Fungi Find May Alter View of Global Warming

[Lizard_King]

Emphasis on the "may" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39721-2003Sep7?language=printer), not just because global warming is an article of faith for many but because the actual impact remains to be seen. Nonetheless, interesting.

[Jason McCullough]

So finding fungi that produce lots of carbon dioxide means the earth is actually getting colder?


It remains to be seen whether these newly discovered communities of fungi -- not to mention all the other kinds of microbes yet to be found -- will dampen or strengthen predictions about rising temperatures on Earth. But global warming models can no longer ignore fungi in snowy regions and seasons as they have, scientists said -- especially because about 40 percent of Earth's landmass is covered with snow for at least part of the year.

[Rywill]

"'I read somewhere that the sun is getting hotter every year', said Tom genially. 'It seems to me that pretty soon the Earth's going to fall into the sun- or wait a minute- it's just the opposite- the sun is getting colder every year.'"

--F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

[bmulligan]

Could it be that our leading environmentalist scientists haven't accounted for all of the variables in our complex ecosystems? Could it be that we are not the cause of 'global warming'?

Naw, couldn't happen......experts don't lie. And besides, we have that 'hole' in the ozone layer; proof that humans are responsible for all the bad things in our environment. Especially Americans driving their gas guzzling SUV's!

[Lizard_King]

So finding fungi that produce lots of carbon dioxide means the earth is actually getting colder?

Do you purposely evade logic in some sort of Zen-like crusade for meaninglessness?
No, it means as bmulligan notes that there is a possibility that even more of the earth's warming is naturally created, and thus it leans in the direction of a cyclical understanding of global temperatures. That is, as opposed to the slide towards apocalypse you and algore are constantly describing.

[Midnight Son]

Everything is fine in the world today! Fossil fuels will last forever! The concentration of CO2 is not and has not risen since the beginning of the industrial revolution! The decade of the 1980's and then the 1990's were not the hottest on record. There is no overpopulation, potable water is not increasingly hard to find! Science is no more advanced than alchemy! Oh, the Bible is the literal truth! SUV's do not pollute 5 times more than cars while getting abysmal mileage due to legal loopholes! All over the world today people are coming together in harmony to cut taxes and be happy. Let's just all take our Prozac or Lithium and smile as our perfect world continues forever!!

(Let no one be swayed by evidence! Our beliefs are much stronger than mere evidence!)

[Jason McCullough]

That paragraph from the article again:


It remains to be seen whether these newly discovered communities of fungi -- not to mention all the other kinds of microbes yet to be found -- will dampen or strengthen predictions about rising temperatures on Earth. But global warming models can no longer ignore fungi in snowy regions and seasons as they have, scientists said -- especially because about 40 percent of Earth's landmass is covered with snow for at least part of the year.

So in other words, they've found a new bit of evidence but don't know what it means, and it makes you right?

[Rywill]

You're so funny. He said it "may, emphasis on the may" mean that the liberal view of global warming--espoused by folks like yourself--needs to be re-evaluated to take this new information into account. I think it's obvious that if it turns out that fungi have a significant effect, that means the presumption of humanity's effect must be correspondingly reduced, given that the overall temperature change remains the same. In what appears to be an effort to avoid admitting that, you instead pretend that Lizard King said (I guess) that global warming is all a crock or something, and then challenge him to prove that--when in fact it is you whose proof has taken a credibility hit and who should be reconsidering his conclusions.

And Midnight Son is even funnier, although I think his post pretty much says more than I ever could about how silly and unrelated to LK's point it is.

[Jason McCullough]

Rywill, the anti-global warming crowd claim every bit of revision to climate science, no matter how trivial it is, as proof the entire thing is a hoax. It's an organized campaign to discredit it, the same way creationists seize on every bit of disagreement among archealogists to discredit evolution.

And the larger point doesn't make much sense, either: let's say that the fungi are really what's driving the temperature exchange. Is the solution then to just ignore the temperature increase, and watch as the ocean levels rise? That seems to be the implication.

[Andrew Mayer]

Could it be that our leading environmentalist scientists haven't accounted for all of the variables in our complex ecosystems? Could it be that we are not the cause of 'global warming'?

Naw, couldn't happen......experts don't lie. And besides, we have that 'hole' in the ozone layer; proof that humans are responsible for all the bad things in our environment. Especially Americans driving their gas guzzling SUV's!

1) You don't need to know "all" the variables in a system to create a useful model.
2) Humans are not responsible for "all" the bad things in our environment. Nor are we responsible for none of them.
3)We know experts lie. They lie about global warming all the time, especially when paid to do so by large scale polluters.

Thinking that we can put billions of creatures on to the planet's surface and pump large amounts of gasses into the air with no effect is ludicrous on its face. There is always result. Complexity is only a bulwark against change up until the point that you destabilize the strange attractor. Then the system collapses, never to recover.

It strikes me as somewhat pathological to, on one hand, trumpet the power of systems models when it suits you (free-market capitalism), then steadfastly ignore the logic of the effects of similar models in a case where it is obviously more relevant (the environment).

[Linoleum]

Rywill, the anti-global warming crowd claim every bit of revision to climate science, no matter how trivial it is, as proof the entire thing is a hoax. It's an organized campaign to discredit it, the same way creationists seize on every bit of disagreement among archealogists to discredit evolution.

I fear you have it backwards. The vociferous global warming crowd refuse to acknowlege how little we know about global atmospheric and temperature tends over a timespan of several hundred years, much less several million. Any information that presents a picture that it is more complex than just Man mucking up the planet is decried because we must Do Something, no matter the cost and even when we don't understand the reasons or consequences.

Nice indirect attempt to brand anyone speaking out against global warming 'gospel' as being wild-eyed creationists. I bet they come from Texas and drive SUVs too. I really doubt any of these 15,000+ scientists (http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html) are creationists.

Unfortunately science is not immune to politics and money. Vested interests from both stand in the way of getting a clear picture of the past, present and future of our global climate.

[Rywill]

Rywill, the anti-global warming crowd claim every bit of revision to climate science, no matter how trivial it is, as proof the entire thing is a hoax. It's an organized campaign to discredit it, the same way creationists seize on every bit of disagreement among archealogists to discredit evolution.

And the larger point doesn't make much sense, either: let's say that the fungi are really what's driving the temperature exchange. Is the solution then to just ignore the temperature increase, and watch as the ocean levels rise? That seems to be the implication.
You and I had this argument in the other global warming thread, so I won't rehash it in full. I'm not saying climate science is a hoax; most articles I've read are scientists saying "Temperature is going up and we're not entirely sure why," which I think is probably exactly true. OTOH, non-scientist environmentalists often seize on global warming and claim to know the cause, which by coincidence turns out to be three of the same things environmentalists have always hated: manufacturing, driving, and meat farming.

Presumably you will admit that clamping down on manufacturing, driving, and meat farming would involve serious and unpleasant changes to Americans' lives. So, while I wouldn't want to just ignore the temperature increase and watch as the ocean levels rise, I would even less like to cripple manufacturing, driving and meat farming, only to watch the temperature increase and ocean levels rise anyway because it turns out that the temperature rise is caused largely by natural phenomena that I failed to investigate or abate because I bought into a left-wing agenda that started with the premise "progress is bad" and worked backwards to the cause of global warming from there.

[Bub, Andrew]

1) You don't need to know "all" the variables in a system to create a useful model.
2) Humans are not responsible for "all" the bad things in our environment. Nor are we responsible for none of them.
3)We know experts lie. They lie about global warming all the time, especially when paid to do so by large scale polluters.

Thinking that we can put billions of creatures on to the planet's surface and pump large amounts of gasses into the air with no effect is ludicrous on its face. There is always result. Complexity is only a bulwark against change up until the point that you destabilize the strange attractor. Then the system collapses, never to recover.

It strikes me as somewhat pathological to, on one hand, trumpet the power of systems models when it suits you (free-market capitalism), then steadfastly ignore the logic of the effects of similar models in a case where it is obviously more relevant (the environment).

Nicely put Mayer. I don't know people are still posting.

[Kalle]

My view on this is that I don't care why global temperatures are rising. To rephrase that, I don't care if temperatures are rising because of man or because of natural events or both, I do care about the fact that they are rising.

Earthquakes and volcano eruptions are perfectly natural, but that does not mean that we wouldn't act to prevent them if we could. Why is global warming any different? I don't really think we are in any danger of seeing the polar caps melt anytime soon, but the impact of temperature increases on the global climate in terms of crop failure, forest fires, floods, etc means that we can't just sit still and watch nature have it's way.

[Rywill]

Kalle, how would you do anything about it if you didn't know why it was happening?

[Brian Koontz]

You're so funny. He said it "may, emphasis on the may" mean that the liberal view of global warming--espoused by folks like yourself--needs to be re-evaluated to take this new information into account. ... In what appears to be an effort to avoid admitting that, you instead pretend that Lizard King said (I guess) that global warming is all a crock or something, and then challenge him to prove that--when in fact it is you whose proof has taken a credibility hit and who should be reconsidering his conclusions.

You'll have to excuse Mr. McCullough. He's still reeling from witnessing Lizard_King's political birth a mere three days ago...

Qt3 woman Groans: AAHH!!!!

Doctor: Its coming, its coming...

{Jason McCullough anxiously looks on}

Doctor: Here it is! Its, its... a Conservative!

Jason McCullough falls to his knees and head uplifts pleadingly with an anguished scream: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

"Jesus christ LK, in the last couple of days you've soft-pedaled Charles Murray and cited John Lott as a reliable source. WTF?"

[Midnight Son]

Can we talk about evolution VS creationism next? :wink:

[Menzo]

I don't get it - are people suggesting that smog and other harmful effects of pollution could possibly be natural occurances? Perhaps they're being very specific about global warming, and in that, I agree - sure, there's a chance that it's just a huge coincidence that temperatures started rising precisely at the start of the industrial revolution.

But smog and the health effects of pollution can't really be argued as natural could they? Kids have asthma attacks, elderly people die, people get cancer, etc. This ain't natural - it's because of pollution.

[Rywill]

That's true, but a totally separate point. You may think, "Well who cares? They're both bad." And they are. But "What would I do to stop people from getting asthma?" might be a lot different than "What would I do to stop the end of worldwide civilization?"

[Ben Sones]

And the larger point doesn't make much sense, either: let's say that the fungi are really what's driving the temperature exchange. Is the solution then to just ignore the temperature increase, and watch as the ocean levels rise? That seems to be the implication.

This is a good example of bad science. There is no evidence that sea levels will rise as a result of the current global warming trend. According to a report (http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba282.html) by the NCPA, the current data is unclear on the effects of a warming climate on global sea levels. The pertinent bit:


The IPCC report asks whether the observed rise - however much it is - can be tied to the estimated average global temperature increase of 0.5 to 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit during the century. The IPCC examined five possible sources of sea level rise: thermal expansion of water as temperature rises, melting of inland glaciers, melting of Greenland's ice sheet, melting of Antarctica's ice sheets and changes in surface and ground water levels.

The IPCC concluded that, except for data from inland glaciers, there were insufficient data to demonstrate a temperature effect on sea level rise for the past 100 years.

The available data indicated that, based on models, the temperature increase could have caused anything from a 7 1/2-inch decline to a 14-inch rise in sea levels - amounting to a 22-inch range of uncertainty.

Since the 22-inch range of uncertainty in the IPCC's estimates of past sea level change is four times greater than the six-inch range of measured sea level rise, one could argue that our ability to forecast the effects of temperature on sea level rise is so limited as to be virtually worthless.

The data suggesting a decline in sea levels, BTW, is based on a theory that increased atmospheric water vapor would contribute to an increase in inland ice and snow accumulation (warmer climate = more water in the atmosphere = an increase in snow and ice falling in inland regions that becomes trapped and does not return to the ocean) that would more than offset the volume added to the world's oceans by melting glacial ice and thermal expansion. Obviously, common sense dictates that at some point the Earth could become so hot that even inland ice accumulation would slow or stop, but nobody is certain how hot the global climate would have to get for that to happen, or whether the current global warming trend will cause that to happen.

The key words here: nobody knows.

I think a larger worry would be the melting of the Arctic ice cap. That wouldn't cause ocean levels to rise, but there is ample evidence that it could cool the currents in the North Atlantic and end the climatic anomaly that makes most of Europe temperate. That would be a far greater disaster than projected increases in ocean levels.

I am fully in favor of figuring out what the hell is going on with our climate. And I think it's likely that we are contributing to the problem. I don't think we know how much we are contributing, or if halting our contribution will have any meaningful effect on global warming. I do think that tossing around random doomsday predictions like "you'll be sorry when the oceans rise!" helps the issue not at all. And I think attitudes like Kalle's--"I don't know what's going on, but let's do something about it"--are equally unhelpful in that they fuel arguments from the far right that the whole issue is just junk science and we should just ignore it. I don't think that would be in anyone's best interest.

[Midnight Son]

Ben, that report is 5 years old. We need some up-to-date data. The truth is out there.....

[Ben Sones]

I agree.

[Lizard_King]

1) You don't need to know "all" the variables in a system to create a useful model.
Sure. But when new, potentially significant factors come up, you have to reevaluate.


2) Humans are not responsible for "all" the bad things in our environment. Nor are we responsible for none of them.
Also, America is not responsible for all the bad things in the world. Nor are we responsible for none of them. This is a fun new means of debate...I think I shall call it Agreeing through Magic and Double Negatives.

3)We know experts lie. They lie about global warming all the time, especially when paid to do so by large scale polluters.
They also lie a great deal when they are forwarding sko socialist agenda, be it a roundly anti-progress one or one focused, laser-like, on the United States. Again, what is your point? All I am saying is that news like this, when it is given time to be borne out by further research, potentially pushes the balance in favour of the set of liars least favoured by you, apparently.


Thinking that we can put billions of creatures on to the planet's surface and pump large amounts of gasses into the air with no effect is ludicrous on its face. There is always result. Complexity is only a bulwark against change up until the point that you destabilize the strange attractor. Then the system collapses, never to recover.
Platitude+Altruism= CATASTROPHE. Also, when one fails to put the achievements of humans in proportion with the changes wrought "naturally", you end up with absurd solutions to problems that may or may not be crises. Like, say, crippling the first world in a misguided belief that economic advancement in the aggregate is not the primary factor in environmental improvement from the human perspective.


It strikes me as somewhat pathological to, on one hand, trumpet the power of systems models when it suits you (free-market capitalism), then steadfastly ignore the logic of the effects of similar models in a case where it is obviously more relevant (the environment).
Oh, the irony. Oh, the humanity. I hope your monocle popping out in indignation didn't damage your screen.
It is precisely NOT ignoring systems models, what I and (I believe) bmulligan and others are proposing. It is simply basing those models on factors that have a material impact, rather than ideological self-fulfilment.


Doctor: Here it is! Its, its... a Conservative!
Please remove your stake from my heart. It makes feeding on the infant children of the poor difficult.

[Midnight Son]

Here may be some:

"Warmer temperatures are expected to raise sea level by expanding ocean water, melting mountain glaciers, and melting parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Warmer temperatures also increase precipitation, as described below. Snowfall over Greenland and Antarctica is expected to increase by about 5 percent for every 1°F warming in temperatures. Increased snowfall tends to cause sea level to drop if the snow does not melt during the following summer, because the only other place for the water to be is the ocean. (The amount of water in the atmosphere is less than the water it takes to raise the oceans one millimeter). Considering all of these factors, the IPCC estimates that sea level will rise 9 to 88 cm by the year 2100. A recent EPA study estimated that global sea level has a 50 percent chance of rising 45 cm (1-1/2 ft) by the year 2100, but a 1-in-100 chance of a rise of about 110 cm (over 3-1/2 ft)."

Source: The EPA

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateFutureClimateSeaLevel.html

[Midnight Son]

Hey Lizard, you don't have to worry. It seems that it may take a few hundred years for the shit to really hit the fan. You'll be long gone by then. After all, you are all that matters.

[Ben Sones]

Source: The EPA

That data was in the report than I linked, or at least the EPA predictions were (and they seem unchanged).

[Midnight Son]

The current EPA doesn't seem too interested in updating things. Or protecting the environment.

[Jason McCullough]

Why the hell does everyone assume the only way to stop global warming is returning to the stone age? There's a lot of ways to deal with it beyond Kyoto's stupidity; jesus christ, no one is suggesting the loony-tunes solution of stopping manufacturing. We could build gigantic automated carbon sinks, set up tradable pollution markets, subsidize alternative energy sources - in short, a million things. WTF?

Yes, climate models still need work, but the earth definitely is getting hotter. We know, for sure, that putting more carbon in the air makes the earth hotter; what else is there to go over? Some of it's probably a cycle, some of its human-made, but that doesn't matter when it comes to solutions.

Lino, opposing Kyoto isn't the same as declaring that global warming isn't man-made, or doesn't exist.

[Kalle]

Kalle, how would you do anything about it if you didn't know why it was happening?

I was trying to make it clear that I did not care about the *source* of the problem as much as I recognise that there is a problem and we most likely need to do something about it, if humanly possible.

Of course we need to find out the causes if we are to tackle the issue, but I really see no need for this whole distinction between "natural" and "manmade"when it comes to deciding a course of action. Either there is a problem, or there isn't, something research should help decide. If there is a problem we should try to fix it by any means necessary.

[Lizard_King]

Why the hell does everyone assume the only way to stop global warming is returning to the stone age? There's a lot of ways to deal with it beyond Kyoto's stupidity; jesus christ, no one is suggesting the loony-tunes solution of stopping manufacturing. We could build gigantic automated carbon sinks, set up tradable pollution markets, subsidize alternative energy sources - in short, a million things. WTF?
Agreeing...with...Jason...ANEURYSM...PAIN....



Yes, climate models still need work, but the earth definitely is getting hotter. We know, for sure, that putting more carbon in the air makes the earth hotter; what else is there to go over? Some of it's probably a cycle, some of its human-made, but that doesn't matter when it comes to solutions.
It doesn't? It really doesn't? I mean, if the marginal utility of reducing human pollution x % turns out to not be all that significant, it wouldn't matter to your solutions?
Also, on what timeline are you referring to absolute knowledge of the earth's warming? It wasn't so long ago people were concerned about another ice age.


Lino, opposing Kyoto isn't the same as declaring that global warming isn't man-made, or doesn't exist.
Also, not the same as saying it isn't wholly or even mostly manmade, or doesn't trump other priorities (which I think is about as far as anyone here has gone).

[Jason McCullough]

I'm suggesting that if it turns out warming is 100% due to natural causes, we should *still* keep the planet from doing so. It's not like the costs of climate change depend on what's causing it.

[bmulligan]

Yes, climate models still need work, but the earth definitely is getting hotter. We know, for sure, that putting more carbon in the air makes the earth hotter; what else is there to go over?Some of it's probably a cycle, some of its human-made, but that doesn't matter when it comes to solutions.



Your pragmatist-leftist brethren must be so proud of you. They've taught you well how to offer solutions to causes unknown. Climate models still 'need work', that's almost as good as "You don't need to know 'all' the variables in a system to create a useful model. " You still believe that 'emissions trading' is the solution so I don't understand your flip-flop on Kyoto. Now it's stupid, but the premise and implementations are valid?

And Mayer, I'm not sure what's more pathological, your repudiation of free market capitalism
It strikes me as somewhat pathological to, on one hand, trumpet the power of systems models when it suits you (free-market capitalism), then steadfastly ignore the logic of the effects of similar models in a case where it is obviously more relevant (the environment) or your clinging belief that 'models' used to describe capitalism are the same as those to describe the atmosphere.
While both may have similarly described states of equilibrium, the latter involves the conservation of matter and energy, the former does not have anything to do with a zero sum gain.

[Jason McCullough]

Kyoto wasn't emissions trading; it was bad old command-and-control - Thou Shalt Not Produce More Than This Number, with a ludicriously low cap and no way to trade between countries. It didn't have an enforcement mechanism, though, so it was just kind of a resolution of intent that everyone planned on ignoring.

[bmulligan]

Jesus, McCullough, what if the largest variable in our environment turns out to be the Sun? What if it's got nothing to do with us at all and there's nothing we can do about the cyclic nature of the environment? It's pretty arrogant as humans to assume that we are in control and are the major cause of environmental disaster. The Earth is in constant flux and return to equilibrium. If an Ice age is coming, as it most certainly will at some point in time, then what good is reducing carbon in the long run going to solve for us? Earth's atmosphere used to me mostly nitrous oxide, but you didn't hear any environmentalist whackos complaining about it then did you?

[quatoria]

What if? What if? What if? BETTER NOT TRY! MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE TOO BIG! HEADS IN THE SAND ON A COUNT OF THREE, PLEASE! READY? GO!

[bmulligan]

Do what? Thwart our economy and standard of living based on a what if? Might as well put your head under water instead of in the sand. Institute a reactionary governmental solution restricting freedom of choice to an unknown, unproven, what if? If you really want to change things then live a certain way, educate your friends, family and offspring, and make different choices. Companies will make the products you create demand for. Why put the government in control of such a 'dire' situation. We all know how government solves problems: badly, not at all, and just enough to get themselves re-elected.

[Jason McCullough]

Dude, the one thing they've nailed down is that it definitely isn't the sun; solar output doesn't vary by anywhere near enough.

Even if you *do* assume that it's a completely natural cycle, why in god's name should we sit here and watch the planetary temperature go up? If an ice age shows up, I'd imagine we'd deal with that too.

And the free market is incapable of dealing with free-rider problems, of which this is the biggest example; it's not like a company can charge you for stopping global warming. No one will pay unless forced to do so.

It's not like it's a (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PRISDIL.html) new (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/) concept (http://ingrimayne.saintjoe.edu/econ/RiskExclusion/FreeRiders.html).

[bago]

*interjecting with Bjorn Lomberg reference*

Pretty much summarizes this thread, the first few chapters of the book.

[Lizard_King]

*interjecting with Bjorn Lomberg reference*

Pretty much summarizes this thread, the first few chapters of the book.
Nice try. I've been plugging him for a while, but I think it hits certain conceptual barriers with most people here. Like, "someone I agree with on things told me it was bullshit". But good luck anyhow.

[Mark Asher]

Kalle, how would you do anything about it if you didn't know why it was happening?

If you know some of the possible causes, but not all, you work to remedy those causes you suspect.

This is one of those issues where I don't even see much room for debate. If the planet's heating up, or there's a consensus among scientists that that is what's happening, and we're heading towards flooded coastlines, etc., let's start trying to do something about it now. What does it hurt? Business? Ok, I can see that. Of course, new businesses will be created in the long run. Isn't it better for some businesses to take a hit just to be on the safe side?

It's just crazy. It's not even a liberal vs. conservative argument to me. It's a let's start doing things like taxing gas-guzzlers to discourage use, let's put more money into alternative energy research, let's cut down on emissions, etc., kind of argument.

Let's do what we can to be on the safe side, even if we really don't know for sure that we're in the midst of potentially catastrophic global warming. I mean hell, look how much the Bush Administration is willing to commit to the mess in the Middle East all in the name of being safe and secure. Let's do the same to try to ensure that our seaboard cities aren't flooded.

[Lizard_King]

This is one of those issues where I don't even see much room for debate. If the planet's heating up, or there's a consensus among scientists that that is what's happening, and we're heading towards flooded coastlines, etc., let's start trying to do something about it now.
That's precisely why this debate isn't crazy. There is no such consensus. What's more, there are vastly differing views on what the problem is from all sorts of credible sources.

Would caution be advised? Certainly. But there is absolutely no call to seek to cripple the world economy as a result of vague suspicions.


It's just crazy. It's not even a liberal vs. conservative argument to me. It's a let's start doing things like taxing gas-guzzlers to discourage use, let's put more money into alternative energy research, let's cut down on emissions, etc., kind of argument.
I know this is crazy, but why not try to convince people before you strongarm them into following your vision? For instance, I'm all for looking into credible alternative energy, but it seems even the "more environmentally friendly" Democrats have real issues when it comes to their own backyard, as Ted Kennedy and other East Coast liberals demonstrate with the Cape Cod controversy. It is not like convincing people to opt for more economic cars should be that big a deal...I say give positive incentives to those who decide to do that, rather than actively punish those who don't.

[Mark Asher]

But there is absolutely no call to seek to cripple the world economy as a result of vague suspicions.

Pretty good hyperbole there. You manage to link efforts to do something about global warming to crippling the world economy and dismiss the possibility of global warming as "vague suspicions".

We don't know for sure if global warming is happening, we'll probably never know the exact causes of it even if it does happen, but it would seem to me the cautious (and therefore right approach) at this time is to try to reduce some of the possible causes of global warming just to be on the safe side. Is it going to cripple the world economy if we penalize purchasers of SUVs for buying gas guzzlers? No, it will just spur the sale of more gas-efficient cars. Seems to me there's a lot of stuff like that we could do.

Don't forget, some industries would be hurt by forcing more environmentally-friendly rules and regulations in place, but new industries might arise.

[LP]

I'm suggesting that if it turns out warming is 100% due to natural causes, we should *still* keep the planet from doing so. It's not like the costs of climate change depend on what's causing it.

I take it then that your argument is not that massively altering the biosphere of the planet is bad. You just want to prevent valuable beachfront property from going away (I guess), whether that means massive alteration of the climate or a reversal of same.

Can you explain this a little more?

[voltaic]

If the earth is naturally warming (even including our 1% contribution) then I'm all for it. Fuck humans.

[cyborg]

There are pleanty of good reasons to cutting down on C02 emissions other than whether or not it causes global warming.

The CO2 we produce is from burning fossil fuels...

1) These aren't going to last forever. Simply burning them until they run out is folly.
2) Burning them produces other less savoury pollutants that DEFINANTELY have a negative environmental effect (S02)
3) Burning fossil fuels is an inefficient way of getting energy.

[quatoria]

Sadly, it's the most efficient way of putting money in the pockets of the people who own the mineral rights to the deposits, and the people who process them into fuels. Ultimately, that's what our dependance on fossil fuels comes down to.

[bmulligan]

Sadly, it's the most efficient way of putting money in the pockets of the people who own the mineral rights to the deposits, and the people who process them into fuels. Ultimately, that's what our dependance on fossil fuels comes down to.


Excuse me, but won't we be giving money to the people who come up with the 'new technologies' that we'll become dependant upon that don't rely on dirty fossil fuels? The people who own the copyrights, patents, and licenses will be the ones getting the money. Unless you plan to give away energy for free, thereby eliminating the incentive for energy creation.


Don't forget, some industries would be hurt by forcing more environmentally-friendly rules and regulations in place, but new industries might arise.

Some industries? How about all the people who work for these industries, the tax dollars the government gets from them. The families they feed. the products they buy with the money that's paid out. All of the other intertwined industries that rely on the same energy source. Everyone always thinks those big bad oil companies are the only ones who are getting hurt so who cares? The fact is that it's not true, everyone will hurt. Energy is the source of all our economies.

Yes, fossil fuel conversion is inefficient, but can anyone name another source that is more efficient in conversion rate and cost of production? If there were another, more efficient, cheaper source of energy, we'd be using it. If someone could invent a product that gave us this, they'd be the richest man on earth and put the oil companies out of business tomorrow and all your dreams would come true.

Yeah, let's cripple the world economy (no hyperbole) to 'be on the safe side'. Safe side of what? A problem we can't prove to exist, much less prove direct causality. Such safe sides aren't hyperbole, they're insanly reactionary, arising out of fear yet purporting levelheadedness. Is it 'safe' to let us build any cars at all since fossil fuels are the problem?

How can you limit yourself to overtaxing SUV's and fueling pet research projects of government lackeys? What happens when this modest taxation and governmental policy restrictions are not enough and who becomes the arbiter of determining what is enough?

[quatoria]

Sadly, it's the most efficient way of putting money in the pockets of the people who own the mineral rights to the deposits, and the people who process them into fuels. Ultimately, that's what our dependance on fossil fuels comes down to.


Excuse me, but won't we be giving money to the people who come up with the 'new technologies' that we'll become dependant upon that don't rely on dirty fossil fuels? The people who own the copyrights, patents, and licenses will be the ones getting the money. Unless you plan to give away energy for free, thereby eliminating the incentive for energy creation.

Are you incapable of determining the difference between artifically sustaining outdated and inefficient technologies that pump pollutants into the environment and contribute to or cause health problems for millions of people worldwide, and, well, TECHNOLOGIES THAT DON'T? Or is one as good as another to you, so long as money is flowing?

The point is that, on a level playing field, fossil fuels simply couldn't compete with newer energy technologies. They're vastly inefficient to extract and process, they devastate the environment at every fucking stage of their existence - from extraction to transport to processing to use - they directly contribute to or cause lung and other health problems for millions of people in urban areas or areas near the processing plants, and in many situations, particularly in third world nations, substantial blood has been shed in order to secure the rights to the minerals in question. The industry exists and thrives because it is protected from litigation, subsidized, insulated, and cronied into position. As a devotee of the free market, every single one of these things should be a colossal affront to your way of thinking, and yet time and again, I see you standing tall to toe the front line, defending this outdated bullshit. What's the deal here, BM? Are you blinded by dislike for the messenger, or do you have some actual issues with any part of the message? Beacuse if you do, maybe you should start articulating them, instead of leapfrogging around pertinent points in order to attack phrasing or set up straw men based on inaccurate conclusions drawn from misinterpreted phraeseology.

[Ben Sones]

The point is that, on a level playing field, fossil fuels simply couldn't compete with newer energy technologies.

I'm curious--do you have any sources that back up this allegation? I'm a big supporter of alternative energy, but my understanding is that coal and oil are generally much more efficient, economically (barring nuclear power, which is hugely efficient but unpopular). Partly because the infrastructure for refining and using those forms of fuel is already in place, partly because the amount of energy that can be generated for every dollar of investment is significantly greater. Fossil fuels in automobiles remain popular because they meet consumer needs better than alternative fuels. They provide greater range, greater performance, and quick refueling times. Gas-powered cars are cheaper than their alternative counterparts, and they will be until alternative-fuel cars become widespread enough to take advantage of the economics of scale in the same way that gas-powered cars do. And that won't happen until they can meet consumers' "range, performance, and refueling time" needs. Hybrid cars, in my opinion, stand a pretty good chance of closing that gap. But, of course, hybrids still use fossile fuels.

And in the US, green energy is heavily subsidized even on the consumer level. You can write off $2000 on your 1040 if you buy a hybrid (fully electric vehicles are good for a $4000 deduction), and many states offer additional tax breaks. People that buy inefficient gas-powered vehicles, on the other hand, have to pay a premium to do so. If a car has an EPA fuel efficiency rating lower than 22.5 mpg, you have to pay a "gas guzzler tax" at the time of purchase. This tax varies between $1000 and $7,700, depending on fuel efficiency. Additionally, gasoline itself is heavily taxed at both state and federal levels, partly as an incentive towards conservation. While gas taxes in the US are not as high as they are in Europe, they are by no means "low"--they account for more than a third of the price that you pay at the pump.

So I agree that fossil fuels and green energy are not on a level playing field in the free market, but not in the manner that you suggest.

That's why that tidewater generation facility in... I forget now, was it Scotland?--is such a big deal. They built it entirely with venture capital and no government subsidies--unheard of in alternative energy, which typically relies on heavy government subsidies in order to become even marginally profitable. And even that tidewater facility gets ample tax breaks for generating "green" energy; that obviously factors into their business plan.

Just to clarify--while I am a strong proponent of a free market, I think the government should help subsidize alternative energy, perhaps to an even greater extent that it does now. But I think that it's misleading to imply that it doesn't already do so, or that it provides even greater economic advantages to fossil fuels that give them an unfair advantage in the market. That's simply not true.

[Brian Koontz]

I'm sure scientists are working on the matter, although I don't keep up on it much. Since no scientists that I see are getting excited about the matter, they must not have developed anything worth getting excited about. Once a plan which can be effectively put into action is formulated, I don't see anything serious standing in its way. Development of the technological side can be funded by anyone... when an effective plan is outlined funding will happen.

The current problem is that noone has figured out HOW to compete with the fossil fuel method. The Will is not an issue.

[Mark Asher]

Some industries? How about all the people who work for these industries, the tax dollars the government gets from them. The families they feed. the products they buy with the money that's paid out. All of the other intertwined industries that rely on the same energy source. Everyone always thinks those big bad oil companies are the only ones who are getting hurt so who cares? The fact is that it's not true, everyone will hurt. Energy is the source of all our economies.

Er, did I advocate the 100% abandonment of said energy industries? Of course not. We should be working on less dependance on fossil fuels and more use of alternative energies. There's no reason why Shell Oil can't be a leader in advanced batteries that power fully electric cars.

There's also no reason why most of the people who have SUVs need cars that big. Don't take them away, but slap a significant usage tax on them to discourage the use of these vehicles and give tax breaks to more fuel-efficient cars.

It's not a black or white situation. It's not let things continue on the way they are or dismember the oil industry.

[Ben Sones]

There's also no reason why most of the people who have SUVs need cars that big. Don't take them away, but slap a significant usage tax on them to discourage the use of these vehicles and give tax breaks to more fuel-efficient cars.

As I pointed out, we already do exactly that. And yet people still drive SUVs. It boggles my mind, too.

[Jason Levine]

There's also no reason why most of the people who have SUVs need cars that big. Don't take them away, but slap a significant usage tax on them to discourage the use of these vehicles and give tax breaks to more fuel-efficient cars.

As I pointed out, we already do exactly that. And yet people still drive SUVs. It boggles my mind, too.

Actually, we do exactly the opposite (http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/tax23_20030523.htm). Talk about mind boggling.

[Mark Asher]

Jason, the world economy will collapse if the tree-huggers get their way and that SUV tax-break loophole is closed. Besides, when rich people get a tax break for buying expensive SUVs, we all benefit.

[Jason Levine]

Yeah, I'm so anti-American it's a wonder Ashcroft hasn't shipped me off to Gitmo.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm suggesting that if it turns out warming is 100% due to natural causes, we should *still* keep the planet from doing so. It's not like the costs of climate change depend on what's causing it.

I take it then that your argument is not that massively altering the biosphere of the planet is bad. You just want to prevent valuable beachfront property from going away (I guess), whether that means massive alteration of the climate or a reversal of same.

Can you explain this a little more?

There's a wide range on cost estimates to cope with a couple degree jump in temperature, but the upper end is way, way up there, in the trillions. Lots of extremely valuable cities might end up underwater, there'd be crop failures, the migration of tropical diseases to temperate zones, etc., etc.

Ben, on its face coal, gas, and oil are cheaper than all the other sources out there. To some extent, though, that's because we don't count the pollution/global warming(whatever level) they produce as a cost; if you factor that in, the difference isn't as much.

[Toddy]

I'm with Asher here. How the hell can this even be argued today? Some of you are debating this like it's a right-left argument. That's fucking bugshit insane. Yeah, some of what's going on now is cyclical, sure. But a huge part of it is being fully caused by us. Look out your fucking windows, guys.

At any rate, the dependence on fossil fuels is going to crunch North America real soon now. Natural gas is being drained at an alarming rate. It's almost gone in the US, and getting very low in Alberta. I think there's something like a five-year supply. Time just ran a feature story on this a few weeks ago, and the implications are alarming. Costs for heating homes are already soaring. What's going to happen in the next few years? Either governments expand electricity generating capabilities and get the costs down to recent natural gas levels and put serious money into alternative energy development, or start bringing in more oil from overseas, or devastate our environment to acquire more local oil and more natural gas from coal (a process which seems equivalent to strip-mining, based on the way it's destroyed parts of Montana -- btw, in case you don't realize this, natural gas is incredibly volatile and really can't be transported overseas without massive costs, so we've gotta find it here or do without). Which would you prefer?

That's the most idiotic thing about this whole argument. Some of you are bitching about alternative energy sources like it's a Commie plot to destroy the American economy. Well, nothing is going to destroy the American economy more efficiently than dependency on fossil fuels, because eventually there's going to be a crash from which we can't recover. It's happening now with natural gas. If it skyrockets in price this winter again, as predicted, we'll see all the recent economic gains reversed as people will be paying $300-500 a month to heat their homes from December through March or April. Last year's massive price increase was devastating to lots of families, and older people on fixed incomes. The papers last winter were filled with stories of seniors choosing between paying their heating bills or getting their prescriptions filled. Give it a few more years and the costs will be even higher.

So if you want to talk about the dollars and cents of the whole thing, start there. The looming natural gas shortage has the potential to ruin the economy here, almost overnight.

[Jason McCullough]

Um, Brett, natural gas can be imported. DOE has world world supplies (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table81.html) at around 300 trillion cubic feet.

[MikeJ]

The looming natural gas shortage has the potential to ruin the economy here, almost overnight.

But natural gas is far, far cheaper than any of the alternatives! Oh wait, that was only true BEFORE they got everyone dependent on it...

[Andrew Mayer]

It strikes me as somewhat pathological to, on one hand, trumpet the power of systems models when it suits you (free-market capitalism), then steadfastly ignore the logic of the effects of similar models in a case where it is obviously more relevant (the environment).
Oh, the irony. Oh, the humanity. I hope your monocle popping out in indignation didn't damage your screen.
It is precisely NOT ignoring systems models, what I and (I believe) bmulligan and others are proposing. It is simply basing those models on factors that have a material impact, rather than ideological self-fulfilment.

Ah, yes. Right. If we only pick the factors we want to believe, it ain't ideological self-fulfillment.

You're starting to sound a little defensive, and on this issue you should be. America is one of the world's largest polluters, certainly on a per-capita level. LK, it's pretty clear that you can fuzz up the picture to promote your agenda, but history has pretty clearly shown that in the long run these kinds of negligence have heavy costs.

How much is the rest of the world going to put up with, when we're clearly using the lion's share of the resources?
As the oceans and the earth's heat rise, what we will be the cost of having this country becoming the target of the world's anger? "But, but, but, I have credible scientists saying it isn't our fault!" isn't exactly the kind of rallying cry that goes into the history books.

Your belief system is well thought out, but your strategy seems to be simply based on muddying the waters at every opportunity. You've created a tuatology, and your libertarian wonderland works only when the cost in human lives and suffering are not factored into your equations. It creates nice round numbers, but it you may find that your profits won't cover the bill in the long term. I can easily imagine you as one of those people in the 50s arguing about the relatively benign effects of nuclear fallout, as you tell us the virtues of the nuclear powered lawn-mower in the latest copy of Popular Mechanics.

On one hand you argue that everything is driven by money, but on the other you refuse to acknowledge that those driven by long-term gains might actually have the higher returns.

[Xaroc]

I hope your monocle popping out in indignation didn't damage your screen.

I haven't been following this discussion closely but that is one of the funniest lines I have read here in a while. I have to make a point of stealing that for future use.

-- Xaroc

[Toddy]

Uh, no, Jason, it can't be imported to North America from overseas. Worldwide reserves mean little right now. At least not without major safety and financial complications that make the whole process worthless. This was a major point of the Time feature (July 21 issue, which isn't available online, unfortunately), and a major point of a CBC National documentary last week which dealt with the rather desperate attempt to get natural gas out of coal in parts of the western US and Alberta (and the ensuring environmental catastrophe, as surrounding arable land is essentially destroyed with contaminated water).

For starters, natural gas is very volatile. It can be shipped overseas, but only in specialized tankers in liquified form (LNG). This costs a fortune and is rather dangerous. If one of these tankers exploded, for instance, say goodbye not only to the port, but the surrounding city. Millions would be killed in an a-bomb-like explosion. Now, do you really think people want that docking downtown? And of course, shipping natural gas this way makes the cost soar. Figure it would cost at least as much as heating with electricity right now, probably considerably more. To transport natural gas safely and cost-effectively, you need a pipeline. A fairly short pipeline, at that. Even linking up with South American reserves would make it more costly than heating oil and electricity. And you can't run a pipeline from the Caucasus to North America.

Here's an article I just found that outlines some of the issues. It's fairly optimistic, though if you read between the lines -- this assumption that the US will be able to import more natural gas from Canada when needed, when we're already running low on it, is absurd, as is the glossing over of problems with waiting decades for LNG technology to catch up with demand -- the implications are frightening. Look at this comment here, for instance, from Daniel Yergin with Cambridge Energy Research Associates:

“In some ways, this is similar to what happened in the early 1970s in the oil market, when the U.S. went from importing a little oil to importing a lot of oil. But this time it is with a different set of suppliers and supply arrangements, and without the geopolitical overlay.” According to CERA, liquefied natural gas (LNG) could be providing as much as twenty percent of U.S. gas supplies by 2020 – compared to one percent today.

So, two decades of soaring prices? Two decades worth of 1973s? And, of course, LNG is wildly expensive, too, so there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. There aren't any guarantees that LNG will even shape up into something reliable by that point, either, as right now it's seen as a rather scary last resort. That could change, but one thing that won't is the skyrocketing prices. Even if LNG takes off, the prices for natural gas are only going to go up, up, up. And since most of North American is hooked on the stuff based on three decades of really cheap supply, it's going to really hammer the overall economy. Especially us poor bastards who just installed natural gas furnaces last spring. :-(

http://www.cera.com/news/details/1,1308,5656,00.html

[voltaic]

The coolest alternative energy source since sliced bread... or, uh, er something: GERMS! (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/09/08/new_fuel_cell_uses_germs_to_generate_electricity/)

I'm going to pirate and warez some text for the convenience of those who are interested:

"Scientists at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst announced yesterday that they have built a novel device that uses bacteria to turn garbage into electricity."

"As it has become clear that the world will need energy alternatives, some researchers have turned to the idea of finding new ways of releasing the enormous amount of energy trapped in plants and other organic matter. This is the idea behind ethanol, a fuel made from corn. But instead of using organic matter to make a fuel, the battery announced yesterday converts organic matter directly into electricity."

"The battery relies on a colony of tiny bacteria, called Rhodoferax ferrireducens, first brought up from underground by a research drill in Oyster Bay, Va. The bacterium is unusual because it is able to completely break down sugars without using oxygen. In its natural environment, the bacterium breaks down sugars for energy and deposits electrons on iron as a byproduct."

[Machfive]

We need more private investment into Thermal Depolymerization, or perhaps a buttload of federal investment. That'd certainly put less of a strain on our fossil fuels.

Turkey guts and garbage into sweet, viscuous oil. Mmmmm!

[Casper]

I heard somewhere, I have no source, and post so little that this is probably going to be overlooked by you guys trucking along, that for the cost of drilling in Alaska, you could make huge strides in the r&d for alternative fuels. That the money the gov gives to help research different sources of energy would pay off many times more than trying to find more sources of oil. A friend of mine who worked here (http://ortronicenergy.com/) told me how solar panel research, with just a fraction of the cost spent on importing/drilling for oil, could become competative enough to make the breakthrough into mainstream use.

The problem with this, that I can see, is that the people in control of the energy are the ones with all of the decision making power in terms of what kind of cars we buy and whether the US drills for oil or makes a war in the Middle East (not directly, of course), and so on. Very few people who run those kinds of companies will choose to let that power slip away into the hands of the consumer. If people all got their own power from the sun or from some renewable source, how could the people with the energy today still retain that kind of power? How could they make their proffit??

I think the change will either happen slowly, in a grass roots kind of way, or it will happen catastrophically, when something changes that no one expected and we HAVE to do something about it. The argument that it will destroy the world economy if we didn't depend on oil (I might be mixing the ideas of the thread) is doubtful. I seem to remember stories of auto manufacturers saying that safety regulations like seatbelts would destroy the industry. Did it? Ok, I think I've said enough now.

brian

[Jason McCullough]

Whoops, I stand corrected on LNG.

[Lizard_King]

Ah, yes. Right. If we only pick the factors we want to believe, it ain't ideological self-fulfillment.

You're starting to sound a little defensive, and on this issue you should be. America is one of the world's largest polluters, certainly on a per-capita level. LK, it's pretty clear that you can fuzz up the picture to promote your agenda, but history has pretty clearly shown that in the long run these kinds of negligence have heavy costs.
Is this the part where you give up the pretense of argument and focus entirely on how blinded the opposition is? I am moist with anticipation.


How much is the rest of the world going to put up with, when we're clearly using the lion's share of the resources?
Then. Stop. Selling. It. To. Us. Find someone else to buy your shit, and good luck with that. You can talk all you want about American trade practices, but the reason we get "the lion's share" is because we pay for it.


As the oceans and the earth's heat rise, what we will be the cost of having this country becoming the target of the world's anger? "But, but, but, I have credible scientists saying it isn't our fault!" isn't exactly the kind of rallying cry that goes into the history books.
OHNOS! We will be the focus of massively ignorant popular movements spurred by vaguely true but not remotely provably causal assertions. Please, say it isn't so...
People can make credible arguments for environmentally sound(er) policy. But as your above statement so clearly demonstrate, they are at least as likely to be a Trojan horse for yet another "Be Humble America, or Allah/Earth/Lenin's Mummified Corpse Will Consume You" screed.


Your belief system is well thought out, but your strategy seems to be simply based on muddying the waters at every opportunity. You've created a tuatology, and your libertarian wonderland works only when the cost in human lives and suffering are not factored into your equations. It creates nice round numbers, but it you may find that your profits won't cover the bill in the long term. I can easily imagine you as one of those people in the 50s arguing about the relatively benign effects of nuclear fallout, as you tell us the virtues of the nuclear powered lawn-mower in the latest copy of Popular Mechanics.

On one hand you argue that everything is driven by money, but on the other you refuse to acknowledge that those driven by long-term gains might actually have the higher returns.

Then show me these economically sound systems. They exist, and I've even seen some of them in action. But the public face of your side of the table is Kyoto and that absurd conference in Africa recently. That is the side with popular momentum, and they don't just want to encourage fuel cells. They want Americans on bicycles, OR ELSE. These are the angry masses you allude to above, and to yield to them would be folly in the extreme.

You talk about the value of human lives and suffering...how do you plan to improve their lot if no one purchases their products? Can you sincerely call yourself a humanist when you prize vague, unproven atmospheric threats over immediate and omnipresent standard of living questions?

The number one "cure" for overpopulation is a rise in standard of living. The most effective way to ensure a people give a damn about their environment is to make sure they have that luxury available to them through a higher standard of living. Now, you can go the European way, or the American way, or any number of variations on the free market depending on where your priorities lie. But you cannot project your economic problems on the US, as any number of poor countries are doing when they march under the environmentalist banner.

[Ben Sones]

Actually, we do exactly the opposite (http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/tax23_20030523.htm). Talk about mind boggling.

Well, yeah. Obviously that's a bad law, and needs to be amended to bring its function back in line with its intended purpose. But surely we can agree that there is a difference between a tax loophole and public policy? Especially since it's not like just any SUV owner can even take advantage of that loophole--only small business owners can claim the tax break. Even left the way it is, it's hardly a mass incentive for consumers to drive SUVs.


Ben, on its face coal, gas, and oil are cheaper than all the other sources out there. To some extent, though, that's because we don't count the pollution/global warming(whatever level) they produce as a cost; if you factor that in, the difference isn't as much.

Isn't it? I really don't know, from a purely economical standpoint. But that wasn't my point--quatoria was saying that the free market, left to its own devices, would already be using alternative fuels instead of fossil fuels. I don't think that's true, because as you say, "on its face coal, gas, and oil are cheaper than all the other sources out there." Consumers are driven by short term economic considerations, not nebulous long term costs. Environmental protection is a classic "free rider" dilemma that the free market is ill-equipped to deal with on its own.

[Andrew Mayer]

People can make credible arguments for environmentally sound(er) policy. But as your above statement so clearly demonstrate, they are at least as likely to be a Trojan horse for yet another "Be Humble America, or Allah/Earth/Lenin's Mummified Corpse Will Consume You" screed.
--------------
But the public face of your side of the table is Kyoto and that absurd conference in Africa recently. That is the side with popular momentum, and they don't just want to encourage fuel cells. They want Americans on bicycles, OR ELSE. These are the angry masses you allude to above, and to yield to them would be folly in the extreme.
--------------
Can you sincerely call yourself a humanist when you prize vague, unproven atmospheric threats over immediate and omnipresent standard of living questions?

Painting me with a broad brush and then arguing with the painting is a cute trick, but it's a diversion, not a rebuttal. I didn't say I was any of the things you listed, nor are they anything but wild exaggerations.

It's no secret to anyone willing to look that the WTO doesn't like to play fair, and it has no interest in raising up the standard of living for those who didn't aleady make it to the table.

Extremism on either end of the scale is bad, but I am not (and pay attention when I say this) advocating an extreme view on either end of the scale.

Shock! Gasp! But, but, I had you pigeonholed! Now I can't resort to tarring you with my "liberal" brush and making cracks when I feel I might be wrong!

Applying extremes to your own arguments produces the same kind of terrifying nonsense as unfettered liberalism. It's both sides in competition that drives society forward. You may be upset that I pick and choose instead of staying on my side of the fence, but that's not my problem.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, that's the problem with free markets: they can't exist in any meaningful sense without a government to enforce property rights, contract, etc. Per-fuel pollution taxes indexed to the amount of pollution/global warming they caused would be a fantastic idea, but absolutely no one other than economists favors 'em. Hell, you could make the whole thing revenue neutral - but nooooo, god forbid.

[bmulligan]

Painting me with a broad brush and then arguing with the painting is a cute trick, but it's a diversion, not a rebuttal. I didn't say I was any of the things you listed, nor are they anything but wild exaggerations.


This seems to be standard operating procedure for the 'open minded' clique here at QT3. First accuse your accuser of your own tactics, then label your adversaries as extremists while maintaing you are a moderate. Did you go to the Terry McCauliffe school of politics?


It's both sides in competition that drives society forward. You may be upset that I pick and choose instead of staying on my side of the fence, but that's not my problem.

Yeah, compitition drives our standard of living forward. Competition between individuals competing in a free society, unhindered by governmental control or favor. Did you mean competing extremism and liberalism, or government and citizens, or liberal and conservative? I'm not seing your picture here.

[bmulligan]

the problem with free markets: they can't exist in any meaningful sense without a government to enforce property rights, contract, etc.

Nice try jason, but the government's problem with free markets is that they don't get their cut. Of course we need government to mediate disputes and property rights -- that's the main function of government: to protect the individual.. Saying they can't exist in any meaningful sense without government is extreme hyperbole and purposeful mislabeling to invalidate the principle. It's blatantly wrong also. Trades between individuals need no government oversight when no one elses rights have been violated.

[Rywill]

Nice try jason, but the government's problem with free markets is that they don't get their cut. Of course we need government to mediate disputes and property rights -- that's the main function of government: to protect the individual.. Saying they can't exist in any meaningful sense without government is extreme hyperbole and purposeful mislabeling to invalidate the principle. It's blatantly wrong also. Trades between individuals need no government oversight when no one elses rights have been violated.
Come on, b. Your ideal might work for barter-style stuff-on-the-barrelhead trading, but modern trading society needs government in place to enforce contracts, issue money, etc.

[Rywill]

Per-fuel pollution taxes indexed to the amount of pollution/global warming they caused would be a fantastic idea, but absolutely no one other than economists favors 'em.
All of your solutions run into the same problem over and over. Who would decide how much pollution or global warming each fuel caused, and how? This is one of those ideas that sounds great in the abstract--everyone pays the amount it would cost to fix whatever damage they do--but is practically unworkable.

[XPav]

Come on, b. Your ideal might work for barter-style stuff-on-the-barrelhead trading, but modern trading society needs government in place to enforce contracts, issue money, etc.

http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

[bmulligan]

Come on, b. Your ideal might work for barter-style stuff-on-the-barrelhead trading, but modern trading society needs government in place to enforce contracts, issue money, etc.

Of course they do, they always have needed government to enforce not intrude, to mediate not infiltrate; to regulate, not confiscate. Jeesh, now I sound like fucking Jessie Jackson.........thanks a lot!

Don't private contracts and personal trading constitute the majority of commerce in the world? And when one side doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, governments role is to decide who is right. I've never argued against that although some would try to pin that label on me.

[Jason McCullough]

Even barter wouldn't work without government, as someone could just use a gun to take your stuff.

And the entirety of this argument is that everyone who pollutes imposes a cost on society, and they only bear a tiny fraction of that cost themselves; it's not like people would voluntarily buy catalytic convertors without a government mandate. It's a prisoner's dilemna - it only works out if everyone agrees/is forced to do it. Everyone benefits because the government effectively assigns the cost of pollution back to the person doing it.

Command-and-control regulation does so ineffeciently, however; just directly taxing pollution/warming lets people reduce those by whatever innovative means they want - driving less, inventing catalytic converters, telecommuting, gigantic carbon traps that suck it out of the air, you name it.



Per-fuel pollution taxes indexed to the amount of pollution/global warming they caused would be a fantastic idea, but absolutely no one other than economists favors 'em.
All of your solutions run into the same problem over and over. Who would decide how much pollution or global warming each fuel caused, and how? This is one of those ideas that sounds great in the abstract--everyone pays the amount it would cost to fix whatever damage they do--but is practically unworkable.

If its a carbon tax, whatever it takes per unit to mitigate the effects of that carbon in the atmosphere. Same thing per pollution.

We currently arrive at this price by the taxes that fund the EPA, the fines it levels out, and mandates on the level of pollution cars can produce/etc; it's just the taxation is extracted from car makers/consumers (, income tax (EPA funding), power plants (fines and pollution controls), and so on.

The short answer is "whatever level of taxation is necessary to raise enough revenue to mitigate global warming/clean up the environment to the level society desires." We don't charge at all for global warming costs right now, but we do for pollution, implicitly.

[Midnight Son]

Love that cartoon!

[bago]

Even barter wouldn't work without government, as someone could just use a gun to take your stuff.


What kind of an argument is that? I can tack it onto the end of any sentence and it would still be just as valid.


"I prefer the creme pie to the pumpkin, but I could still use a gun to take your stuff."

[bmulligan]

Yes, midnoght Son, you would love cartoons. I'm sure books with lots of pictures and talk ballons are a staple in your household. A comic parody would be much more easily grasped than an 1100 page monstrosity. With print so nefariously small, it would take years for it to integrate into your mallable faculty. Go see a michael moore film and pat yourself on the hiney!

[Rywill]

Love that cartoon!
The point of the book, IIRC, is that while the flower guy can till the soil if he has to, the folks in the burning city can't create new metal alloys. The flower guy would much rather everyone does whatever they like best/can do and otherwise leaves each other alone except through mutually consented bargains; but if the folks in the city refuse to do that, the flower guy is still better off tilling the soil than the other folks are in the burning city.

It's funny, the person who penned the cartoon has obviously never read the book. In the book, nobody is shocked when they have to grow their own food and make their own lunch. That was their plan all along--better to do it themselves than pay the extortion demanded by the burning-city folks. I've seen that response to Atlas Shrugged before--"You dummies! Who would build your mansions if you left society??"--and I never quite get it. The premise of the book is that the main characters would gladly give up their mansions in order to live free and, they hope, build a fairer society to replace the one that will surely collapse after they're gone.

[Midnight Son]

Yes, midnoght Son, you would love cartoons. I'm sure books with lots of pictures and talk ballons are a staple in your household. A comic parody would be much more easily grasped than an 1100 page monstrosity. With print so nefariously small, it would take years for it to integrate into your mallable faculty. Go see a michael moore film and pat yourself on the hiney!

So much hate! Damn that Rap Music!!

[Jason McCullough]

What about the part of the book where blowing up a public housing project is a moral act?

[Rywill]

Yeah, let's turn this into a massive debate over Atlas Shrugged.

[Midnight Son]

Yeah, let's turn this into a massive debate over Atlas Shrugged.

Let's not, there's enough cults of personality around...

[bmulligan]

What about the part of the book where blowing up a public housing project is a moral act?

Wrong book. Do you read comics too ?

[Ben Sones]

Per-fuel pollution taxes indexed to the amount of pollution/global warming they caused would be a fantastic idea, but absolutely no one other than economists favors 'em. Hell, you could make the whole thing revenue neutral - but nooooo, god forbid.

The problem with fuel taxes is that they are inflationary. I have a tough time believing that knowledgeable economists really support them. They also do little to address the fundamental problem, which is lack of alternatives. If you raise fuel prices but can't offer drivers an viable alternate mode of transportation, they'll just pay the higher fuel prices, and you've accomplished nothing aside from reducing taxpayer wealth. I think tax incentives to manufacture and buy fuel efficient or alternative energy cars is a better way to go.

[Gav]

If you raise fuel prices but can't offer drivers an viable alternate mode of transportation, they'll just pay the higher fuel prices, and you've accomplished nothing aside from reducing taxpayer wealth. I think tax incentives to manufacture and buy fuel efficient or alternative energy cars is a better way to go.

That's not really true, though. In Israel (I gather the same is true in Europe, but I've never lived there), frex, fuel is heavily taxed, and, as a result, almost everybody drives much smaller cars than they do here. The last time I was there (about a year ago) there was nary an SUV in sight.

Israel also taxes heavier cars at a higher rate, which I suppose counts as an incentive to buy a more fuel-efficient car, but all cars are so astronomically expensive that the difference works out to be more-or-less negligible.

Gav

[Mark Asher]

Back in the 70's the first oil embargo produced a big movement by consumers towards smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. I think the government hopped on board with a lot of regulatory incentives to boost the small car market too.

The desire for behemoths like these SUVs seems odd to me, but that's probably because I've been in mini-vans for the last 15 years because I have a bunch of kids to haul around. I'd love a tiny car that got 40 miles to the gallon, but it's never practical for us to get a car that can't hold six people.

Bush et al should be doing what they can to push people to use less gasoline. I doubt they'll do that, though.

[Midnight Son]

The auto industry is highly profitable due to SUV's. Right now, it's politically impossible to regulate "light trucks" which is what they are classified as. Now, when the inevitable happens and the oil costs more and more....

[Jason McCullough]

Per-fuel pollution taxes indexed to the amount of pollution/global warming they caused would be a fantastic idea, but absolutely no one other than economists favors 'em. Hell, you could make the whole thing revenue neutral - but nooooo, god forbid.

The problem with fuel taxes is that they are inflationary. I have a tough time believing that knowledgeable economists really support them. They also do little to address the fundamental problem, which is lack of alternatives. If you raise fuel prices but can't offer drivers an viable alternate mode of transportation, they'll just pay the higher fuel prices, and you've accomplished nothing aside from reducing taxpayer wealth. I think tax incentives to manufacture and buy fuel efficient or alternative energy cars is a better way to go.

Wha? How are fuel taxes inflationary?

On carbon/pollution taxes: here (http://phoenix.liunet.edu/~uroy/externalities/cap-n-trade-TE.htm).

A tradable market (http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/acidrain/) in acid-rain causing pollution is what brought that back under control back in the 1980s.

And over the short-run, yes, you don't change pollution outputs; oil consumption and the like is extremely inelastic in the shortrun. Over the long run, though, people figure out how to economize on the production of carbon (what you're taxing).

The problem with tax incentives for fuel-efficient cars is that it doesn't work as well; detroit just sells an equal number of ever-more wildly inefficient cars to make up for it. That also only deals with cars, when cars don't produce the majority of it.

[Chris Nahr]

I think tax incentives to manufacture and buy fuel efficient or alternative energy cars is a better way to go.

What could possibly be a better tax incentive for higher fuel efficiency than a fuel tax?

[Ben Sones]

That's not really true, though. In Israel (I gather the same is true in Europe, but I've never lived there), frex, fuel is heavily taxed, and, as a result, almost everybody drives much smaller cars than they do here. The last time I was there (about a year ago) there was nary an SUV in sight.


What could possibly be a better tax incentive for higher fuel efficiency than a fuel tax?

If that were the only effect that high fuel taxes would have, then I might agree. But high fuel prices adds to the overhead costs of shipping goods (more of a factor in the US than in Israel, which is much smaller), and that sparks inflation. Why trash the economy if there is an alternative method available for encouraging people to conserve?

[Jason McCullough]

Ben, that sparks inflation only if the Federal reserve somehow completely ignores it.

[Ben Sones]

The Federal Reserve has limited means of controlling this type of inflation. This isn't a case of too many dollars chasing too few goods--the rise in commodity prices is artificial and spurred by taxation, not an increase in demand.

[Midnight Son]

I'm having an eerie flashback to Economics 101!

[Jason McCullough]

Ben, the fed can do what it always does, raise interest rates. I'm not following how its different from any other tax.

[Rywill]

I'm having an eerie flashback to Economics 101!
As if you ever took Economics 101.

(Warning! Sniper!)

[Midnight Son]

Hey, I TOOK it. I just don't remember it!

[Ben Sones]

Ben, the fed can do what it always does, raise interest rates. I'm not following how its different from any other tax.

I'm sure that somehow "raise taxes and raise interest rates!" is a perfect cure for all economic woes in Jasonland, but here in the real world, the Fed is trying to jump start some sort of economic recovery. Inflation and rising interest rates are most definitely not what the economy needs.

[Jason McCullough]

Where did I say I'd impose it all at once, right now, in the middle of a recession? You phase it in over ten or twenty years.

[Ben Sones]

Well, pardon me for saying so, but that sounds like a really ineffective method for promoting conservation. Why not skip the whole inflationary, ten-to-twenty year approach and just give people better tax incentives on fuel-efficient and alternative fuel cars right now?

[Machfive]

Well, pardon me for saying so, but that sounds like a really ineffective method for promoting conservation. Why not skip the whole inflationary, ten-to-twenty year approach and just give people better tax incentives on fuel-efficient and alternative fuel cars right now?

Agreed. Modify that SUV Tax loophole to include fuel-cell vehicles so small business has a greater incentive to snap them up.

I'd also like to see some more diesels, ESPECIALLY turbo diesels. Am I weird because the word "turbo diesel" makes my naughty parts tingle?

[Ben Sones]

Yeah, diesel cars are very much underappreciated in America. I'm not really sure why--modern diesel cars get insane mileage and have very low greenhouse emissions. It's a time-tested alternative fuel that is available right now, but Americans just don't seem ineterested.

[XPav]

Yeah, diesel cars are very much underappreciated in America. I'm not really sure why--modern diesel cars get insane mileage and have very low greenhouse emissions. It's a time-tested alternative fuel that is available right now, but Americans just don't seem ineterested.

Its a marketing problem. "Diesel" brings to mind smoky smelly 18 wheelers.

[Machfive]

Then get some marketing bloodsuckers on it. Make them do their jobs and do some GOOD to this world instead of the shit they normally peddle.

Bill Hicks had marketers pegged.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, pardon me for saying so, but that sounds like a really ineffective method for promoting conservation. Why not skip the whole inflationary, ten-to-twenty year approach and just give people better tax incentives on fuel-efficient and alternative fuel cars right now?

Because so far all that's done is result in segmenting the market into ever-less and ever-more polluting cars? Providing tax incentives to a specific tech solution also is a lot more distortionary; remember those Arizonas converting their trucks to dual-use natural gas (which they proceeded to not use) for the tax break?

[Ben Sones]

Jason, sometimes I think you argue just for the sake of being contrary.

[Brad Grenz]

Ya think?

[Chris Nahr]

Yeah, diesel cars are very much underappreciated in America. I'm not really sure why--modern diesel cars get insane mileage and have very low greenhouse emissions. It's a time-tested alternative fuel that is available right now, but Americans just don't seem ineterested.

Diesel engines were promoted heavily in Germany during the last 20 years for just these reasons, and as a result there are plenty of diesel powered sedans here. However, the tax incentives for diesel fuel are now gradually being phased out. For one thiing, the government needs more money; but diesel apparently isn't all that clean either. Diesel engines currently produce more carcinogenic soot particles (17-18 times as much) and more nitrogen oxids than Otto engines. German link with some data & quotes (http://www.chemienet.info/8-auto2.html)

And this German institute (http://www.upi-institut.de/dieselmo.htm) claims the production and consumption of Diesel fuel actually creates 13% more CO2 per liter than Otto fuel -- it's just the better mileage that drives down the total CO2 output.

[Midnight Son]

Taking the really long term view.... whatcha gonna do when the oil finally runs out? Better have some alternatives ready, eh? Or am I being unreasonable again?

[ydejin]

Taking the really long term view.... whatcha gonna do when the oil finally runs out? Better have some alternatives ready, eh? Or am I being unreasonable again?

That's true, and when I was going to school 20 some odd years ago, running out of oil was a very active area of concern. However, all the reports I've seen recently suggest that we will be using another type of fuel (e.g., fuel cells) long before we run out of oil. Among other things, due to improvements in technology the estimated size of the world's oil reserves is apparently larger now than it was 20-years ago (in spite of the fact that we've been consuming large amounts of oil in those 20 years). We've improved both our ability to find oil and our ability to get more oil out of existing wells.

I would say at this point the bigger concerns are polution and how our oil consumption is effecting our foreign policy. Running out of oil no longer seems to be a major concern of either the energy or environmental communities.

[Midnight Son]

You have to take a really long term approach. How long will the reserves last? Any good estimates? Much more needs to be done to develop alternatives and it should be done now.

[James Gutierrez]

You have to take a really long term approach. How long will the reserves last? Any good estimates? Much more needs to be done to develop alternatives and it should be done now.

The problem, as ydejin pointed out, is that any current estimate of how long reserves will last is just as likely to be wildly wrong as the best estimates of 20 years ago have turned out to be.

[Midnight Son]

The problem, as ydejin pointed out, is that any current estimate of how long reserves will last is just as likely to be wildly wrong as the best estimates of 20 years ago have turned out to be.

I guess my point is that we don't know and so we should plan accordingly and put more emphasis on researching alternatives now.

[Jason McCullough]

Taking the really long term view.... whatcha gonna do when the oil finally runs out? Better have some alternatives ready, eh? Or am I being unreasonable again?

Well, we can melt down the Rockies for shale oil. I imagine by then we'll just have massive solar complexes/fusion and stuff.


Jason, sometimes I think you argue just for the sake of being contrary.

No I don't! :D

[Midnight Son]

We'll be driving "Intelligent Design" vehicles!! :lol:

(Ducks for cover!)

[bago]

Taking the really long term view.... whatcha gonna do when the oil finally runs out? Better have some alternatives ready, eh? Or am I being unreasonable again?


Yeah, that's why they had all those oat taxes and research grants to ford back in the early 1900, so that they could get alternate transportation systems off the ground. Ford could have hardly gotten by without those government mandated programs.

[Midnight Son]

Riiiiight, somebody needs to break up the "Standard Hydrogen" cartel.