Alex Knapp has an excellent post on the silliness of comparing a one-time nuclear explosion to global warming:
First of all, I’m relatively certain that the coral at the atoll are not the same coral that died in the nuclear testing.Second, let’s not forget that the nuclear explosion was a very quick, one-time event. On the other hand, increasing average atmospheric and ocean temperatures is something that is happening over time and lasts much longer. The comparison here is like arguing that The Godfather is unrealistic because Don Corleone couldn’t possibly have died from the increasing cholesterol in his body leading to a heart attack. After all, he had been shot six times and survived!
Third, anyone who is familiar with the impact of pollution on coral reefs knows that the primary concern about carbon dioxide with respect to the reefs is not about temperature and climate change, but rather that increasing CO2 emissions are causing the oceans to become more acidic, which has the potential to cause coral reefs to simply dissolve.
The good news is that the debate has shifted from "No it's not!" "Yes it is!" to the more constructive area of arguing costs and benefits. The bad news is that the same people who clung for too long to the assertion that global warming was not happening are now trying to downplay the costs. The worse news is that their counterparts on the other side are just as determined to downplay the costs of abatement. Meanwhile people like Sir Nicholas Stern seem to tackle a thorny philosophical problem by starting with the answer and working back to the question that produces it. And global greenhouse emissions roar upwards still.
The best proposal I've heard is to impose a carbon tax and offset that with other tax cuts. I don't know of any good objection to such a policy. It would have environmental and economic benefits, if the tax cuts were well chosen.
Yet it is not being considered by policymakers. Instead they talk about CAFE standards, ethanol subsidies and other "solutions" that would be much less efficient than my own favored one.
rwe,
Maybe because the goal is not less C02 (through taxation to limit demand), but more revenue. Your system would not increase tax revenue by 25, 50, or 100%...
I have yet to see any policy proposal that shows what they will do with -all- of the extra tax revenue to solve the problem.
Taxing to limit demand will have some effect on the margins, but I don't see it slowing demand too much as some people hope. Europe pays nearly $10 per gallon of gas and they still drive, a lot.
Less than us, but their nations are smaller and connected more by public transportation. That's not as feasible here in the US and many other countries in the world.
Well the purpose of a carbon tax isn't necessarily to limit demand; it's to internalize the various negative externalities into the price of oil (which would then trickle over to the prices of anything that depended on the price of oil).
Unfortunately, a US carbon tax only covers the US, which makes it a little less than ideal, since we all share the same atmosphere.
If gasoline is expensive enough, transportation that doesn't require gasoline becomes competitive. This is undeniable. Hell, the Indian automaker, Tata, is about to start full scale production on a minivan which has a range of 125 miles on a tank of compressed air. Those of us who favor consumption taxes over taxing jobs should take this opportunity to institute, via constitutional amendment, a wage floor and wage ceiling for FICA taxes, with a giant whopping emiited carbon tax which would perhaps translate into, I dunno, $15/gallon at the pump.
I haven't run any numbers, so this is just off the top of my head, but the notion that no level of taxation will greatly alter petroleum consumption in the U.S. is just false. The key would be to make the change via the Amendment process, which would prevent this from being turned into a giant net tax increase. If the people who are most alarmed by global warming mean what they say, they should find this proposal acceptable. Time to call their bluff.
Right. I mean if the concern with global warming is that we thought it literally threatened to end life on this planet, well, we wouldn't have a problem. The danger from global warming is that it threatens human life as we know it-- there are potentially disastrous consequences for how we live now. I don't know anyone who considers themselves an environmentalist but sees the environment as a positive-sum game where, even if current forms of life are disrupted or ended, there's still some kind of life, so no big deal....
The US is already doing better than Europe on greenhouse gas emissions. I'd like to see some other countries set up to the plate and make some progress before we go much further. I see no reason to spend a lot of our resources on global warming abatement if China and India are going to overwhelm any benefit we provide by massively increasing their own production.
If we could make a noticeable impact on our own, I'd be more interested. But from what I've seen, we won't make much difference unless we drastically reduce worldwide CO2 output. The US making marginal changes will do zilch for changing global warming outcomes.
We should continue to research new and better ways to generate energy and continue to improve the efficiency of our current systems. We really need to streamline the process for building new nuclear power plants. If we put economic incentives in place but leave the regulatory hurdles, then we've just created more work for nothing.
Also, our current industrial upgrade policies are counter productive. By requiring plants to go all or nothing, we end up with nothing instead of something. We need to allow for incremental upgrades of chemical and industrial plants so that they will be more willing to make improvements.
EI, a changeover from greatly taxing jobs, to greatly taxing consumption, would benefit the citizenry, no matter what the rest of he world did. That is why an alliance should be formed with those most alarmed by global warming.
Global warming histrionics has also led some to believe we are emitting global greenhouses. *sniff*
My guess is that there's a vast number of people who fall into neither the "Yes it is" nor the "No it isn't" camp. These folks are skeptical of both sides, but mostly of whichever is noisiest at any given moment.
Before the science can rationally be conceived as "settled" on global warming, we would have to understand weather and climate enough to forecast either with demonstrable accuracy beyond a three-day timeframe. And before we could even do this much, we'd have to have a system of temperature and weather measurement that is indisputable.
As none of these conditions are met now or can be met in the next several decades, all political activities to combat global warming can only be understood as political shell games and showmanship, with traditional interest groups vying for any policy that yields them the greatest benefit by locking out competitors or thwarting substitution. *sneeze*
"the same people who clung for too long to the assertion that global warming was not happening": but, hold on, aren't they now right? I understand that the last 8 or 9 years show no warming (as judged by the rather poor measurements that are pressed into service for this whole fandango).
I think Will Allen has it right. My understanding is that, in the long run, the price elasticity of demand for gasoline is significant. The rise in oil prices 40 years ago had a substantial effect on consumption.
And more recently, the sales of the most gas-guzzling SUV's have been dropping, as consumers respond to higher prices by buying more fuel-efficient cars. Many have also been using mass transit rather than driving.
It might be Sam's goal to maximize government revenue, but that certainly isn't my goal. I don't want the government to get bigger, but I do want it to address pollution and climate change in an efficient way.
And the most efficient way would be to impose Pigovian taxes, which are not distorting, and reduce taxes that do cause significant economic distortion. Conservatives worried about growing government and liberals worried the regressivity of the tax system can all rest easy. A carbon tax combined with a payroll tax cut could be structured so as to leave both government revenue and the progressivity of the tax code unchanged.
The imposition of a carbon tax would also have significant national security and foreign policy benefits. It would help to reduce our dependence on Arabian oil, and also buy us some good will among our allies (many of whom have been alarmed by the Bush administration's intransigence on environmental questions).
So this is a rational solution to a serious--if not quite apocalyptic--problem.
And global greenhouse emissions roar upwards still.
Yet, oddly, global temperatures don't.
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/04/bbc_under_fire.html
Given that Earth's temperatures threaten to climb like Al Gore's Gulfstream, I make this humble promise:
I shall emit less carbon than Al Gore, Richard Branson, the Google jet, etc.
I shall constrain myself to a life of modesty, of merely smaller private resorts and merely mid-sized private jets. I shall own less luxury condos and have less private ranches.
Americans, please join me in this quest for austerity.
It's for the children. The children are the future. Our future. Of hope! And change!
I'm with the carbon taxers here, too -- assuming we will do something to cut CO2 output. The cap-and-trade system Europe imposed turned into an instant farce as the most powerful energy lobbies landed massive indulgences, er, rents for their efforts. I wish one or the other presidential candidate would denounce cap-and-trade for CO2 in favor of a carbon tax.
Another benefit claimed for the carbon tax is that it does not make it advantageous for carbon emitters to offshore production and put the US economy at a competitive disadvantage trade-wise.
Hell, with a little luck and some serious political skill, one could introduce means testing for social security benefits, on the wealthiest recipients; "What's more important; cutting government checks to people with 10 million in the bank, or saving the planet!!!!!"
So just whom is going to advocate for $15 gas? The Democrats are bashing Bush right now because gas has tripled to $3.45/gal. How many votes do you think advocating $15/gal. gas is going to win?
Oh, I forgot, Pres. Obama is going to change the climate in Washington and will, with his charisma and rhetorical skills, convince a majority of senators and congressmen that $15 gas is what the U.S. needs. Better we concentrate on the possibles than on the impossibles.
IIRC, China just passed the US as top emitter, and they still have a very large portion of their country to bring into the realm of economic modernity. All of this will require a continued massive energy buildout, very likely driven predominantly by fossil fuels for the indefinite future.
So unless someone has a practical idea for bringing China into the emissions reduction fold, all of the proposals for inducing suffering amongst the US population are rapidly descending into the realm of puking on a burning barn. And this is assuming the burning barn is actually a problem, which as the latest problems with temperature measurmenets demonstrate, is by no means settled.
Creech, a very skilled skilled proponent of consumption taxes over taxing jobs could back those who use the most alarming rhetoric about global warming into a corner, and thus force them to reveal themselves to be frauds, or sign onto beginning the changeover to consumption taxes.
There are lots of people who have a pretty good idea of what number appears in the box labeled "FICA" on their paystub every two weeks, and that changing that number to a big fat zero would mean that they would have more control over how much their after tax income would be, especially given a phase-in period in which petroleum consumption patterns could be altered. Would this likely mean that revenues would fall short of projections? Sure. Sounds like a benefit to me.
Will Allen: I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty sure they're not getting 125 miles storing energy as a compressed gas. Liquid propane or compressed hydrogen, maybe?
At any rate, as I think Megan pointed out a year or so ago, we've demonstrated by experiment that raising gas prices pretty radically (I think we've more than doubled the prices since 9/11) doesn't cause a quick drop off of greenhouse gasses. It may cause a slow drop off, as people buy more fuel efficient cars and buy homes closer to their jobs or push for the ability to work remotely a few days per week, but I don't think anyone knows for sure.
There is a nice discussion of what produces which greenhouse gasses at Depleted Cranium (http://depletedcranium.com/?p=383); I think that puts a lot of policies and projects allegedly about limiting global warming in perspective.
albatross, a doubling in seven years is steep, but not hugely so.
Google "tata compressed air" and see for yourself.
I love how Megan's blog brings out the climate change deniers who then as proof, link to blog that doesn't actually offer any evidence that global climate change doesn't exist. Powerful argument that.
BSD
Global climate change is, by definition, a global issue. It is not amenable to local, state, regional, national or even multi-national solutions. Anything less than a global solution is doomed to failure.
China commissioned 90 GW of new coal-fired generation, without sequestration, in 2006. That is roughly equivalent to 10% of the total US generating fleet; and, to roughly 20% of the US coal-fired fleet. That means that, even if the US had decommissioned 20% of its coal-fired generating fleet in 2006, all else being equal, total global CO2 emissions would have remained unchanged, though they would certainly have been less than they would otherwise have been.
I do not believe an informed US electorate would be very interested in paying more for their energy to offset the increased CO2 emissions in China; or, paying more for their energy to achieve a reduction in CO2 emissions to reduce/prevent AGW if no actual reduction in absolute global emissions actually occurred. Of course, if we remain uninformed, then I guess the politicians would think it was OK.
Serious Problem? Un-Serious "Solutions"! Politics as usual.
If the vessel to which you are adding something already contains more of that something than is desirable, continuing to add that something more slowly will not resolve the issue. If the vessel is a common vessel and others are also adding that something to the vessel, even if you and/or one or more of the others stops adding that something to the vessel while others do not stop, your actions will not resolve the issue. Once everyone stops adding that something to the common vessel, it may become possible (and perhaps practical) to begin removing a portion of that something from the common vessel to achieve the "ideal" vessel content.
The statement above is the inescapable reality of the anthropogenic global warming issue, if you believe: that AGW is occurring; and, that the "ideal" global average temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration have been exceeded; and, that it is essential to return to the “ideal”. If you accept the logic, the ultimate global carbon emissions "cap" must approach zero asymptotically, or the carbon tax must be large enough to force carbon emissions to approach zero asymptotically.
The statement above is the inescapable reality of the anthropogenic global warming issue, if you believe: that AGW is occurring; and, that the "ideal" global average temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration have been exceeded; and, that it is essential to return to the “ideal”. If you accept the logic, the ultimate global carbon emissions "cap" must approach zero asymptotically, or the carbon tax must be large enough to force carbon emissions to approach zero asymptotically.
Or, you could posit the existance of biomass.
I agree with others that carbon tax, while it may happen, will not prevent free-riders and thus will ultimately result in other nations getting their oil or coal cheaper, not a significant decrease in emissions.
The social and political conditions needed for all the significant powers in the globe to rally together around agreed upon data and attack the problem intelligently... well... I don't see those conditions ever occurring.
So the only way out is through. Abatement, rather than prevention. Maybe fusion finally works. Maybe people just start building more fission. Maybe we start farming in Siberia.
You can argue all day about which hypothetical solution would be best, and how much it would cost, but I don't believe it's gonna happen. Your time and effort would be better spent on figuring out how to live prosperously in a 2020 where emissions have continued to rise.
...; or, you could merely be intentionally obtuse.
Geoff,
There is no point in our reducing or eliminating our emissions, if everyone else is not also doing so, unless it is to our unique advantage.
I prefer to focus on energy independence, which could be to our unique advantage. That might coincidentally result in reduced carbon emissions as we moved away from imported oil for independence reasons. Advanced nuclear generation might also replace coal-fired generation for economic reasons.
Brian, I take it you're referring to me. I don't deny that climate change exists, now or at any time in the past. I just don't pretend to know why, and I'm neither a denier nor a committed believer in that regard. One thing the link shows is that techniques of propaganda are in play, and evidently not just on the denier side.
As I read that and other sources, there's been an pause in observed warming without a corresponding pause in greenhouse gas emissions. I certainly agree that doesn't prove (or disprove) anything about AGW, but I still found it surprising and contrary to what I at least thought was widespread belief. Maybe it's an anomaly (it's only been a few years), maybe it's bad data collection, or maybe it's significant; maybe AGW theory predicted it, maybe it's a wrench in the AGW works. Or possibly it's just more and cleverer propaganda from Exxon. If you've been following more closely than me and can shed any light on those issues, I will be most appreciative. But if you think data that fall short of disproof should be disregarded as unimportant, then yes, I'm not as far down that road as you are.
The most plausible government steps to mitigate global warming a carbon tax or a cap and trade system) should be net benefits as they displace other forms of taxation.
And we are doing nothing now.
And yet Megan finds all sides to blame, with those understating the costs of reducing carbon emissions as the "worse" party. The risks of government overacting and taxing carbon too much are paltry compared to the risks of the government doing nothing.
Tom
The most plausible government steps to mitigate global warming (a carbon tax or a cap and trade system) should be net benefits as they displace other forms of taxation.
And we are doing nothing now.
And yet Megan finds all sides to blame, with those understating the costs of reducing carbon emissions as the "worse" party. The risks of government overacting and taxing carbon too much are paltry compared to the risks of the government doing nothing.
Tom
Aargh - sorry for the double post.
Tom G.,
"The most plausible government steps to mitigate global warming a carbon tax or a cap and trade system) should be net benefits as they displace other forms of taxation."
Do you still believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Great Pumpkin as well?
Ed Reid,
When all you have to offer is a childish taunt, it's hard to know how to respond.
Why do you belief a carbon tax is more harmful than an income tax? Carbon has negative externalities - we should tax it. Working has positive externalities - we should encourage it. Do you believe it is somehow impossible to tax one thing more and another less? If so, why?
For a longer argument, try here .
So, I'll put the ball back in your court. Can you can offer something beyond childish taunts?
Tom
Tom G.,
While it is possible to tax one thing more and another less, it is highly unlikely that we would see a revenue neutral shift from either the income tax or the SS and Medicare taxes to a carbon tax. We would just see additional taxes.
AGW theory suggests that carbon has negative externalities. Agricultural research data demonstrates that carbon has positive externalities. The AGW theory PROJECTS that carbon's negative externalities might be greater than its demonstrated positive externalities.
The constitutional purpose of taxation is to fund the legitimate activities of government, not to modify behavior.
Taxing carbon emissions in the US, while ignoring carbon emissions in China and India, among others, would not reduce global carbon emissions, though it would slightly reduce the rate of increase of global carbon emissions. See my earlier posts above.
"The good news is that the debate has shifted from "No it's not!" "Yes it is!"
I thought the "Yes it is!" crowd back peddled as the temperature has not increased in the last ten years and we went from 'global warming' to 'climate change'.
I think we're also past the CO2 peak of hysteria as well, as evidence gathers that it is a lagging indicator.
Bob Carter talking about climate change
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU
It's my guess that Bob Carter isn't that far from the
median opinion of scientists which, somehow, we almost
never hear. As to why we don't hear it; I don't know,
I really don't understand why the media is the way it
is. But, boy, they have an agenda.
What I'm about to say next has nothing to do with Carter
and is simply my own opinion.
The phrase "climate change" is used in two senses, and
the two have got a bit confused and unfortunately the
distinction is significant. The first meaning is a reference
to a literal change in the climate without regard to
what is causing it. The second is a shorthand, a kind
of code, for the hypothesis that increasing CO2 will
significantly increase global temperatures.
If one is thinking in terms of the first sense then
it makes sense to track and pay attention to measured
temperatures. After all that's what it's about. If
one is concerned about the second subject though then
what is happening to the global temperature is kind of
irrelevant when it comes to looking for evidence for
the proposition.
The reason it's almost irrelevant is that we have
no idea what global temperatures would be doing if we
had not increased CO2 levels by 30%, as we so far have.
With no knowledge of what the temperature would be in it's
absence, almost nothing can be deduced by looking at
temperature rises and falls.
We know, from looking at temperature proxies, like tree
rings or layers of sediment on the bottom of the ocean,
that it's normal for the global climate to change. There
is nothing detectably unusual about the changes we see now.
Instead the evidence for "climate change" in the second
sense, the shorthand for the CO2 induced global warming,
is completely and entirely based on the climate models.
If you want to understand the arguments pro and con for
what degree of effect is expected you have to understand
the climate models themselves and their weaknesses.
This is unfortunate because the general public has little
chance of understanding the climate models and their strengths
and weaknesses, and indeed it wouldn't surprise me if
none of the commenters above, who are probably unusually
well informed, have any significant understanding of climate
modeling at all.
It's hard to find an informed discussion of the methods
of climatic modeling.
A different topic: How do we move to a carbon-neutral
energy source?
A. Make a list of every plausible candidate for generating
energy that does not emit carbon dioxide.
B. For each candidate identify as many intermediate subgoals
on the path of that candidate becoming a practical technology
as possible.
C. Assign a dollar value to each subgoal to be paid out to
the first company, institution, or individual to achieve it.
D. Declare that all patents can be ignored as long as they are
being violated in this context. In other words everyone is
free to copy any idea and any technology without regard to
ownership as long as it is being used to develop carbon-neutral
energy.
Do all four of these things and do them well and within a decade
we'll have at least one real, practical solution and probably
more than one.
This is a positive approach rather a negative approach. It rewards
people rather than punishing them. And it does not require the
cooperation of China, India, or Europe.
It will cost real money but compared to the carbon tax approach
this costs almost nothing. Best of all it would actually achieve
the desired result.
But, yet, in spite modern economic models unable to predict the stock market beyond three days or so, predictions that the costs of CO2 abatement will be prohibitive are taken at face value, without dispute.
Funny, that. (Incidentally, the climate models in use today have an accuracy window of about 2000 years. Is that long enough to settle it?)
Chet,
The investment required to replace all current US fossil fuel consumption with non-emitting, commercially available technology is known or knowable. My calculations show a range of $10-40 trillion for the US, depending on whether the trial lawyers and environmental activists are allowed to delay the process interminably ($40 trillion), or the process is allowed to move forward efficiently and effectively ($10 trillion). That puts the global investment at $40-100 trillion. (NOTE: There is no point in the US reducing carbon emissions if everyone else does not do so as well.) The plan and investment calculation is available for review here:
http://www.utilitiesproject.com/documents.asp?grID=111&d_ID=4296 (registration required, but free).
The investment required to replace all current US fossil fuel consumption with non-emitting, commercially available technology is known or knowable.
The looming caveat there is "commercially available"; there's every reason to believe that a massive expansion of the market demand for low-carbon technologies would lead to the commercial availability of currently-unavailable technologies, as well as the development of technologies we've never even heard of, yet.
Such a market might very well create more wealth, more jobs, etc. than it actually drains from the economy - like basically any other growth industry.
The simple fact is that the same people who reject sound climate science with demands for an impossible burden of proof are the same people who promote economic doomsaying on the basis of no proof whatsoever.
(NOTE: There is no point in the US reducing carbon emissions if everyone else does not do so as well.)
Patently stupid.
And so breaking windows might improve the economy by giving more work to window repairmen and window producers... oh, wait, no it doesn't.
An artificially induced market for "green" energy sources might suck money away from other areas of the economy that would advance our technology or capabilities instead of replacing existing power sources with new ones that produce the same amount of power, only more expensively.
And again, if the world doesn't jump on board, then it doesn't really matter what the US does. That's not patently stupid. What's patently stupid is spending trillions of dollars to "greenify" our energy generation system while China, India, etc... continue to flood the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses as they expand their economies like crazy... oh, and expand it with businesses that move from the US to their less restrictive envorinments. And the greenhouse gas emissions would not be improved noticeably.
Funny, that. I don't recall computers existing for 2,000 years, much less climate models. How the heck do we know how accurate they are? Don't tell me that they accurately predict the past since we don't actually know exactly what the climate was like or the atmosphere was like 2,000 years ago... we may be able to guess, but we can't know exactly what it was like.