But one is avoidable, the other probably not.
>Climate has always been changing, sometimes disastrously.
>At present it seems to be improving, becoming milder
>in many areas, where lower temperatures (night and winter)
>are rising, but not upper temperatures (day and summer).
>Hurricanes are getting less frequent and less severe.
>Vegetation is growing more abundant. This is nice.
>
>But what is especially reassuring is
>the fact that now, apparently, we can appreciably
>influence climate. This means that
>*if* climatic change ever takes a clearly undesirable
>direction, then we will have the wherewithal to intervene
>and reverse the change. E.g., we can warm the planet with
>greenhouse gasses, or cool it with opaque particulates -
>or warm globally and selectively cool by area.
>If we act when the data is clear and
>unmistakable, then our action is less likely to be
>erroneous. And even if it is erroneous,
>it can then be corrected through trial and error - a
>less uncertain approach than action based
>on long-term predictions based on flawed theoretical
>models.
GOOD LORD!!! This is about the most dangerous notion I've heard yet!!!
Just because we can change climate systems (i.e. damage them) does not
mean that we can succsusfully engineer the earth's climate system.
It's far too complicated! I can change the configuration of an bee
hive (by throwing a rock into it) but that doesn't mean I can fix it
afterwards, does it?
>
>Such future corrective action, having precise,
>well-defined goals, can be cost-effective.
????
Having precise well-defined goals doesn't in any way ensure
cost-effectiveness over preventing the damage in the first place!
>It would also be based on a better understanding
>of climatic mechanisms than is available now;
>and on specific knowledge of the situation.
>It is likely to be far less costly than blindly slowing
>down economic progress *now* - with the costs compounded
>exponentially through the years.
Keep hitting that straw man again and again and maybe you'll start to
convince someone.
Who (other than you) is talking about "blindly slowing down economic
progress"?
As I recall my readings from the Worldwatch institute, their analysis
reveled that a 3% average economic growth rate would be enough to
allow us to "afford" a sustainable economy. Far from calling for
economic slowdown, 3% would represent a significant improvement for
almost every part of the globe, and no american president would be
ashamed to take credit for a domesic growth of 3% annually.
Actually anyone involved in trying to live a sustainable lifestyle can
tell you that the market is booming. Real Goods is a great example -
take a look at their web site.
>If we grow fast enough, long enough,
>compound interest will give us the economic means to
>deal with future global challenges.
Sure, as long as we are capable of dealing with them at all. I see no
compelling evidence or even indication that we will enjoy that
capability anytime within the next several centuries, if ever.
And as long as our energy growth doesn't in fact accelerate the
problem faster than our abilities increase.
On what do you base these assumptions other than hope? You say you are
a believer in murphy's law but it's hard to see that from the way you
want to just trust future generations to figure out how to clean up
out mess.
Here's an interesting fact: we don't need future engineers! I can tell
you right now how to clean up the planet! Change the way you live a
little. That's all there is to it.
>
>These challenges can vary infinitely: from a new ice age
>to a falling asteroid, to epidemics, to nuclear terrorism, etc.
Some we can prevent, some we can't. If I can't do anything about
earthquakes does that mean I shouldn't bother installing fire alarms?
Obviously a giant asteriod can come along and smash the planet to
pieces next year. That doesn't stop everyone from trying to prevent
other disasters from happening.
>We can't predict the next peril - therefore can't
>prevent it *now*. The prudent course, then, is to
>increase, as fast as possible, mankind's wealth,
>knowledge and technological power - so that
>when the unknown challenge comes, we can cope with it.
Ummm, I CAN predict the next peril. In fact, we do that all the time
and we call it contingency planning and risk analysis.
>
>Reducing our energy use goes in just
>the opposite direction. Like many actions based on blind
>fear, it would be reckless and dangerous.
Now this is just plain silly. Obviously producing extra kWhs of
electricity in 1997 will not improve the situation in 20XX when we're
reengineering the earth's climate because we couldn't be bothered to
turn out the lights!!
Ed
On Tue, 27 May 1997 04:05:26 GMT, Eric Therkelsen <er...@etts.com>
wrote:
>However, no conscientious scientist would claim to be any better at
>moral and ethical decisions, or those outside his/her area of specialty,
>than anyone else (whether we should allow human cloning, for example),
>and anyone who believes those who say they are is a fool. To put it
>another way, consensus of main-stream scientists about factual matters
>in their fields may not be always perfectly correct, but it isusually
>the best information available. Not so for the larger issues.
>
>Now, no one is either completely conscientious or free of foolishness,
>but a highly emotional debate like this one might be a little more
>useful if there were clearer distinctions between scientifically derived
>answers to questions of fact, and the opinions and preferences of
>scientists when they are speaking as citizens at large about the long
>term consequences.
>
>How to do this? In the short run, scientists could probably be more
>careful in separating one role from another in their publications,
>especially in those aimed at the lay public. In the longer run, more
>people understanding what science is and scientists do could help with
>the mistrust.
On the coutrary, scientists are very aware of the reaction of the
public to their work, and at least in the fields of earth-science,
very very carefull never to say more than they can support.
Conservativness is the rule and working at a place like NASA, I can
tell you that the tendancy is to be very carefull before releasing any
conclusive or dramtic information about the environment.
I don't know about publications aimed at the lay public because
usually I'm getting the info a little higher up the food chain, but it
seems to me that most of the problems and misunderstandings are caused
by those without formal or sufficient background in the earth sciences
wrting some book about earth science issues. Earth science is very
complciated, obviously, and it's easy to come in there with your
political agenda and grab the data that supports it. There is a strong
tendency to avoid this among those in the field, but those coming at
it from other, less politicized fields, may find it a difficult
tempation to resist.
gen...@rockisland.com
Interestingly enough, my server croaked just after this message. I have
not seen it posted and I do not know if there have been any responses.
It has been three days. I reposte and beg your indulgence--as well as
your comments.
Greig Ebeling wrote:
>
>
> So, let's see some practical solutions. How do you propose that
> multilateral phase-out of fossil fuels be implemented, and what do you
> propose it be replaced with?
Greig Ebeling
On Mon, 26 May 97 21:00:00 GMT, geo...@wtl.co.nz (Geoff Henderson)
wrote:
>In article <338455ca...@news.ip.net.au>,
> egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>
>>So surprise me, and show me how much we "as a society" know. Show me
>>a measurement of the environmental impact of greenhouse warming and
>>ozone depletion.
>
>Try rising insurance premiums because of climate related disasters for
>a start. But then you need to try to extrapolate such costs into the
>future.
Are insurance premiums related to calculated risk, or perceived risk?
>Are you an economist? No, neither am I, but as an engineer I
>suspect I have more economic training than a scientist, if that is what
>Greig Ebeling is.
B.E. (mech) Sydney University 1984.
>Which doesn't matter a hill of beans in this case, because I doubt the
>accuracy of any projections of environmental cost of climate change
>(the IPCC refers to these in the SAR as being in the range US$5-125 per
>tonne of carbon released). I am sure that Greig Ebeling doubts the
>accuracy of these costs also.
Doubt, yes. But the idea is right. I will be less sceptical when I
see calculations of net impact which include positive impact of global
warming and attempt to balance it against negative impact to gain a
net impact.
>Where Greig Ebeling and I would differ is that:
>a) I recognise the threat that such a range of costs represents
>and believe that alone is sufficient justification for the
>precautionary principle to try to avoid such costs (let alone the costs
>of climate "surprises" like Antarctica melting, triggering a new ice
>age or a runaway greenhouse effect which are all possibilities with a
>finite (and I suspect non-trivial) probability)
We indeed disagree on this matter. How can the precautionary
principle be applied, whilst we still have absolutely no idea what is
going to happen?
>b) I know that we can cheaply do something to avoid climate
>change by embracing the polluter pays principle and requiring
>tree-planting or any other cost-competitive form of carbon
>sequestration.
If you "know" how to "cheaply" eliminate greenhouse gases, then why
not post your ideas. I am afraid that your assurance alone holds
little weight.
Also tree-planting will certainly have very little effect. It is a
myth that terrestrial plants are a significant CO2 sink.
[snip]
>And we have to find alternatives to fossil fuels in the long run
>anyway, so why don't we grasp the nettle and do what economic theory
>tells us to (apply the polluter pays principle)?
The polluter pays principle is very difficult to implement
multi-laterally (look at current attempts to put "Rio" into practice),
since energy costs are critical to cost of export goods. The first
country to legislate is committing economic suicide.
Greig Ebeling
On Tue, 27 May 1997 02:09:13 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>On the countrary, we can easily "just stop", or at least come a lot
>closer to it, without significantly impacting our lifestyle. Most
>houses use 10 times the electrcity they need to, in order to supply
>the services really required.
Nonsense. Please indicate precisely how we might use 1/10 th
electricity we currently use, without impacting lifestyle. To achieve
this sort of reduction, you would have to eliminate cooking and
heating, have only cold showers, and certainly never turn on your TV
or (shock, horror) computer. Looks like lifestyle impact to me. ;-)
[snip]
>On the contrary, I'm confronting them head on right now in my personal
>life. I'm actually a bit suprised at all the technology (some of it
>millenia old, most of it very new) that exist but which we are
>ignoring (mostly).
Such as?
[snip]
>I recomend tax breaks for replacement of electrical appliences with
>superefficient versions. I recomend higher fossile fuel taxes and tax
>breaks for renewable resources (to compensate for the externalities of
>power generation).
This will cost the general public (lower SOL), and damage a country's
export competitiveness. Needless to say, there is some resistance to
this approach.
>I would also recomend a change in the capital gains tax to stop
>penalizing those who want to downgrade their housing!
Downgrade housing? Please explain.
>I think it should be a national priority to be independant in power
>generation!! Why do we need to import all this oil and then WASTE
>it??? Is it really better to go to war in the gulf then to reoutfit
>ourselves with better appliences?
>
>Actually what I really propose is that YOU go out and buy a florecent
>bulb and replace one of your incandecant ones.
Lighting is a very small part of the equation.
>Of course, I'm an energy nut and always will be. As an engineer I've
>taken a long look at how we get, use and waste energy and I think
>there's a much better way. After I finish my own independent energy
>system (talk to me in a year), I'll be happy to give some more
>practical advice.
I am a bit of an energy nut myself, and not ignorant of the
engineering principles. I spent 8 months recently living on a yacht,
off the grid, literally living with energy from batteries. I can
assure you, it is a BIG lifestyle impact, even in the tropics (where
it is warm). It is also expensive, and it is certainly not
environmentally benign.
I have no criticism of your hobby, and I wish you well in your attempt
at energy independence. But it will be very costly for you. My only
concern is that you not insist that your expensive hobby be enforced
on others.
>BTW I'm in the market for a washing machine that uses very low
>electricity and low water too (not as crucial). Anyone got any
>suggestions?
Good luck.
Tom Warren
jw wrote:
>
> >and not very good economic theory,
>
> How would you know?
Ha. Nice try jw. It's possible that I DO know bad economic theory when I
read it, it might even be possible that I understand good economic
theory.
1) However, you first: state what credentials you would accept as valid,
or that you would respect enough to *consider* changing your opinion,
based upon "how would you know?".
2) While you're at it, state your qualifications to back up the dubious
assertions you have already posted about global warming and economics.
3) I notice you responded neither to my question about nuclear waste,
nor about my last post, which gave you some pretty good credentials and
references for what I had asserted.
Play fair ... or move on to another topic.
Tom
David Gossman
Tom Warren wrote:
>
>
> Actually jw, after posting my reply to you, it ocurred to me that you
> might just pass my response off as another rant, or some eco-freak you
> don't know rambling on in what you call eco-babble. I'm not much of a
> rabid environmentalist, but I damn sure like the truth. Truth is that
> "abstraction" called the biosphere contributes $33 trillion a year to
> the economy.
This sounds like a wild speculation on behalf of economists that do not
really value human labor and brains. Consider that the biosphere you
speak of could, unaided by human labor and intelligence, at most support
a few million human beings at a subsistance level as hunter/gatherers.
Even in this scenario homosapiens must perform the hunting and
gathering. By attempting to artificially seperate labor and
intelligence from the equation economists have come up with the figure
you spoke of. The fact is that the biosphere produces nothing of value
unless someone, ie a person, values it. This exercise of trying to show
value "produced" by the biosphere is double talk. (No I didn't visit the
site since I'm already familiar with this kind of dribble.) PS when you
can show me an economist that can do a better job of predicting the
economy than an "eco-freak" (your word not mine) can predict global
warming or the real harm caused by an ozone hole over the poles then
this discussion may have a leg to stand on. In the mean time why
doesn't someone tell us how the biosphere can "produce" anything
directly useable by humans without human intervention beyond the
hunter/gatherer scenario just described.
--
--------------------------------------------
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
--------------------------------------------
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
Ed
On Wed, 28 May 1997 22:26:14 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
Ebeling) wrote:
>Nonsense. Please indicate precisely how we might use 1/10 th
>electricity we currently use, without impacting lifestyle. To achieve
Actually I said without *significantly* impacting lifestyle. I stand
by that because I personally know people who do it and their lifestyle
is not all that different than the average american's (except it's
less destructive).
>this sort of reduction, you would have to eliminate cooking and
>heating, have only cold showers, and certainly never turn on your TV
>or (shock, horror) computer. Looks like lifestyle impact to me. ;-)
Nonsense. You're simply not aware of the latest technology in this
area.
Firstly, in most of the globe, one doesn't need fossile fuels for
heating homes or water, as passive solar heating does in fact work
quite well when designed into the house. When hot water is needed, a
propane heater on demand which brings the already warm water up to
desired temperature, and uses a fraction (much less than a tenth I'm
thinking) of what I'm using now - a big tank of water kept hot all the
time.
As for computers, a laptop uses about a 30th of the power used by a
regular desktop unit and monitor. (Actually these are horribly
wasteful but improving).
I personally know a fellow who spent about $6K on his power system,
which is solar and wind and batteries and controller, and it has an
expected lifetime of 20 years, and he won't have to pay any power
bills either! This provides him with plenty of power. He's only using
a little propane to cook with and as supplementary heating for his
passive solar home (won't be needed more than 2 weeks a year
probably). He's got enough power for his TV, stereo, lights, etc. (He
does have to be aware of his usage, but says this isn't really a big
deal).
The key thing is your appliences. The difference in energy consumption
between the American crappy behemouth and SunFrost's super efficient
fridge is astounding! The difference between a compact florescent and
an incandecent is large!
>
>[snip]
>
>>On the contrary, I'm confronting them head on right now in my personal
>>life. I'm actually a bit suprised at all the technology (some of it
>>millenia old, most of it very new) that exist but which we are
>>ignoring (mostly).
>
>Such as?
Well passive solar for example, combined with thermal mass. People
have been using it for thousands of years, and it works great, but
we've pretty much ignored this FREE source of heating and cooling.
Refridgeration has become quite the addictive habit in america. I
lived in Europe for a year and they had much smaller fridges but
pretty much lived the same lifestyle in terms of food storage. They
simply were more aware of what could be stored outside the fridge, and
they didn't have as much empty space in there. There are other ways of
providing some cooling which are more energy efficient, for example
the Earthship's thermal mass fridge, which takes advantage of
night-time coolness.
>>I recomend tax breaks for replacement of electrical appliences with
>>superefficient versions. I recomend higher fossile fuel taxes and tax
>>breaks for renewable resources (to compensate for the externalities of
>>power generation).
>
>This will cost the general public (lower SOL), and damage a country's
>export competitiveness. Needless to say, there is some resistance to
>this approach.
Obviously! But it will save us having to go to war over oil and how
much did that cost last time we did it?
Aside from that I don't see how it will damage exports.
>
>>I would also recomend a change in the capital gains tax to stop
>>penalizing those who want to downgrade their housing!
>
>Downgrade housing? Please explain.
Let's say you do the usual american thing of getting bigger and bigger
houses as your family grows. Now your kids go to college and you have
way more space than you need. (Obviously this has a heavy energy cost
as you are heating and cooling and manufacturing and maintaining space
that is not really needed or used). So you decide to sell the manor
house and buy a small cottage and save a lot of energy and money! But
because you're buying a less expenive house, you have a capital gain
which is taxed at ~40%! If you buy a bigger house, enough to absorb
all your capital gains, you don't pay the tax!
This is having a big effect here in Colorado. People are selling their
houses in California for $300K and then househunting here. Since they
don't want to pay capital gains tax, they make sure they spend $300K
here, which gets them a 3500 square foot energy hog! We're seeing tons
of these houses spring up, and I've heard from several new owners that
capital gains tax was a big influence.
>
>>I think it should be a national priority to be independant in power
>>generation!! Why do we need to import all this oil and then WASTE
>>it??? Is it really better to go to war in the gulf then to reoutfit
>>ourselves with better appliences?
>>
>>Actually what I really propose is that YOU go out and buy a florecent
>>bulb and replace one of your incandecant ones.
>
>Lighting is a very small part of the equation.
20% of the average american household's electricity use, as I
understand. Not small at all!! Since cfs are 3 times as energy
efficient, if everyone did this it would have s significant impact
nationwide.
>I am a bit of an energy nut myself, and not ignorant of the
>engineering principles. I spent 8 months recently living on a yacht,
>off the grid, literally living with energy from batteries. I can
>assure you, it is a BIG lifestyle impact, even in the tropics (where
>it is warm). It is also expensive, and it is certainly not
>environmentally benign.
Well I don't know about yachts, but in houses it certainly is possible
and while not quite as cheap as grid power, it is certainly cost
effective on almost any site that is not yet wired for power. I don't
quite understand what you mean about environmentally benign. I
understand that solar cell makers are much more careful about their
pollution, and batteries can be recycled, so what's left? Certainly
they're not contributing to atmospheric pollution and greenhouse
gasses, which are two of our biggest problems.
>
>I have no criticism of your hobby, and I wish you well in your attempt
>at energy independence. But it will be very costly for you. My only
>concern is that you not insist that your expensive hobby be enforced
>on others.
Insist? Of course not.
Hobby? More like a building choice. Would you call your decision to
own a garage for your car a hobby?
As for expensive, it will not be too much more expensive than what you
pay, perhaps twice the price. But there will be other benifits, like
no blackouts and cleaner power.
Tom Warren
David Gossman wrote:
PS when you
> can show me an economist that can do a better job of predicting the
> economy than an "eco-freak" (your word not mine) can predict global
> warming or the real harm caused by an ozone hole over the poles then
> this discussion may have a leg to stand on.
I tried to show you one, but you wouldn't look. Obviously your mind is
made up, (and closed.)
If you dismiss things on the opposing side of an argument so lightly,
why should anyone ever bother to take YOU seriously?
Don't bother to reply. I won't read your message, I've heard that kind
of dribble before, as well.
Tom
Don McKenzie
A couple of foolish questions:
1. What would be the effect on the earth's albedo of installing huge solar-
energy panels?
2. Could we improve the albedo by making it mandatory that all flat (i.e.
reflecting) surfaces be bright white?
--
Don McKenzie <mca...@wavenet.com>
Republican environmentalists:
Check out <http://www.rep.org>
Geoff Henderson
Sorry to cut in here, but I would just add to Dan's list an even
simpler and more effective measure to bring about the change we
require, namely legislate (through tradeable carbon certificates or
whatever) that there be 100% mitigation of CO2 emissions by fossil fuel
suppliers.
This will start a chain of cause and effect which over time will:
a) avoid the threat of global warming
b) stimulate economic uptake of efficient energy end-use
technologies (the demand-side)
c) stimulate economic uptake on the supply-side of zero-net CO2
technologies (the solar options of direct solar heat and electricity,
wind and hydro generated electricity and solid, liquid and gaseous
biofuelled heat and electricity) and nuclear (if it can compete with
wind or biomass power which I seriously doubt in Australia and New
Zealand or any nation with population density less than 200 per sq. km
- cf. the global average of 40 per sq. km).
The above is a very brief summary of the solution to the threat of
climate change, which I can assure you is flameproof. The only
difficulty is getting the politicians to understand that:
a) there is a real threat which demands action
b) zero-net CO2 is technically viable and economically attractive
relative to the likely and potential costs of climate change.
Geoff Henderson
Geoff Henderson
jw
In <5mdsmc$k...@supernews.com> Tom Warren
<Lskritor@SPAM*BLOCK.wizard.com> writes:
>jw wrote:
>> Services, in an economic or legal sense,
>> are provided by people. "Services by biosphere"
>> is Orwellian doubletalk. The intention behind
>> it is obviously to claim obligations for the
>> "services". But the claim is made, of course, not
>> by the biosphere (an abstraction) but by certain
>> people pretending to speak in the biosphere's name!
>> It is a fantastic scam.
Having quoted this much, Tom Warren writes:
> [...] I'm not much of a
>rabid environmentalist, but I damn sure like the truth.
Hmm... no one can doubt that now: someone who
damn sure likes the truth wouldn't deceive us, would he?
- so if he swears he damn sure likes the truth, then
he damn sure likes the truth!
>Truth is [...]
It's very nice of Tom Warren to tell me back as "truth"
what he'd just heard from me as parody!
Here is the ending of my posting, suppressed - without
notice - by Truth-loving Tom:
>> It is a fantastic scam.
>> - You owe me $33 trillion. Ms. Fortune.
>> - You are crazy.
>> - Here is the estimate; you owe that much
>> to the sun that has shined for you. And I, ma'am,
>> take the trouble to speak for the sun!
And here is Tom Warren, continuing:
>Truth is that "abstraction" called the biosphere contributes $33
>trillion a year to the economy.
A remarkable coincidence. :-)
>Instead of ranting/flaming anymore, I challenge anyone following this
>thread to go pursue a little rational truth. Here are some references
>for you, jw, and anybody else interested in the reality of the subject
>[...]
Well, apparently I had partially anticipated Tom Warren's
wishes - as witness the quote above. However, according
to my sources, the $33 trillion was claimed,
not exactly for the *biosphere*, but for the sum
total of nature's seventeen "services", including, for example,
storm protection and flood protection. (Go figure: nature supplies
not only storm protection, but also the storms themselves - the
"service" sounds like a protection racket.:-))
Also, the authors of this "truth" (Tom Warren's
term, not theirs) had a low $16 trillion "truth" and a high
$54 trillion "truth", as well as the $33 trillion "truth"
in between - and (to do them justice!) never claimed any of
these meaningless figures as the "truth".
Only Truth-loving Tom could do *that*!
These authors' goal was merely (as Dr. Constanza,
the head of the team, explained) to determine whether nature
was, economically, "big potatoes or small potatoes".
Predictably, "big potatoes" won. Duh.
Now, here is another funny thing. Consider the $33 trillion
"truth". In the Tom Warren version of it, "the biosphere
contributes $33 trillion a year to the economy".
However, the world's total GNP or GDP (same thing for the
world) is only $18 trillion. Now, if "the biosphere
contributes $33 trillion" to the $18 trillion economy,
then how much is contributed by the world's
population? Apparently, $-15 trillion, yes, minus fifteen
trillion dollars. A negative number.
"A paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious
paradox!" Some of us, however, work and produce something
positive. The multitrillion negative contribution must, then, be
due to the activity of those who *control* and *regulate*
us. Especially environmentalists! I hope
truth-loving Tom Warren will welcome this freshly
discovered truth! :-)
This is not how the study's authors account for the paradox.
According to the reviews I've read, their explanation is that
most of what they style nature's "services" are
contributed outside the market, and so are
not reflected in prices. That's fine. However, what is not
bought and sold and priced is not measurable
in dollars. Money is a means of exchange.
These estimates are meaningless. They are merely
a propagandistic ploy.
Richard Foy
In article <3388ba89...@news.ip.net.au>,
Greig Ebeling <egg...@sydney.dialix.oz> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 May 1997 11:57:13 GMT, rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) wrote:
>
>>[...] If it means stopping the promotion of using fossil fuels
>>and start promoting the use of solar then it will save money for
>>consumers, create new jobs and raise the standard of living.
>
>Exactly how do you imagine that promoting the use of solar will save
>money? Solar is several times as expensive as conventional sources.
>I therefore fail to see how our SOL will rise.
The cost of solar is falling.
>
>>Switching to nuclear would not be painless. Rightly or wrongly there
>>are far too many people who object to nuclear energy to make it
>>painless at least in the US to signifiantly increase its use here.
>
>I agree that the "painlessness" of replacement with nuclear is
>dependent on public perception. I was referring to the situation from
>an economic viewpoint only.
Economics does not live in a vacuum.
--
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Michael Tobis
jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <5ltace$7...@spool.cs.wisc.edu> to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael
: Tobis) writes:
: >
: >Proposing that policy ignore the issue until the signal
: >is detected with certainty is proposing to ignore existing
: >information.
: Not to ignore it as input for *study* - merely as a trigger
: for precipitous action.
: >The chances that greenhouse gases will
: >continue to accumulate at an accelerating rate without ever
: >seriously inconveniencing anybody are slim given what we
: >already know.
: But that is not the real issue.
: It could be true that the accumulation will
: some day inconvenience somebody; but that is
: not a sufficient reason for immediately
: inconveniencing everybody.
: One needs to balance the prospect of possible
: future inconvenience to some people against
: (1) the possibility of future *benefits* to other
: people, or even to the same people, from the same
: accumulation;
: (2) the certainty of direct economic costs of
: curbing greenhouse emissions;
: (3) the certainty of indirect economic
: costs of regulation: e.g., reduced competition,
: de facto cartelization;
: (4) the social, political and moral costs of
: further restrictions on human freedom; the danger of
: creeping totalitarianism;
: (5) the possibility of future environmental and other
: problems becoming less tractable than they would be
: if the economy had been allowed to grow faster.
: Of these, (4) seems to me the most serious, and
: then (3); but any one of the five appears
: quite sufficient to outweigh the vague prospect
: of some inconvenience to somebody some day.
With the exception of the concluding paragraph I agree entirely
with this assessment. The weight on point 4 strikes me as
rather excessive - those who believe that a free market and a free
society are the same thing should seriously reconsider this confusion
in the light of ongoing opression in the burgeoning marketplace
of China.
However, the prospect is not vague and I specifically stated that
the inconvenience would be serious.
I can make a counter-list, but someone in this thread has already
summed it up quite nicely. Since we know that we are doing "the stupid
thing" and we just aren't sure of when the consequences will really
start to bite, why should we wait until we are absolutely certain?
That means we are committed to making a big mistake and cleaning
up afterward.
The possibility of abrupt regime shifts is well known from laboratory
fluid dynamics and is strongly suggested by features of the paleoclimate
record. It is precisely this prospect that moots point 5.
As for the points 1-3, claiming that the costs are certain is a bit
excessive. I think it's clear that there are costs to action and to
inaction. Weighing them is precisely the problem. Treating uncertain
risks as zero strikes me as a rather foolish bit of budgeting, but
I suppose one can't fault a person for how they behave in their
private affairs. I trust jw will cancel all insurance policies
on the grounds of this reasoning.
The list of concerns is entirely valid, but the conclusion drawn
from the list is unsupported and invalid. The question is whether
human activities are significant - this is a legitimate question
in any environmental concern. Sometimes the answer is no. In this
case, the answer is that it is a large perturbation in a fundamental
feature of the environment, and so the risks are huge if action is
postponed indefinitely.
Is it too soon to act? On the grounds that action will eventually be
necessary, among other things, I think not. This is, however, a
subtle and debatable issue, and a very interesting one, I think.
Is action unwarranted until serious damage is certain? This is a
ludicrous assertion, especially since the standard of certainty
is such that the damage will already have occurred once it is certain!
mt
Michael Tobis
: Tom Warren wrote:
: >
: > Actually jw, after posting my reply to you, it ocurred to me that you
: > might just pass my response off as another rant, or some eco-freak you
: > rabid environmentalist, but I damn sure like the truth. Truth is that
: > "abstraction" called the biosphere contributes $33 trillion a year to
: > the economy.
: This sounds like a wild speculation on behalf of economists that do not
: really value human labor and brains.
It was, actually, a lower bound, though I thought it was a total value,
not an annual figure. That is the value of direct services of the ecosystem
at current *marginal* rates. If the whole biosphere were to shut down tomorrow,
of course nothing your economy could do would matter.
The fact is that there is no known reason that the earth could support
life for billions of years. The only operating hypotheses are 1) the
Gaia hypothesis and 2) dumb luck. Either way, jiggerring wildly with the
controls has the potential for an infinite cost (given that you value
human opinion only, and if the oceans freeze or boil there would likely be
no one left to tell the tale.)
The valuation is just the sum of replacement of services like flood
control and so on that we already pay for, at current rates. As a valuation
of the entire planet, the only known biosphre (at least of any consequence)
and certainly the only place in the universe that human creativity could
be appreciated, it is absurdly small. (We are talking about $5000 per capita -
surely even you value your natural surroundings more than that.)
: Consider that the biosphere you
: speak of could, unaided by human labor and intelligence, at most support
: a few million human beings at a subsistance level as hunter/gatherers.
Is this a troll, or is anyone really that completely out of touch with
reality? The mind boggles. What could human labor and intelligence
accomplish unassisted by the biosphere?
mt
Greig Ebeling
On Wed, 28 May 1997 15:01:33 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>Here's an interesting fact: we don't need future engineers! I can tell
>you right now how to clean up the planet! Change the way you live a
>little. That's all there is to it.
Perhaps a good place to start, but this ignores the effects of
industrialisation and overpopulation. New ways of producing energy
which are less polluting is more important. This is why I am an
advocate of nuclear power.
[snip]
>>Reducing our energy use goes in just
>>the opposite direction. Like many actions based on blind
>>fear, it would be reckless and dangerous.
>
>Now this is just plain silly. Obviously producing extra kWhs of
>electricity in 1997 will not improve the situation in 20XX when we're
>reengineering the earth's climate because we couldn't be bothered to
>turn out the lights!!
You have clearly missed a very relevant point. If we clamp down on
energy usage, to the detriment of our economy, then we are reducing
our capability to diversify our technology in the future.
For example, it is only the wealthy who have access to energy
independence through alternative energy (eg solar). The poorer the
community, the less capable of developing new technology.
This is relevant to a practical solution to the greenhouse issue. If
our politicians see fit to implement the precautionary principle (as
appears to be the direction set by the Rio Summit) then the solution
should NOT weaken the economy. Legislation on CO2 emission controls
does just that, by artificially increasing the cost of goods and
export items.
Tom Warren
jw wrote:
> It's very nice of Tom Warren to tell me back as "truth"
> what he'd just heard from me as parody!
Since you were parodying that figure (ignoring where you got it first,
BTW ... oh no, sorry, I shouldn't accuse you of that.) I thought it was
fair to offer folks the actual reference. The point is that we know
where you magically plucked the figure out of the air (partially
anticipating) while claiming ignorance (clairvoyance?).
> Here is the ending of my posting, suppressed - without
> notice - by Truth-loving Tom:
>
> >> It is a fantastic scam.
>
> >> - You owe me $33 trillion. Ms. Fortune.
> >> - You are crazy.
> >> - Here is the estimate; you owe that much
> >> to the sun that has shined for you. And I, ma'am,
> >> take the trouble to speak for the sun!
>
Ha!Ha! "Suppressed!" Without *notice*, even! Ohhh, nasty ol' Tom ... a
suppressor!! (sic).
I plead guilty, jw. It's not like anybody could ever find your post I
quoted from, or anything. Still you are right, I should have used
<snip>. Mea culpa. (PS There's lots more I snipped ... er ...
*suppressed* from jw's previous posts, folks, and no one will ever know
what it was!!!)
jw, I'm sorry that invoking the word "truth" upset you so strongly. I
suspect others will smile at your overreaction, ... or sigh.(Methinks
you doth protest a tad too much.<g>) I don't suppose you'd care to refer
to the untruths in your earlier post which I was responding to? No, I
thought not ... I will just "suppress" that as well.
Surprise, I _agree_ with your analysis of the $33 trillion as excessive.
If you wish to call that a win for all that you hold dear and truthful,
by all means do so.
It will not surprise you that I believe that the principle Dr. Costanza
describes is valid anyway. Want to give your references for what you
called your own "sources" regarding the figures from his website? Or
the "reviews" you read?
The truth is, the environment contributes significantly to the economy
-- go ask any farmer who depends upon rain rather than expensive
irrigation. The truth is, you can and should put a dollar figure to it
and calculate value.
The truth is, the earth is warming up due to the actions of man. The
truth is, you can measure that as well. (Somebody else will have to
quote jw the references to the Report from the Union of Concerned
Scientists, please. Unfortunately, tonight I don't have the reference
handy to cite.)
I'll leave it to others to judge where the "truth" lies. Sadly, some of
us have already decided the issue to our own satisfaction, and don't
wanna hear anymore "truth". Eventually, the truth will be self-evident
regarding global warming; let's hope for your grandchildren's sake that
you are absolutely right, jw; if you are wrong, they'll be disappointed
in you. I'm content to let other readers -- are there any? -- of this
tiny thread make up their own minds.
Lets' move on.
Got any good solutions for the disposal of nuclear waste?
Tom
Richard Foy
In article <338f597f...@news.ip.net.au>,
Greig Ebeling <egg...@sydney.dialix.oz> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 May 1997 15:01:33 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>
>For example, it is only the wealthy who have access to energy
>independence through alternative energy (eg solar). The poorer the
>community, the less capable of developing new technology.
>
If what you say is true, why is it that I have seen far more use of
solar energy for heating water in Isreal than in the US and why
advertizing of solar panels in East Africa than in the US?
Richard Foy
In article <3388bce3...@news.ip.net.au>,
Greig Ebeling <egg...@sydney.dialix.oz> wrote:
>On 25 May 1997 15:29:20 GMT, ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) wrote:
>
>>Now if phytoplankton productivity is seen only in terms of oxygen, it's
>>unlikely we'll be running out of oxygen any time soon. But phytoplankton
>>are the base for a tremendous number of food chains. We really don't know
>>what a long term decrease of 2-4% will do.
>
>The study was on only one type of phytoplankton, living in a
>restricted environment in Antarctica. The 2-4% figure is NOT a global
>average.
>
The krill, one step up from phytoplankton" in the waters around
Antarctica are the source of food for a much larger fraction of the
oceans life than you imply.
If I turn a globe upside down practically all I see is the waters
around Antartica.
David Gossman
Since Tom has covered his ears because he can't deal with the
substantive aspects of my prior post I will provide some additional
information for other readers of this thread. The study Tom was
referring to was published recently in Nature magazine by a group of 13
ecologists and economists. It like a lot of other academic exercizes
has no real basis in reality. I can point out a number of flaws. First
others in the field strongly disagree by an order of magnitude. A
seperate group out of Cornell, publishing a similar study, has come up
with a figure of 3 trillion vs Tom's preferred study of 33 trillion.
Doesn't that sound familiar to the litany of predictions regarding
global warming as well as other predictions from economists? - Thus my
comparison and classification as dribble. Let's look more closely at
just a couple of the details in Tom's highly acclaimed study. One of
the benefits that was evaluated was nitogen fixation. The failure of
the evaluation was the lack of realization that nitrogen fixation is
part of a cycle called (surprise) the nitrogen cycle (I seem to remember
learning this in high school, wonder where those economists were?). The
nitrogen cycle includes the loss of nitrogen from the soil as well as
its fixation, anyone care to guess how the study evaluated losses like
this or losses from the lightening caused forest fires that are part of
that very same nitrogen fixation process. Another good test is to look
for consistancies or the lack there of with reality. The evaluation
determined that forested areas provide over three times the value as
cropland. As someone who owns a farm with timber, forested pasture and
cropland I can confidently state that the rental income or any other
economic basis for comparing timber with cropland will actually produce
a ratio that is just the opposite. Is that a surprise to anyone? To
quote one of my favorite authors Rober Heinlein, "The difference between
science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning, while
those other subjects merely require scholarship." In this case I'm not
even sure how much scholarship was required since the net result sounds
more like propoganda than anything else.
Greig Ebeling
On Wed, 28 May 1997 14:40:05 -0700, gen...@rockisland.com wrote:
>Greig Ebeling wrote:
>> So, let's see some practical solutions. How do you propose that
>> multilateral phase-out of fossil fuels be implemented, and what do you
>> propose it be replaced with?
>
>
> Encourage other markets by increasing the cost of fossil fuel
>energy. Use the revenue to fund R&D on both new effeciencies and new
>systems for power. OR if you are concerned about the effect that might
>have on the economy sell bonds that appreciate in value as the need to
>decrease fossil fuels become more apparent. OR you sell lottery tickets
>where the proceeds go to energy research. OR you could just fund
>research via plain old bonds--like war bonds. OR you could form a
>company that will produce products geared to a globally warmed Earth.
>Would you buy Stock?
>OR you can provide tax incentives tied to Carbon Credits. I think there
>are other ideas as well though I think this is enough to start.
> The paractical issue addressed here is the need to get the seed
>money rolling to fund change. The phase out can then be left to the
>market. Or you can try to legislate change. OR...
Sounds expensive.
> Your turn.
Use nuclear fission, reprocess the waste.
Greig Ebeling
On Sat, 31 May 1997 15:03:44 GMT, rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) wrote:
>If what you say is true, why is it that I have seen far more use of
>solar energy for heating water in Isreal than in the US and why
>advertizing of solar panels in East Africa than in the US?
I'm not sure, but maybe electricity is more expensive in Israel and
East Africa, and solar competes better.
Why do you think?
Greig Ebeling
On Sat, 31 May 1997 15:09:20 GMT, rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) wrote:
>In article <3388bce3...@news.ip.net.au>,
>Greig Ebeling <egg...@sydney.dialix.oz> wrote:
>>
>>The study was on only one type of phytoplankton, living in a
>>restricted environment in Antarctica. The 2-4% figure is NOT a global
>>average.
>
>The krill, one step up from phytoplankton" in the waters around
>Antarctica are the source of food for a much larger fraction of the
>oceans life than you imply.
The study is limited to one species, representing a tiny fraction of
the marine life in Antarctica. There is no direct evidence that krill
populations are affected. It is a bit far-fetched to extrapolate from
one study showing minor effects, to predicting global eco disaster.
Greig Ebeling
On Fri, 30 May 97 15:36:52 GMT, geo...@wtl.co.nz (Geoff Henderson)
wrote:
If you want to prove that, then you need to calculate the net negative
potential impact of greenhouse effects, and weigh that against the
cost in todays $s of funding the above projects. A qualitative
argument along the lines of "we gotta do it cos otherwise we could all
die" just isn't going to do it, I'm afraid.
Greig Ebeling
On Thu, 29 May 1997 17:08:17 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>On Wed, 28 May 1997 22:26:14 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
>Ebeling) wrote:
>
>>Nonsense. Please indicate precisely how we might use 1/10 th
>>electricity we currently use, without impacting lifestyle. To achieve
>
>Actually I said without *significantly* impacting lifestyle. I stand
>by that because I personally know people who do it and their lifestyle
>is not all that different than the average american's (except it's
>less destructive).
And I have personally done it, and it IS a significant impact on
lifestyle. Either you spend a lot of money on alternative technology,
or you do without.
>>this sort of reduction, you would have to eliminate cooking and
>>heating, have only cold showers, and certainly never turn on your TV
>>or (shock, horror) computer. Looks like lifestyle impact to me. ;-)
>
>Nonsense. You're simply not aware of the latest technology in this
>area.
I AM aware of the latest technology, because I have used it. You are
placing a great deal of faith in something you clearly know nothing
about.
>Firstly, in most of the globe, one doesn't need fossile fuels for
>heating homes or water, as passive solar heating does in fact work
>quite well when designed into the house.
Sure it does, I know because my home has passive solar design, with
big windows facing due north. But not everyone has the opportunity to
buy a home on a north facing block, or have the opportunity to design
their own house.
So when you buy your next home, make sure that you factor in enough
money to demolish it, and rebuild a new one with windows and overhangs
facing north (or south) toward the arc of the sun.
And BTW, passive solar is great, but I still heat my home with gas in
winter. It is still only a conservation technique. It doesn't
replace fossil fuels.
>When hot water is needed, a
>propane heater on demand which brings the already warm water up to
>desired temperature, and uses a fraction (much less than a tenth I'm
>thinking) of what I'm using now - a big tank of water kept hot all the
>time.
Gas burners are OK for heating hot water, but they are still quite
wasteful of energy. I understand they are slightly more energy
efficient, but your figure of < 1/10 is way off.
>As for computers, a laptop uses about a 30th of the power used by a
>regular desktop unit and monitor. (Actually these are horribly
>wasteful but improving).
And you pay twice as much for a laptop, and get half the performance.
Sound familiar?
>I personally know a fellow who spent about $6K on his power system,
>which is solar and wind and batteries and controller, and it has an
>expected lifetime of 20 years,
Maintenance on the panels/turbines plus turn-over of deep-cycle
batteries every 5 years or so, he is looking at paying another $4-5k
over those 20 years - if he is lucky.
>and he won't have to pay any power
>bills either!
I'll bet he does.
>This provides him with plenty of power. He's only using
>a little propane to cook with and as supplementary heating for his
>passive solar home (won't be needed more than 2 weeks a year
>probably). He's got enough power for his TV, stereo, lights, etc. (He
>does have to be aware of his usage, but says this isn't really a big
>deal).
Most likely he will use grid power as a backup for when the sun don't
shine, and the wind don't blow. A $6k US will buy you a good system -
a few panels, a few wind turbines, and medium sized battery pack- say
about 1000 Ah. Enough to support most domestic applications. But it
will not do the cooking or heating, and it will be stretched to do the
refrigeration. Without propane, your friend is eating raw food, is
freezing in winter, and having cold showers, - ie he WILL have to pay
power bills (backup e- and propane).
>The key thing is your appliences. The difference in energy consumption
>between the American crappy behemouth and SunFrost's super efficient
>fridge is astounding! The difference between a compact florescent and
>an incandecent is large!
On the yacht, we used a small well insulated eutectic fridge running
off the diesel engine, and all fluorescent lights. They both worked
fine, and are more energy efficient, as you say. I am happy to agree
that these technologies will save some energy, and in time, people
will change over, but this is not going to solve the world's problems
overnight.
>Well passive solar for example, combined with thermal mass. People
>have been using it for thousands of years, and it works great, but
>we've pretty much ignored this FREE source of heating and cooling.
Ignored? I don't think so. Passive solar design was part of my
engineering degree 20 years ago. It is built into most modern city
buildings and new homes which are located in a place which can take
advantage of it.
And it's not free. Ask an architect.
>Refridgeration has become quite the addictive habit in america. I
>lived in Europe for a year and they had much smaller fridges but
>pretty much lived the same lifestyle in terms of food storage. They
>simply were more aware of what could be stored outside the fridge, and
>they didn't have as much empty space in there. There are other ways of
>providing some cooling which are more energy efficient, for example
>the Earthship's thermal mass fridge, which takes advantage of
>night-time coolness.
I live in Australia. You are going to have a lot of trouble
convincing me that refrigeration is a luxury.
>>This will cost the general public (lower SOL), and damage a country's
>>export competitiveness. Needless to say, there is some resistance to
>>this approach.
>
>Obviously!
Thankyou for agreeing. This is IMO the most important issue to
overcome, if there is to be any change in the current energy
infrastructure.
>But it will save us having to go to war over oil and how
>much did that cost last time we did it?
This is a ridiculous argument, and IMO has nothing to do with this
debate.
>Aside from that I don't see how it will damage exports.
Then you are NOT LOOKING. You are dismissing out of hand the most
important impediment to controlling CO2 emissions.
>>Downgrade housing? Please explain.
>
>Let's say you do the usual american thing of getting bigger and bigger
>houses as your family grows. Now your kids go to college and you have
>way more space than you need. (Obviously this has a heavy energy cost
>as you are heating and cooling and manufacturing and maintaining space
>that is not really needed or used). So you decide to sell the manor
>house and buy a small cottage and save a lot of energy and money! But
>because you're buying a less expenive house, you have a capital gain
>which is taxed at ~40%! If you buy a bigger house, enough to absorb
>all your capital gains, you don't pay the tax!
>
>This is having a big effect here in Colorado. People are selling their
>houses in California for $300K and then househunting here. Since they
>don't want to pay capital gains tax, they make sure they spend $300K
>here, which gets them a 3500 square foot energy hog! We're seeing tons
>of these houses spring up, and I've heard from several new owners that
>capital gains tax was a big influence.
This is a good point. However, surely landowners could buy seperate
accomodation for themselves, and retain their family home as an
investment, simply by renting it out. (just an idea, I am no expert
on tax or investment).
>>Lighting is a very small part of the equation.
>
>20% of the average american household's electricity use, as I
>understand. Not small at all!! Since cfs are 3 times as energy
>efficient, if everyone did this it would have s significant impact
>nationwide.
In my household, electricity usage per quarter (~90 days) is
estimated as follows:
Usage Watts hours kWh %
TV, stereo and computer: 1000 400 400 67%
Hot water heater: ~90* 2160 190 15%
Lighting: 200 500 80 11%
Kitchen appliances: 1000 50 50 7%
Total 710
*Calculated average from usage and heat loss.
Of course, if I didn't use my computer so much, then the figure would
look very different. :-)
However, I use gas (not electricity) for cooking and heating. Those
households using electricity for all (particularly those in colder
climates) would have a much lower % usage for lighting.
>>I am a bit of an energy nut myself, and not ignorant of the
>>engineering principles. I spent 8 months recently living on a yacht,
>>off the grid, literally living with energy from batteries. I can
>>assure you, it is a BIG lifestyle impact, even in the tropics (where
>>it is warm). It is also expensive, and it is certainly not
>>environmentally benign.
>
>Well I don't know about yachts, but in houses it certainly is possible
>and while not quite as cheap as grid power, it is certainly cost
>effective on almost any site that is not yet wired for power.
So you say, but I disagree. Anything which costs more, but produces
something of lower quality, is NOT cost effective.
>I don't
>quite understand what you mean about environmentally benign. I
>understand that solar cell makers are much more careful about their
>pollution, and batteries can be recycled, so what's left?
Solar panel manufacture is energy intensive, and they are use cadmium
(a toxic heavy metal).
And I have never recycled a battery, and don't know anyone who has.
Do you? Besides, only the plastic body is recyclable, not the really
environmentally damaging stuff inside.
>Certainly
>they're not contributing to atmospheric pollution and greenhouse
>gasses, which are two of our biggest problems.
Oh but they ARE contributing to both! They are manufactured and
transported with conventional energy (ie fossil fuels). Oh sure, I
know, they can be manufactured with alternative energy, but then how
much would they cost!
>>I have no criticism of your hobby, and I wish you well in your attempt
>>at energy independence. But it will be very costly for you. My only
>>concern is that you not insist that your expensive hobby be enforced
>>on others.
>
>Insist? Of course not.
Then do not be surprised if others do not follow your lead.
>Hobby? More like a building choice. Would you call your decision to
>own a garage for your car a hobby?
Yes. I don't need a garage.
>As for expensive, it will not be too much more expensive than what you
>pay, perhaps twice the price.
Probably more.
>But there will be other benifits, like
>no blackouts and cleaner power.
And disadvantages, like relying on the sun and wind, limitations on
lifetstyle ie no electric cooking and heating, and having to use a
special fridge, having to maintain the system, and replace the
batteries every few years.
No thanks. I'll stay on the grid, and keep fighting for a better,
cleaner large-scale solution based on nuclear fission.
Greig Ebeling
On Tue, 03 Jun 97 01:29:22 GMT, geo...@wtl.co.nz (Geoff Henderson)
wrote:
>Sorry to cut in here, but I would just add to Dan's list an even
>simpler and more effective measure to bring about the change we
>require, namely legislate (through tradeable carbon certificates or
>whatever) that there be 100% mitigation of CO2 emissions by fossil fuel
>suppliers.
And how would you measure the negative value of CO2 effects? Yes,
Geoff, that' right, you have to QUANTIFY the net negative impact of
CO2. Until then, you are achieving nothing.
>This will start a chain of cause and effect which over time will:
>a) avoid the threat of global warming
>b) stimulate economic uptake of efficient energy end-use
>technologies (the demand-side)
>c) stimulate economic uptake on the supply-side of zero-net CO2
>technologies (the solar options of direct solar heat and electricity,
>wind and hydro generated electricity and solid, liquid and gaseous
>biofuelled heat and electricity) and nuclear (if it can compete with
>wind or biomass power which I seriously doubt in Australia and New
>Zealand or any nation with population density less than 200 per sq. km
>- cf. the global average of 40 per sq. km).
Interesting figures. How did you work this out? Do you have
information on the economic viabilty of wind and biomass technology,
which has alluded the rest of the world's engineering community?
>The above is a very brief summary of the solution to the threat of
>climate change, which I can assure you is flameproof.
Oh bollocks. It's a carbon tax, and it has been rejected by every
nation on earth, because it is impossible to implement uni-laterally.
>The only
>difficulty is getting the politicians to understand
It will be a difficult task to attract votes toward a policy of
economic suicide.
>that:
>a) there is a real threat which demands action
>b) zero-net CO2 is technically viable and economically attractive
>relative to the likely and potential costs of climate change.
Economically attractive? Until there is real and quantifiable
evidence of the costs of climate change, it will be impossible reap
benefits from the solution being presented here.
Richard Foy
In article <33916591...@news.ip.net.au>,
Greig Ebeling <egg...@sydney.dialix.oz> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 May 1997 15:09:20 GMT, rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) wrote:
>
>>In article <3388bce3...@news.ip.net.au>,
>>Greig Ebeling <egg...@sydney.dialix.oz> wrote:
>>>
>>>The study was on only one type of phytoplankton, living in a
>>>restricted environment in Antarctica. The 2-4% figure is NOT a global
>>>average.
>>
>>The krill, one step up from phytoplankton" in the waters around
>>Antarctica are the source of food for a much larger fraction of the
>>oceans life than you imply.
>
>The study is limited to one species, representing a tiny fraction of
>the marine life in Antarctica. There is no direct evidence that krill
>populations are affected.
Yet.
It is a bit far-fetched to extrapolate from
>one study showing minor effects, to predicting global eco disaster.
Yes it is. However, it is a bit ostrich like to ignore the many
different studies of different things that may well be signs of
impending ecological disaster.
Ed
On Sun, 01 Jun 1997 12:09:45 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
Ebeling) wrote:
>On Thu, 29 May 1997 17:08:17 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 May 1997 22:26:14 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
>>Ebeling) wrote:
>>
>>>Nonsense. Please indicate precisely how we might use 1/10 th
>>>electricity we currently use, without impacting lifestyle. To achieve
>>
>>Actually I said without *significantly* impacting lifestyle. I stand
>>by that because I personally know people who do it and their lifestyle
>>is not all that different than the average american's (except it's
>>less destructive).
>
>And I have personally done it, and it IS a significant impact on
>lifestyle. Either you spend a lot of money on alternative technology,
>or you do without.
>
Well it depends on what you mean by a lot of money. Maybe newer
technology has made it easier. All I know is that it's certainly going
to save me money because I'd have to spend $50K to get power to my
site anyway. But my friend, who spent $6K on his system, does not do
without anything he wants in terms of power use.
>I AM aware of the latest technology, because I have used it. You are
>placing a great deal of faith in something you clearly know nothing
>about.
Well I don't own it yet but I'm not completely ignorant because I am
now shopping for it.
Tell me about the home power system you used, how much it cost and
what lifestyle changes you made. Don't just rant at me, provide me
some info!
>Sure it does, I know because my home has passive solar design, with
>big windows facing due north. But not everyone has the opportunity to
>buy a home on a north facing block, or have the opportunity to design
>their own house.
>
>So when you buy your next home, make sure that you factor in enough
>money to demolish it, and rebuild a new one with windows and overhangs
>facing north (or south) toward the arc of the sun.
Well this is exactly my point, that there are millions and millions of
homes that could use it, but don't.
>And BTW, passive solar is great, but I still heat my home with gas in
>winter. It is still only a conservation technique. It doesn't
>replace fossil fuels.
It doesn't need to replace them. As I recall we're only taking about
reducing their use by 90%. I don't know where you are, but here in
Colorado we have tons and tons of sun, cold snowy winters, and lots
and lots of heating oil burned by people without the slightest amount
of passive solar design in their homes.
Meanwhile people I know in passive solar homes have told me about only
running the heater for the two coldest weeks in the winter.
>
>>When hot water is needed, a
>>propane heater on demand which brings the already warm water up to
>>desired temperature, and uses a fraction (much less than a tenth I'm
>>thinking) of what I'm using now - a big tank of water kept hot all the
>>time.
>
>Gas burners are OK for heating hot water, but they are still quite
>wasteful of energy. I understand they are slightly more energy
>efficient, but your figure of < 1/10 is way off.
Don't forget the water is preheated (by solar).
>
>>As for computers, a laptop uses about a 30th of the power used by a
>>regular desktop unit and monitor. (Actually these are horribly
>>wasteful but improving).
>
>And you pay twice as much for a laptop, and get half the performance.
>Sound familiar?
Look I don't want to argue this point by point with you. You don't
agree, but you're really not providing any information.
As a computer programmer I can tell you that I, at least, would have
no problem finding a laptop powerful enough for me, and while it
wouldn't be as cheap as a desktop, it wouldn't cost twice as much
either, when you factor in the cost of power.
>
>>I personally know a fellow who spent about $6K on his power system,
>>which is solar and wind and batteries and controller, and it has an
>>expected lifetime of 20 years,
>
>Maintenance on the panels/turbines plus turn-over of deep-cycle
>batteries every 5 years or so, he is looking at paying another $4-5k
>over those 20 years - if he is lucky.
Well we'll just have to see.
What maintence on the solar panels?
The wind turbine he's using only cost him $500, so I don't see how he
can spend thousands on it.
>>This provides him with plenty of power. He's only using
>>a little propane to cook with and as supplementary heating for his
>>passive solar home (won't be needed more than 2 weeks a year
>>probably). He's got enough power for his TV, stereo, lights, etc. (He
>>does have to be aware of his usage, but says this isn't really a big
>>deal).
>
>Most likely he will use grid power as a backup for when the sun don't
>shine, and the wind don't blow. A $6k US will buy you a good system -
Nope, he has no grid power.
>a few panels, a few wind turbines, and medium sized battery pack- say
>about 1000 Ah. Enough to support most domestic applications. But it
>will not do the cooking or heating, and it will be stretched to do the
Who the hell would expect an independant power system to provide
enough energy for heating? Or even cooking? That's what he's got the
propane for.
>refrigeration. Without propane, your friend is eating raw food, is
>freezing in winter, and having cold showers, - ie he WILL have to pay
>power bills (backup e- and propane).
Well of course he'll have to pay for his propane, no one expects to
get it for free!
He wouldn't be freezing or taking cold showers (most days) because of
his passive solar house (have you heard of earthships?) and solar
batch heater.
Basically, if he runs out of power he sits in the dark and doesn't
watch tv.
>On the yacht, we used a small well insulated eutectic fridge running
>off the diesel engine, and all fluorescent lights. They both worked
>fine, and are more energy efficient, as you say. I am happy to agree
>that these technologies will save some energy, and in time, people
>will change over, but this is not going to solve the world's problems
>overnight.
Who said overnight?
>
>>Well passive solar for example, combined with thermal mass. People
>>have been using it for thousands of years, and it works great, but
>>we've pretty much ignored this FREE source of heating and cooling.
>
>Ignored? I don't think so. Passive solar design was part of my
>engineering degree 20 years ago. It is built into most modern city
>buildings and new homes which are located in a place which can take
>advantage of it.
Not here in the USA!
Yes, they've stopped designing INCREDIBLY stupid office buildings,
which simply freeze in the winter and turn into ovens at night, but I
still have never worked in or heard of one that uses passive solar as
a serious heat strategy. I sure hope this is changing. The best we
seem to be able to get is tinted windows to keep from baking in the
summer. Still not much progress on the heating front. My current
office building, which is pretty new, has solid windows (which can't
open) around the whole building. There is no thermal mass anywhere
except what comes from the extremely light furnishings.
As for housing, I can see new subdivisions go up before my eyes here
and they don't even change the design depending on whether the house
faces north, south, east, or west. They just plop them down facing the
nearest street and move on. Of course since they houses have almost no
thermal mass anyway I guess it doesn't matter which way they point the
windows!
And this is in Colorado, where, as I say, we have cold sunny winters.
>
>And it's not free. Ask an architect.
Of course it's not absolutely free, but the cost of designing it into
the building in the first place is not very significant compared to
the cost of heating the building for it's lifetime. I mean, we're just
taking about pointing the windows the right direction as a first
approximation! Give me a resonable percentage of windows facing south,
the proper amount of thermal mass inside, and I will be happy to burn
propane to take care of the rest of my heating needs.
>
>>Refridgeration has become quite the addictive habit in america. I
>>lived in Europe for a year and they had much smaller fridges but
>>pretty much lived the same lifestyle in terms of food storage. They
>>simply were more aware of what could be stored outside the fridge, and
>>they didn't have as much empty space in there. There are other ways of
>>providing some cooling which are more energy efficient, for example
>>the Earthship's thermal mass fridge, which takes advantage of
>>night-time coolness.
>
>I live in Australia. You are going to have a lot of trouble
>convincing me that refrigeration is a luxury.
Like anything too much is certainly a luxury. Since I rent I usually
end up with a generic 22 cubic foot fridge. I cook a lot, and so does
my wife, but I don't think we ever have that thing more than half
full, and often we could get by with about 5 cubic feet.
Not to mention the crappy way fridges are made!
I'm not saying I'll live without one. I'm saying that have 22 cubic
feet or more in every kitchen is a bit silly.
I don't know how big your fridges are there in Oz. How big are they?
As I say, in Europe I saw people easily getting by with half the
refridgerated space, and no real difference in their lives from that.
Obviously a house with 8 kids needs more, but this is not the typical
scenario.
>
>>>This will cost the general public (lower SOL), and damage a country's
>>>export competitiveness. Needless to say, there is some resistance to
>>>this approach.
>>
>>Obviously!
>
>Thankyou for agreeing. This is IMO the most important issue to
>overcome, if there is to be any change in the current energy
>infrastructure.
I think the real problem is the cost accounting. Too many things are
being left out, like the environment, and the cost of oil related
miliary operations.
>
>>But it will save us having to go to war over oil and how
>>much did that cost last time we did it?
>
>This is a ridiculous argument, and IMO has nothing to do with this
>debate.
I'm interested in why you consider it ridiculous. Shouldn't that cost
be added in? If not, why not?
Surely you don't think that the Gulf War was about something other
than oil, right?
>
>>Aside from that I don't see how it will damage exports.
>
>Then you are NOT LOOKING. You are dismissing out of hand the most
>important impediment to controlling CO2 emissions.
I assume you are arguing that higher energy costs will raise
production costs, but that is only true if efficiency remains the
same.
>This is a good point. However, surely landowners could buy seperate
>accomodation for themselves, and retain their family home as an
>investment, simply by renting it out. (just an idea, I am no expert
>on tax or investment).
I guess most people just don't want to do this. Who wants one home
(renting) in California and another in Colorado. Pain in the butt to
manage!
Anyway, this is not what people do. They only upgrade house sizes.
> In my household, electricity usage per quarter (~90 days) is
>estimated as follows:
>
>Usage Watts hours kWh %
>TV, stereo and computer: 1000 400 400 67%
>Hot water heater: ~90* 2160 190 15%
>Lighting: 200 500 80 11%
>Kitchen appliances: 1000 50 50 7%
>
>Total 710
>
>*Calculated average from usage and heat loss.
>
>Of course, if I didn't use my computer so much, then the figure would
>look very different. :-)
How come those numbers are so low? My computer uses 220 W and another
~200 for the monitor. Am I missing something?
>
>However, I use gas (not electricity) for cooking and heating. Those
>households using electricity for all (particularly those in colder
>climates) would have a much lower % usage for lighting.
Sure but you obviously have very efficient or very few lights! Only
200 W for about 5.5 hours a day? That's far better than the average
american home I can assure you.
>So you say, but I disagree. Anything which costs more, but produces
>something of lower quality, is NOT cost effective.
This is true right now because we are not counting pollution as a
cost.
>
>>I don't
>>quite understand what you mean about environmentally benign. I
>>understand that solar cell makers are much more careful about their
>>pollution, and batteries can be recycled, so what's left?
>
>Solar panel manufacture is energy intensive, and they are use cadmium
>(a toxic heavy metal).
Sure, but construction of power plants is also energy intensive and my
understanding is that most of the heavy metals are recovered.
>
>And I have never recycled a battery, and don't know anyone who has.
>Do you? Besides, only the plastic body is recyclable, not the really
>environmentally damaging stuff inside.
At least several of the battery manufactures seem to be taking their
batteries back. Check the real goods web page for some examples.
>
>>Certainly
>>they're not contributing to atmospheric pollution and greenhouse
>>gasses, which are two of our biggest problems.
>
>Oh but they ARE contributing to both! They are manufactured and
>transported with conventional energy (ie fossil fuels). Oh sure, I
>know, they can be manufactured with alternative energy, but then how
>much would they cost!
But everything you do incurs some costs, and I still think solar one
of the least damaging electricity production methods, rivaled only by
wind.
>
>>>I have no criticism of your hobby, and I wish you well in your attempt
>>>at energy independence. But it will be very costly for you. My only
>>>concern is that you not insist that your expensive hobby be enforced
>>>on others.
>>
>>Insist? Of course not.
>
>Then do not be surprised if others do not follow your lead.
On the contrary, I am following the lead of others. As the booming
alternative energy industry in this country attests, I don't think I
have to force anyone.
>
>>Hobby? More like a building choice. Would you call your decision to
>>own a garage for your car a hobby?
>
>Yes. I don't need a garage.
Well neither do I for that matter, but I still wouldn't call building
one a hobby.
I need power, this is how I'm going to get it. It's the best choice
for me given my site. If you want to call it a hobby, feel free.
>
>>As for expensive, it will not be too much more expensive than what you
>>pay, perhaps twice the price.
>
>Probably more.
Depends on what you pay I suppose. Certainly I don't expect it to cost
anything like what grid power would cost me.
>
>>But there will be other benifits, like
>>no blackouts and cleaner power.
>
>And disadvantages, like relying on the sun and wind, limitations on
>lifetstyle ie no electric cooking and heating, and having to use a
>special fridge, having to maintain the system, and replace the
>batteries every few years.
Is that what you consider a lifestyle limitation?
Hey, who cares, as long as the kettel boils when I want tea, I really
don't care if it's electric or propane.
>
>No thanks. I'll stay on the grid, and keep fighting for a better,
>cleaner large-scale solution based on nuclear fission.
Eakkk! Nukes!!!
Don't forget to add disposal costs in! (We get that more or less for
free now).
Ed
Don't forget solar cooking, which certainly does not require much
wealth!!
On Sat, 31 May 1997 15:03:44 GMT, rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) wrote:
>In article <338f597f...@news.ip.net.au>,
>Greig Ebeling <egg...@sydney.dialix.oz> wrote:
>>On Wed, 28 May 1997 15:01:33 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>>
>>For example, it is only the wealthy who have access to energy
>>independence through alternative energy (eg solar). The poorer the
>>community, the less capable of developing new technology.
>>
>
>If what you say is true, why is it that I have seen far more use of
>solar energy for heating water in Isreal than in the US and why
>advertizing of solar panels in East Africa than in the US?
Richard Foy
In article <33916584...@news.ip.net.au>,
Greig Ebeling <egg...@sydney.dialix.oz> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 May 1997 15:03:44 GMT, rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) wrote:
>
>>If what you say is true, why is it that I have seen far more use of
>>solar energy for heating water in Isreal than in the US and why
>>advertizing of solar panels in East Africa than in the US?
>
>East Africa, and solar competes better.
>
>Why do you think?
I doubt that the cost of electricity in Isreal is higher than in the
US. Solar hot water heaters can provide hot water cheaper than
conventional hot water. I suspect that there are two factors of why
they are relatively widespread in Isreal. One there is less market
resistance to the esthetics of roof mounted solear heated hot water
containers. The other the amount of money saved by the use of solar
is more significant to the average home owner, Another factor is that
*all* of Isreal has a good climate for solar.
I suspect the reason in Africa is different. There they don't have
the overall infrastructure in place for conventional electric power
for many small villages. Solar cells can compete economically with
other means of generation for a house when it is about 10000 feet
from the grid.
Richard Foy
In article <33915fc3...@news.ip.net.au>,
Greig Ebeling <egg...@sydney.dialix.oz> wrote:
>
>And disadvantages, like relying on the sun and wind, limitations on
>lifetstyle ie no electric cooking and heating, and having to use a
>special fridge, having to maintain the system, and replace the
>batteries every few years.
>
>No thanks. I'll stay on the grid, and keep fighting for a better,
>cleaner large-scale solution based on nuclear fission.
You seem to igonre the fuel cell technology which will solve most of
the problems you cite.
Todd M. Bolton
David Gossman wrote:
Snips
> Another good test is to look
> for consistancies or the lack there of with reality. The evaluation
> determined that forested areas provide over three times the value as
> cropland. As someone who owns a farm with timber, forested pasture and
> cropland I can confidently state that the rental income or any other
> economic basis for comparing timber with cropland will actually produce
> a ratio that is just the opposite. Is that a surprise to anyone?
> "If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
> it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
Imagine the forest plot near an urban area. Include in value; reduction in
energy use foor cooling, service provided towards reduction of air pollution
including particle catching, reduction in storm water runoff and cost
of required SWM structures BMP facilites if land developed, value of water
quality assurance, with this comes amenity value as well as production of other
natural extractable resources, increase in sale or rental value of adjoining
property, etc.
Part of what you are not looking at is that any parcel or practice affects
adjoining lands. I am not disagreeing with your statement that easily
quantfiable economic beneftis are greater with a corn or alfalfa field, but the
value of the total benefits are, perhaps, a different Zea.
Geoff Henderson
Sorry to cut in here, but I would just add to Dan's list an even
simpler and more effective measure to bring about the change we
require, namely legislate (through tradeable carbon certificates or
whatever) that there be 100% mitigation of CO2 emissions by fossil fuel
suppliers.
This will start a chain of cause and effect which over time will:
a) avoid the threat of global warming
b) stimulate economic uptake of efficient energy end-use
technologies (the demand-side)
c) stimulate economic uptake on the supply-side of zero-net CO2
technologies (the solar options of direct solar heat and electricity,
wind and hydro generated electricity and solid, liquid and gaseous
biofuelled heat and electricity) and nuclear (if it can compete with
wind or biomass power which I seriously doubt in Australia and New
Zealand or any nation with population density less than 200 per sq. km
- cf. the global average of 40 per sq. km).
The above is a very brief summary of the solution to the threat of
climate change, which I can assure you is flameproof. The only
difficulty is getting the politicians to understand that:
a) there is a real threat which demands action
b) zero-net CO2 is technically viable and economically attractive
relative to the likely and potential costs of climate change.
Geoff Henderson
Bruce Hamilton
In article <5mvd4i$n...@venus.plain.co.nz>
geo...@wtl.co.nz (Geoff Henderson) writes:
>>Also tree-planting will certainly have very little effect. It is a
>>myth that terrestrial plants are a significant CO2 sink.
>This is nonsense, or facetious argument. Substitute "can be" for "are"
>in the last sentence and there is no myth. Of course terrestrial
>plants are not a significant CO2 sink at the moment (in fact net
>deforestation is taking place, so they are a source). But if we
>reverse this trend, net afforestation can have a huge effect,
>especially if the cost of afforestation is added to the cost of fossil
>fuel (the polluter pays principle).
No. You surely must be aware that NZ's attempt to permit
the offset of power station fossil CO2 by tree planting by utilities
using fossil fuels was rejected at the Climate Change conference
this year / last year . It was reported in Lelani Arris's posts on the
conference to sci.environment.
It is quite likely that NZ will not be allowed to offset commercial
plantations against fossil fuel use. One point was that the
planting was only replacing trees that were harvested previously
when the land was first cultivated in the last 100 years, thus it was
not a new sink that could offset continued use of fossil fuels.
The problem with large scale afforestation is that the plantations
will be harvested in the future, that's why fast growing trees are
chosen. Whilst fast growing trees will consume some CO2 during
growth, other countries did not believe that the CO2 would be
sequestered by NZ for appropriate timescales.
Research shows some NZ forests are actually overall emitters
of CO2, and it is the fast growing forests of exotics that
have significant CO2 uptake. However much of that timber may
not be sequestered but sold and used in timber, pulp, and paper.
The concept of tradeable quotas has a long way to go before
being accepted by the necessary majority of Climate Change
countries. Given the above, I'd suspect the cost to NZ of switching
from fossil fuels is somewhat higher than originally estimated.
Bruce Hamilton
Richard Foy
In article <33931fb5...@superego.idcomm.com>,
Ed <edw...@idcomm.com> wrote:
>You're right, I forgot about fuel cells!
>
>But I don't know much about them, and I don't know of any residental
>applications. (Or indeed of any applications at all - are there any
>fuel cells in use somewhere?)
>
>Could you post more info on this?
>
>Thanks!
We are thinking about different time frames. I was specifically
htinking about an article in the May issue of Science & Technology.
It disscussed the progress that had been made on a design of a fuel
cell for use in vehicles. The practical applications were estimated
to be 5 to 10 years away.
David Gossman
Todd M. Bolton wrote:
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> Snips
>
> > Another good test is to look
> > for consistancies or the lack there of with reality. The evaluation
> > determined that forested areas provide over three times the value as
> > cropland. As someone who owns a farm with timber, forested pasture and
> > cropland I can confidently state that the rental income or any other
> > economic basis for comparing timber with cropland will actually produce
> > a ratio that is just the opposite. Is that a surprise to anyone?
>
>
> energy use foor cooling, service provided towards reduction of air pollution
> including particle catching, reduction in storm water runoff and cost
> of required SWM structures BMP facilites if land developed, value of water
> quality assurance, with this comes amenity value as well as production of other
> natural extractable resources, increase in sale or rental value of adjoining
> property, etc.
>
> Part of what you are not looking at is that any parcel or practice affects
> adjoining lands. I am not disagreeing with your statement that easily
> quantfiable economic beneftis are greater with a corn or alfalfa field, but the
> value of the total benefits are, perhaps, a different Zea.
In general what you say is accurate. I also own a 5 acre timbered site
just west of the Chicago suburbs and am aware of the difference in
value. Nevertheless only a very small fraction of timber acres meets
your criterea for location which increases the value in the real
market. Bottom line, unless someone is willing to pay for it in a free
market it (whatever "it" is) has no value by definition.
--
--------------------------------------------
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
--------------------------------------------
Geoff Henderson
Greig Ebeling wrote in reply to my posting:
>>Try rising insurance premiums because of climate related disasters
for
>>a start. But then you need to try to extrapolate such costs into the
>>future.
>
>Are insurance premiums related to calculated risk, or perceived risk?
Present premiums are being raised in response to historical risk
(trends in the 1980's and 90's to more frequent climate related
disasters). I do not know how the insurance companies are projecting
those trends into the future, but either way it's calculated.
>>Where Greig Ebeling and I would differ is that:
>>a) I recognise the threat that such a range of costs represents
>>and believe that alone is sufficient justification for the
>>precautionary principle to try to avoid such costs (let alone the
costs
>>of climate "surprises" like Antarctica melting, triggering a new ice
>>age or a runaway greenhouse effect which are all possibilities with a
>>finite (and I suspect non-trivial) probability)
>
>We indeed disagree on this matter. How can the precautionary
>principle be applied, whilst we still have absolutely no idea what is
>going to happen?
Your logic escapes me, as does your assumption. We have some idea of
what are the possible consequences of business-as-usual climate change.
I would break them into four categories with associated probabilities:
a) significant costs and dislocations by 2100 but no irreversible
damage - 60% probability
b) insignificant costs or net benefits by 2100 - 30% probability
c) triggering irreversible damage (say an early ice-age) which
will have major impacts on the human population (but not extinction)
within a few hundred years - 10%
d) triggering a runaway greenhouse effect which wipes out life on
this planet within a thousand years (the Venus scenario) - less than
1%, but maybe as high as 0.01%.
While some would assign different probabilities, I would challenge any
climate modeller to say they can rule out any of these to lower
probability than (say) the chances of being hit by a big comet.
But we will probably never achieve sufficient certainty to meet
Ebeling's test of knowing "what is going to happen". It is for this
very reason that we must apply the precautionary principle.
>>b) I know that we can cheaply do something to avoid climate
>>change by embracing the polluter pays principle and requiring
>>tree-planting or any other cost-competitive form of carbon
>>sequestration.
>
>If you "know" how to "cheaply" eliminate greenhouse gases, then why
>not post your ideas. I am afraid that your assurance alone holds
>little weight.
>Also tree-planting will certainly have very little effect. It is a
>myth that terrestrial plants are a significant CO2 sink.
This is nonsense, or facetious argument. Substitute "can be" for "are"
in the last sentence and there is no myth. Of course terrestrial
plants are not a significant CO2 sink at the moment (in fact net
deforestation is taking place, so they are a source). But if we
reverse this trend, net afforestation can have a huge effect,
especially if the cost of afforestation is added to the cost of fossil
fuel (the polluter pays principle).
The effects will be as follows:
a) correct price signals in fossil fuels stimulate efficiency and
non-carbon based renewables
b) land available for tree-planting is used up over time, driving
up the cost of fossil fuels, thus accelerating (a)
c) at a certain point the cost of biomass fuels will become
cheaper than fossil fuels (wood instead of coal, alcohols instead of
oil, biogas methane instead of "natural" gas methane)
d) the combination of the above will lead to fossil fuels being
substantially phased out over several decades, which will take the
pressure of the demand for more land for afforestation. From that
point on the biomass cycle will keep its net CO2 emissions zero for a
given land area allocated to energy farming.
>[snip]
>>And we have to find alternatives to fossil fuels in the long run
>>anyway, so why don't we grasp the nettle and do what economic theory
>>tells us to (apply the polluter pays principle)?
>The polluter pays principle is very difficult to implement
>multi-laterally (look at current attempts to put "Rio" into practice),
>since energy costs are critical to cost of export goods. The first
>country to legislate is committing economic suicide.
You exaggerate both the difficulties of multi-lateral action and the
dangers of unilateral action. Certainly there are difficulties, but
progress is being made and the tradeable permit schemes favoured by the
US, Canada and NZ among others will inevitably lead to the sort of
scenario I have outlined above.
If NZ legislated its proposed scheme, it would make less than 1%
difference (out of 3% projected) to its economic growth over the next
20 years. That is according to a NZ government publication last year,
which (in my opinion) maximised the negative economic effects. Even
so, it is hardly economic suicide.
Geoff Henderson
gen...@rockisland.com
Richard Foy wrote:
>
>
> It is a bit far-fetched to extrapolate from
> >one study showing minor effects, to predicting global eco disaster.
>
> Yes it is. However, it is a bit ostrich like to ignore the many
> different studies of different things that may well be signs of
> impending ecological disaster.
I am in agreement
I wonder, is there any other way to prove the global climate change
problem beside modeling?
Dan Gottlib
http://www.rockisland.com/~genian/bannedbooks.html
gen...@rockisland.com
Geoff Henderson wrote:
> >
> >
> Sorry to cut in here, but I would just add to Dan's list an even
> simpler and more effective measure to bring about the change we
> require, namely legislate (through tradeable carbon certificates or
> whatever) that there be 100% mitigation of CO2 emissions by fossil fuel
> suppliers.
>
> The only
> difficulty is getting the politicians to understand that:
> a) there is a real threat which demands action
> b) zero-net CO2 is technically viable and economically attractive
> relative to the likely and potential costs of climate change.
>
> Geoff Henderson
I welcome anything that will get more resources into the problem. On the
other hand I think the issue, from the political side, is not one of
ignorance on the part of our politicans.
Politicians live and die by contributions which come from keeping
everyone liking them. Therefore they are often hamstrung on long term
important issues because they want to be relected and need money to do
that. The issue for them is staying in office long enough to effect
change and supporting the wrong cause can be terminal--politically.
(This is often misconstrued by the voting public that
our politicians are cowards.)
I think a way to fix these problems needs a militery approach: Just make
repair of the environment a top secret project, then the politicians can
have credible deniability when some PAC gets upset. :-)
Dan Gottlieb
http://www.rockisland.com/~genian/bannedbooks.html
Geoff Henderson
Bruce Hamilton wrote in reply to my posting:
>>>Also tree-planting will certainly have very little effect. It is a
>>>myth that terrestrial plants are a significant CO2 sink.
>>This is nonsense, or facetious argument. Substitute "can be" for
"are"
>>in the last sentence and there is no myth. Of course terrestrial
>>plants are not a significant CO2 sink at the moment (in fact net
>>deforestation is taking place, so they are a source). But if we
>>reverse this trend, net afforestation can have a huge effect,
>>especially if the cost of afforestation is added to the cost of
fossil
>>fuel (the polluter pays principle).
>
>No. You surely must be aware that NZ's attempt to permit
>the offset of power station fossil CO2 by tree planting by utilities
>using fossil fuels was rejected at the Climate Change conference
>this year / last year . It was reported in Lelani Arris's posts on the
>conference to sci.environment.
I do not believe that anything has been definitively accepted or
rejected by the parties to the FCCC. And I am quite sure that they
will not have the authority to reject the one instance where this
principle (polluter pays) has been applied under our Resource
Management Act, that of the Taranaki Combined Cycle power station
presently under construction.
What might have been rejected was NZ's policy of trying to use
fortuitous offsets from forestry to achieve most of our target for the
year 2000. If so I would support this rejection, because NZ has been
trying to get away without applying polluter pays. Since the Taranaki
CC decision, no other instances have occurred.
The use of polluter pays or not is a key distinction, which I think you
overlook. One adds costs to the price of fossil fuels (and allegedly
to the macro-economy), the other does not. So far most of NZ's policy
has been based on the latter (which I do not support).
>It is quite likely that NZ will not be allowed to offset commercial
>plantations against fossil fuel use. One point was that the
>planting was only replacing trees that were harvested previously
>when the land was first cultivated in the last 100 years, thus it was
>not a new sink that could offset continued use of fossil fuels.
The previous harvesting issue irrelevant as a counter-argument. Any
net afforestation from now on will offset fossil fuel use from now on.
Yes it would be nice to try to get back to pre-industrial CO2 levels
(280 ppm) but that is not likely.
>The problem with large scale afforestation is that the plantations
>will be harvested in the future, that's why fast growing trees are
>chosen. Whilst fast growing trees will consume some CO2 during
>growth, other countries did not believe that the CO2 would be
>sequestered by NZ for appropriate timescales.
This is a valid criticism of the fortuitous forestry policy without
polluter pays (although there is some net sequestration). But a
polluter pays system will necessarily have a regulatory system to
ensure that net seqestration is occuring. Basically it comes down to
how many new hectares of mature forest are being created over what
period.
>Research shows some NZ forests are actually overall emitters
>of CO2 ...
This is a separate problem, basically of deforestation due to browsing
animals. Yes it needs to be addressed - in fact the FCCC obliges us to
"maintain and enhance existing sinks". By failing to control possums
etc, we are also failing to meet this obligation.
> and it is the fast growing forests of exotics that
>have significant CO2 uptake. However much of that timber may
>not be sequestered but sold and used in timber, pulp, and paper.
Only in the fortuitous forestry scenario (not polluter pays). See
above.
>The concept of tradeable quotas has a long way to go before
>being accepted by the necessary majority of Climate Change
>countries. Given the above, I'd suspect the cost to NZ of switching
>from fossil fuels is somewhat higher than originally estimated.
The estimates are based on tradeable quota systems. If you have
understood above, you will realise that the foruitous forestry policy
is a zero cost policy, which is why it is the only one that NZ has
adopted to date (except for the one instance of the Taranaki CC
station).
Geoff Henderson
Greig Ebeling
On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 17:08:20 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jun 1997 12:09:45 GMT, egg...@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig
>Ebeling) wrote:
>
>>And I have personally done it, and it IS a significant impact on
>>lifestyle. Either you spend a lot of money on alternative technology,
>>or you do without.
>
>Well it depends on what you mean by a lot of money. Maybe newer
>technology has made it easier. All I know is that it's certainly going
>to save me money because I'd have to spend $50K to get power to my
>site anyway.
In that case, solar will almost certainly be cheaper.
>But my friend, who spent $6K on his system, does not do
>without anything he wants in terms of power use.
Well... he still needs to pay for his propane. If you are off the
grid, it's a sure bet that you are having to haul bottles into town
for a refill. Also, I would love to see your friend operate a washing
machine or a toaster, and still be able to say that a solar system
satisfies all his requirements.
>Tell me about the home power system you used, how much it cost and
>what lifestyle changes you made. Don't just rant at me, provide me
>some info!
Well, from your previous posts, I would say that you seem to be on the
right track. I think the most important points are as follows:
Use a battery pack of no less than 1200 Ah, preferrably in two banks.
Use deep cycle batteries to be charged by your trickle charge system
(solar or wind or preferrably both).
I also recommend buying a small portable petrol or diesel generator,
running on a dedicated circuit, for when you run out of juice.
Do not allow your batteries to discharge below 30%, and do not
recharge with the generator (you will damage the batteries).
If you want to recharge with the generator, use car batteries instead
of deep cycle batteries, and do not discharge them below 60%.
Use audio alarms to measure the level of charge in the batteries.
You will need to choose a very energy efficient washing machine and a
special fridge (I used a eutectic run from my yachts diesel engine,
but you will need an electric one). Cooking and heating will require
gas or metho.
>>So when you buy your next home, make sure that you factor in enough
>>money to demolish it, and rebuild a new one with windows and overhangs
>>facing north (or south) toward the arc of the sun.
>
>Well this is exactly my point, that there are millions and millions of
>homes that could use it, but don't.
And there are millions of homes which cannot use it. And the ones
that can probably don't use it because it is TOO EXPENSIVE. Why are
you having so much trouble understanding this? ie passive solar design
is not going to save us much power.
>>And BTW, passive solar is great, but I still heat my home with gas in
>>winter. It is still only a conservation technique. It doesn't
>>replace fossil fuels.
>
>It doesn't need to replace them. As I recall we're only taking about
>reducing their use by 90%. I don't know where you are, but here in
>Colorado we have tons and tons of sun, cold snowy winters, and lots
>and lots of heating oil burned by people without the slightest amount
>of passive solar design in their homes.
Passive solar design and alternative energy etc etc are NOT, I repeat
NOT! going to reduce fossil fuel consumption by 90%. You are not
factoring in industrial use of electricity, nor the fact that solar
appliances are manufactured with conventional energy.
IMO alternatives will supply about 5% of world energy by the year
2020, and this is confirmed even by the most optimisitic opinions of
solar panel manufacturers. IMO, how much of the rest is supplied by
fossil fuel will depend on how quickly we embrace nuclear power.
I wish you the best of luck with your new home. I have visited
Colorado, and it is a beautiful place, and one that has plenty of sun
and wind.
Greig Ebeling
On Mon, 2 Jun 1997 16:51:21 GMT, rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) wrote:
>In article <33916591...@news.ip.net.au>,
>Greig Ebeling <egg...@sydney.dialix.oz> wrote:
>
> It is a bit far-fetched to extrapolate from
>>one study showing minor effects, to predicting global eco disaster.
>
>
>Yes it is. However, it is a bit ostrich like to ignore the many
>different studies of different things that may well be signs of
>impending ecological disaster.
And which studies might they be?
Science teaches not to draw conclusions until the data is in, and
observations of trends have been made. The foolishness of making
decisions based on speculation and hearsay is the message of the story
of "Chicken Little".
Greig Ebeling
On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 17:08:59 GMT, edw...@idcomm.com (Ed) wrote:
>Don't forget solar cooking, which certainly does not require much
>wealth!!
Yeh, and it can only be done in the middle of the day, and only when
the sun is shining. Come on Ed, you're going over the top here.
Greig Ebeling
On Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:12:37 GMT, rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) wrote:
>In article <33915fc3...@news.ip.net.au>,
>Greig Ebeling <egg...@sydney.dialix.oz> wrote:
>
>You seem to igonre the fuel cell technology which will solve most of
>the problems you cite.
You seem to be ignoring that the emerging fuel cell technology is very
immature as a technology, and is also extremely energy intensive.
Unless you are using nuclear power for manufacture and fuel supply,
fuel cells will not dramatically decrease the use of fossil fuels.
Greig Ebeling
On Tue, 03 Jun 97 13:12:29 GMT, geo...@wtl.co.nz (Geoff Henderson)
wrote:
>Greig Ebeling wrote in reply to my posting:
>
>>Are insurance premiums related to calculated risk, or perceived risk?
>
>Present premiums are being raised in response to historical risk
>(trends in the 1980's and 90's to more frequent climate related
>disasters). I do not know how the insurance companies are projecting
>those trends into the future, but either way it's calculated.
You reckon?
>>We indeed disagree on this matter. How can the precautionary
>>principle be applied, whilst we still have absolutely no idea what is
>>going to happen?
>
>Your logic escapes me,
Obviously.
>as does your assumption. We have some idea of
>what are the possible consequences of business-as-usual climate change.
Yes, but we don't actually KNOW. It could get hotter, it could get
colder, it could get windier, and it might do nothing at all. Who
knows?
> I would break them into four categories with associated probabilities:
>a) significant costs and dislocations by 2100 but no irreversible
>damage - 60% probability
>b) insignificant costs or net benefits by 2100 - 30% probability
>c) triggering irreversible damage (say an early ice-age) which
>will have major impacts on the human population (but not extinction)
>within a few hundred years - 10%
>d) triggering a runaway greenhouse effect which wipes out life on
>this planet within a thousand years (the Venus scenario) - less than
>1%, but maybe as high as 0.01%.
Well I am tempted to laugh, but it really is a bit sad.
Geoff, let me give you the big hint. Picking probabilities out of the
air, which satisfy by your reckoning, your own preconceived notions,
is NOT a scientific process, and will convince nobody.
>While some would assign different probabilities, I would challenge any
>climate modeller to say they can rule out any of these to lower
>probability than (say) the chances of being hit by a big comet.
Nobody would rule out the possibility of the sun exploding. So what?
>But we will probably never achieve sufficient certainty to meet
>Ebeling's test of knowing "what is going to happen". It is for this
>very reason that we must apply the precautionary principle.
Firstly, I see no reason why we could not reach a situation where the
matter is sufficiently evaluated to allocate environmental resources
against known negative impact of climate change. Secondly, it is
because we have not yet achieved this, that we cannot apply the
precautionary principle.
[snip]
>>Also tree-planting will certainly have very little effect. It is a
>>myth that terrestrial plants are a significant CO2 sink.
>
>This is nonsense, or facetious argument. Substitute "can be" for "are"
>in the last sentence and there is no myth. Of course terrestrial
>plants are not a significant CO2 sink at the moment (in fact net
>deforestation is taking place, so they are a source). But if we
>reverse this trend, net afforestation can have a huge effect,
>especially if the cost of afforestation is added to the cost of fossil
>fuel (the polluter pays principle).
Well this is very sad. I suggest, Geoff, that you go away and do a
little study on this. Here's a hint. A natural forest is not a
significant CO2 sink, because the process of rotting and breakdown of
timber by termites etc, releases the CO2 back into the environment.
Of course managed forrests, and afforestation, rerelease less CO2,
because the timber is carted away before it rots. However the overall
effect on CO2 levels from terrestrial plants is minicule compared to
ocean absorbtion, consumption by algae and other marine creatures, and
conversion to insoluble forms which form corals and/or embed in the
ocean floor.
>The effects will be as follows:
>a) correct price signals in fossil fuels stimulate efficiency and
>non-carbon based renewables
Which will also increase the cost of all goods, including alternative
energy technology...
>b) land available for tree-planting is used up over time, driving
>up the cost of fossil fuels, thus accelerating (a)
Why would afforrestation drive up fossil fuel costs?
>c) at a certain point the cost of biomass fuels will become
>cheaper than fossil fuels (wood instead of coal, alcohols instead of
>oil, biogas methane instead of "natural" gas methane)
Actually, you are saying that fossil fuels will get more expensive,
not that biomass fuels will get cheaper. So in an economy, where
goods are spiralling in cost due to inflating energy prices, how do
alternatives become "cheaper"?
>d) the combination of the above will lead to fossil fuels being
>substantially phased out over several decades, which will take the
>pressure of the demand for more land for afforestation. From that
>point on the biomass cycle will keep its net CO2 emissions zero for a
>given land area allocated to energy farming.
This may be feasible in a society which uses a small fraction of the
energy currently being used. It seems that Geoff is proposing
artificially dismantling our energy infrastructure, without giving
thought to how the land will support our huge human population.
>>The polluter pays principle is very difficult to implement
>>multi-laterally (look at current attempts to put "Rio" into practice),
>>since energy costs are critical to cost of export goods. The first
>>country to legislate is committing economic suicide.
>
>You exaggerate both the difficulties of multi-lateral action and the
>dangers of unilateral action. Certainly there are difficulties, but
>progress is being made and the tradeable permit schemes favoured by the
>US, Canada and NZ among others will inevitably lead to the sort of
>scenario I have outlined above.
The schemes will do nothing but drive up the cost of energy, to the
benefit of some (especially those countries with plenty of nuclear
power, eg US and Canada) and the detriment of those without, eg NZ and
Australia.
>If NZ legislated its proposed scheme, it would make less than 1%
>difference (out of 3% projected) to its economic growth over the next
>20 years.
Hey, I don't mean to rain on your parade, but a 33% reduction in
overall growth is a big hit.
>That is according to a NZ government publication last year,
>which (in my opinion) maximised the negative economic effects. Even
>so, it is hardly economic suicide.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. And I wish you NZers
lots of luck with your economy.
However I decline to agree with your assumption that "polluter pays"
will have little economic impact. For Australia, it will have a BIG
impact, and I support the current governments stand against the
present imbalance in the CO2 emission control agreements.
Greig Ebeling
On Wed, 04 Jun 97 15:18:51 GMT, geo...@wtl.co.nz (Geoff Henderson)
wrote:
>What might have been rejected was NZ's policy of trying to use
>fortuitous offsets from forestry to achieve most of our target for the
>year 2000. If so I would support this rejection, because NZ has been
>trying to get away without applying polluter pays. Since the Taranaki
>CC decision, no other instances have occurred.
Then you are supporting your own country's economic demise.
>The use of polluter pays or not is a key distinction, which I think you
>overlook. One adds costs to the price of fossil fuels (and allegedly
>to the macro-economy), the other does not. So far most of NZ's policy
>has been based on the latter (which I do not support).
How very foolish of you.
[snip]
>>Research shows some NZ forests are actually overall emitters
>>of CO2 ...
>
>This is a separate problem, basically of deforestation due to browsing
>animals. Yes it needs to be addressed - in fact the FCCC obliges us to
>"maintain and enhance existing sinks". By failing to control possums
>etc, we are also failing to meet this obligation.
Possums? Ridiculous. Natural forests rerelease almost all of their
CO2 due mostly to bacteria and termites. Do you plan a massive
pesticide/germicide campaign, Geoff? :-)