June 18, 2004
KYOTO NO NO
The Kyoto Protocol is struggling to take hold. Mostly in Kyoto:
Seven years after hosting the Kyoto Protocol conference and pledging to cut greenhouse gas emissions 6 percent by 2012, Japan finds itself in the embarrassing position of having increased levels of emissions and being uncertain over what to do about it.
Step one: don’t hold any more Kyoto Protocol conferences.
Posted by Tim Blair at June 18, 2004 05:34 AMIts a no-brainer Japan - fire up a couple more of those nuke reactors and everything is sweet. While you are at it send a couple down this way as well.
Posted by: Rob at June 18, 2004 at 08:17 AMThis Kyoto thing is getting funnier by the minute.
In the meantime, our two esteemed Senators Lieberman and McCain ( who else) are about to entangle American economy in so called "Kyoto Lite".
It is my strong belief that we Americans are getting collectively insane.
Yeah, because politicians and bloggers know about climate science better than the vast majority of climate scientists...
Posted by: t at June 18, 2004 at 10:53 AMand so-called climate scientists know much about climate? These are the guys who were predicting another ice age in the 70s...
Posted by: Art Vandelay at June 18, 2004 at 11:00 AMHow many of them predicted that?
There is a global consensus that climate change is happening. Tools have improved and there is a vast quantity of empirical evidence showing that the *rate* of climate change over the previous two decades far outstrips anything else we've seen.
Risk = Chance of problem * Consequences
I'd say climate change is pretty damn risky.
Posted by: t at June 18, 2004 at 11:05 AMOf course, "t", nothing can be inferred about the worth of the Kyoto protocols from the fact that "climate change is happening", which I'm sure you realize. (You do, right?)
Primarily because your "vast majority" of scientists don't actually all agree on the answer to the important question, which isn't whether climate change is happening, but what its consequences will be. They never have agreed on that. Hence Art's allusion to the fact that the 1970's bogeyman was global cooling, while 20 years later it was suddenly global warming (both often touted by the same "scientists", no less).
Posted by: PW at June 18, 2004 at 11:15 AMt:
Hint: "The Day After Tomorrow" is a movie, not a documentary.
But if you really want to be scared, familiarize yourself with potential effects of a comet such as Shoemaker-Levi hitting Earth instead of Jupiter. Or lovely consequences of the switch in Earth polarity, which is, according to scientific consensus, already overdue.
PS There is nothing like a universal consensus among the climate scientist regarding effects or a pace of global warming, despite what you read in NYT. None of the currently used models were capable of predicting accurately today’s Earth temperatures when data from last 20 years was plugged to them. And small wonder: when you do not include water vapor, an absolutely critical element in climate prediction, in your models, you are not getting anything near real prediction.
But who would like to lose all those lovely grants….
Posted by: Katherine at June 18, 2004 at 11:27 AMt
Yes, climate change is happening - it has always been happening. What has not been proven is whether or not climate change is:
a. going to be significantly different from what it othewise would have been.
b. are the effects really going to be that bad. If some of the forecasts are correct it may be a good thing - like a warmer Siberia, for example.
c. are the costs of preventing it worth it - it may be cheaper to just cope with it (like humans always have). Because a cheaper solution means the majority will be better off.
Finally, t, answer me this if you will, how is the Kyoto protocol going to reduce/fix the Asian Brown Cloud (you are aware of that little thing aren't you?)? Because that seems to be about the biggest atmospheric problem the Earth is facing at the moment.
Thanks for the info Mr. Blair.
I truely relish the continuing implosion of junk science's marriage to socialism.
Posted by: Rtfm at June 18, 2004 at 11:54 AMHere's a tip, a consensus does not make good science!
It really gets my goat when people quote that the majority of climatologists agree that climate change is happening becaus of CO2 emissions. There was a widespread consensus in the middle ages, by experts of the day, that the black plague was caused by demons, to say otherwise was heresy.
Do you see a pattern here?
Another thing, is it just me or has anyone else noticed the subtle change in nomenclature for what was once commonly called 'global warming' is now given the non-specific term 'climate change'? Do you reckon the greenies are trying to cover themselves for all possible outcomes, so when the climate does change, as it has always done and will continue to do, they can blame fossil fuel use.
Posted by: Antipodean at June 18, 2004 at 12:09 PMT
Some of us are scientists and post to blogs as well. What's your excuse?
t,
1) Scientific truth is not determined by a show of hands.
2) Climate models are not science
3) Kyoto, even if fully implemented, will make no difference to world climate
t, the Kyoto treaty does little to improve the environment and much to level the economic playing field across the globe.
As far as "...climate change is pretty damn risky" goes, check up on the Little Ice Ages in Europe. There were two of them, one during the middle ages, and one that ended in 1850. Those were pretty risky, but civilization in Europe survived and even prospered.
So, as other posters have noted, "climate change" is not a catastrophe, it's a natural event that the human race has to deal with. Rationally, not emotionally. Kyoto is not an emotional treaty, but it is an irrational treaty that promotes an emotional reaction.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 18, 2004 at 12:22 PMIts true intent is social engineering.
Marxist science.
Posted by: Rtfm at June 18, 2004 at 12:39 PMI think it's about time that the committed enviro-nazis actually get off their whinging arses, and do something about their beliefs.
The average person exhales 1 Kg of carbon dixide per day - folks, that 365 Kg per year added to the greenhouse gases, for each and every enviro-nazi.
Suppose 10,000 of them stepped up to the plate, and actually did something for the environment, and chose to stop breathing, then that would be 3.65 million kilograms less greenhouse gases being emitted every year.
Posted by: Kaboom at June 18, 2004 at 12:40 PMI think the weight of all this rationality must have crushed t's peabrain.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 18, 2004 at 12:41 PMDon't get me started on 'the-day-after-tomorrow'... What bollocks.
I didn't claim that science consensus makes scientific fact. However, when making a decision, science is usually a pretty good way to lean. You are correct that there are scientists who deny that climate change is caused by man, there are also scientists who claim that evolution didn't happen, the earth is flat etc etc.
There are some potentially very serious consequences of climate change, such as long droughts. If you thought there were too many brown-people coming here in 2001, wait till you see entire countris pack up and go. I'm not saying this is definitely going to happen, but it is a real possibility.
Conspiracy theories about scientists trying to bring about social change are so LAUGHABLE I won't bother replying. Clue: look at the lifestyle most scientists like to live.
Kyoto is flawed because it does not go far enough. What it does do is a) take the first step, and b) give developing nations an economic incentive to develop in an environmentally sustainable way.
It would not be difficult for Australia to meet our Kyoto targets. Ending old-growth logging in Quensland and Tassie would come pretty close - that releases an extroardinary amount of greenhouse gas, at a very small profit and for the creation of a small number of jobs.
Here's a few ideas that all the free-marketers out there should support:
-End corporate welfare for coal and oil companies. I hope everyone is aware that Howard's chief science advisor is also on the board of directors at Rio Tinto. A BLATANT conflict of interest.
-End socialised roads. We spend billions and billions on building roads that people who don't drive much have to pay for. Let's adopt the user pays system and make motorists pay what it costs to use the roads. This could be accomplished by a special road-levy built into the cost of fuel or by lots of automated toll-booths.
-Privatise all parking lots and charge the owners standard land rates. Real-estate in the cities is expensive and it's laughable that someone has a right to park their car free of charge. This has mostly been done already, but do it everywhere.
-Scrap Howard's fuel subsidies to business. Why let a business consume fuel at a below market price? Punish inefficiency!
There are market based solutions to most environmental problems. A lot of the time, implementation is simply making the market even freer. I'm sure we all agree that's a good thing... or do we?
Posted by: t at June 18, 2004 at 01:07 PMThe Real JeffS,
I read your link ( http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html ).
This page was supposed to support your cause? The first paragraph:
"Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples. The colder weather impacted agriculture, health, economics, social strife, emigration, and even art and literature. Increased glaciation and storms also had a devastating affect on those that lived near glaciers and the sea."
Great... How about this:
"The cooler climate during the LIA had a huge impact on the health of Europeans. As mentioned earlier, dearth and famine killed millions and poor nutrition decreased the stature of the Vikings in Greenland and Iceland."
And you a propose that we actively contribute to another such alteration in climate? What ever happened to conservatism as a philosophy?
Posted by: t at June 18, 2004 at 01:11 PMI was wrong. t's brain isn't the size of a pea -- it's considerably smaller, so small that it can only be entirely missed by a huge mass of reason and fact that was dumped on it, but can't even comprehend the substance of the mass. "Hmmm. Large, solid, what is it? Oh, too hard for me! Must instead repeat bad ideas learned from kiddie nature shows! Free roads bad! Roads working people have to pay for every square block good! Logging bad! Making people use more things made of plastic because the cost of wood has gone up due to environmental regulations good! Two-legs bad, four-legs good!"
Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 18, 2004 at 01:17 PMT's last post, a comic "rejoinder" to JeffS, only illustrates my point. Yes, dear, we all want a new Little Ice Age because we are sadistic monsters who want little children to freeze like popsicles! Bwahahaahaha!
Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 18, 2004 at 01:23 PMt, I never proposed contributing to another Little Ice Age. I provided evidence that climate change is inevitable and not necessarily catastrophic, while noting the the Kyoto treaty is a joke. Your statement:
"Kyoto is flawed because it does not go far enough. What it does do is a) take the first step, and b) give developing nations an economic incentive to develop in an environmentally sustainable way."
Emphasis mine. How do you think the western world is able to afford environmental laws? Because we have the economic power to do so! Taking it away by making us pay for their problems is a solution? (Hint: Japan's emission problems are driven largely by their economy. Read the article linked by Tim.)
BTW, t, you are full of ideas. The problem I have with them is in two parts:
First, you are always coming up with new ideas. It took me a few tries, but I figured it out -- you are moving the goal posts. Every time some one says "No, t, and this is why....", you respond with, "Yes it is, and here are more ideas to prove it! Now respond to them!"
Second, almost all of your ideas are crap. Seriously. Take away the roads? Go back to where we were around 1900? How would you distribute food? Mandate truck gardens in every yard? Or set up some sort of cannibal lottery system where our next meal is chosen by their social security number? "Hey, Mom! Guess who we're having for dinner tonight!"
Andrea did a good job of pointing out the real high points. I'll go no further.
You're polite with this, I'll give you that. But you are a bore, none the less.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 18, 2004 at 01:53 PMOK I will buy the fact that there is some scientific dispute about the extent and causes of climate change. However what I would really like to see is a commitment from the United States and other non-Kyoto supporting nations that they will compensate other states if it is later found that climate change is occuring because of their pollution (to the extent of their contribution). It can be just like a manufacturer which negligently ignores questions raised over the safety of its product. Give the greenies that guarantee and I'm positive they will shut up...that is unless you're not sure. Because you see you're not just risking your own quality of life you're risking mine and my childrens as well.
In fact if you are all so absolutely sure human created climate change is a hoax you'll have no problem compensating me for the pollution you cause by posting this -
"I "your name" agree to pay the person known as do-baman the sum of $1000 if within thirty years time there is clear scientific evidence of human created climate change".
T
Jeffs link also demonstrates that climate change is not a recent phenonmenon caused by all us evil capitalists, but that it is a natural occurance.
Which kinda undermines your point about how its all the evil polluting capitalists that are causing it and that signing kyoto will make a difference. It will make a difference, to the future potential for prosperity of our society.
Bloody hell! the angst of these lefty, greens. Everything is baaaad. Ok a pragmatist may say lets have more Nuke power stations that produce water vapour emissions only. No way!! they shreek what about the waste, yada, yada, yada. OK we fire off from earth rockets that land wheeled rovers on Mars but we cant safely dispose of some radioactive waste ok I see.
Left to these gutless wonders we would all still be in trees too scared to climb down and have a look around. But then again maybe that is what they really want a sort of mythical "Return to Eden". I don't give a toss about climate change ok so Jam it up your arse greens.
Posted by: Dog at June 18, 2004 at 02:23 PMT
Hate to acid-rain on your parade, but your first comment - 'Yeah, because politicians (and bloggers) know about climate science better than the vast majority of climate scientists... ' - is correct for all the wrong reasons: Kyoto was fatally flawed precisely because it was always less about science than horse-trading politics.
And that surely is a good reason for not 'hold(ing) any more Kyoto Protocol conferences,' the point of the original post.
And T, stop moving the goalposts. You know you're doing it.
Posted by: ilibcc at June 18, 2004 at 02:23 PMJeffS, the problems described in your article sounded catastrophic to me (millions of western european people dying of starvation).
I didn't mean to accuse of you *wanting* another ice-age, rather, you are not willing to make the tough decisisions that may avert it, or atleast minimise it.
The trouble is that the environmental problems in the third world effect all of us. I don't like the idea of giving economic incentives to the third world much more than you do, however, I like the idea of the earth's temperature changing by a couple of degrees over the course of a century even less.
Where did I propose taking away the roads? Its truly astounding that you argue against me as if I said that, when I specifically stated that all I wanted was the user-pays philosphy applied.
I'm pointing out that when it comes to minimum wages, unions, public education etc, fiscal libertarians sqawk about intervention in the market.
Then when someone proposes applying that same philosophy to another section of the economy such as roads or ending corporate welfare, all of a sudden its a sacred government duty.
I respect libertarianism because it's a (reasonably) consistent philosphy, I have little respect for a capitalism as a philosophy because it's just an arbitary point on the line between communism and libertarianism.
Capitalism strikes a reasonable balance between these two and delivers good outcomes for most people, but that's all it is, a compromise, and nothing to get high-minded about.
"Conspiracy theories about scientists trying to bring about social change are so LAUGHABLE I won't bother replying. Clue: look at the lifestyle most scientists like to live."
I don't quite understand what you mean. A lot of scientists that I am familiar with have this unfortunate habit lecturing others on subjects that they are unfamiliar with, only because they have expertise in some other area. Also, they are quite fond of social engineering.
With grant money as tight as it is and enormous competition, nobody is going to willingly kill the golden goose of federal funding in a hot area. There is also the matter of prestige: once you invested yourself heavily with one theory it takes an extraordinarily discipline to admit that data prove you wrong. Also, it takes a lot of courage to go against consensus of your peers – even if your data are convincing you may find yourself in a situation that your paper will not get published. After all, your peers referee all the papers. Quite often you would need years and years of persistence and overwhelming evidence to tip the scale and have your peers to take you seriously. That is, if you are lucky to secure a tenured or even semi-permanent position beforehand.
The fact that scientists pursue a noble enterprise – that is science - does not make them noble. They are quite the masters of backstabbing and self-aggrandizement. Just like politicians.
And there is no need for conspiracy when 90% of people in your field think alike.
And what exactly lifestyle of scientist has to do with the subject under discussion? I am also curious to find out what you perceive as an average lifestyle of a scientist.
Posted by: Katherine at June 18, 2004 at 02:32 PMdoobieman, you miss the point most make here.
It's the approach that is the problem. The threats of global warming/climate change have been thrown at us for years, with promises of dire consequences.
It took me a few years, but I finally realized that most of these predictions were (a) trumped up statements taken out of context from scientists and bally hooed by an environmental group; (b) some researcher who was looking for a research grant; (c) someone who "interpreted" a science report but had no idea what they were talking about. This is known as "junk science", not a hoax.
The fact is, no one really knows -- either way -- what impact humanity has on the climate. From what little I know about climatology and computer modeling, no one can accurately determine the long term trends of the climate. At best, they can only measure the changes and estimate short term (less than 5 years or so) changes.
If they can't really estimate the impact of an action, how can they say it might be effective? Particularly since the economics are what really drives the treaty, and a major player already can't make it?
A decision that impacts the lives of billions of people should not use junk science and can't ignore economics.
But the bottom line is, the Kyoto treaty is already failing. In Kyoto, not Australia or the USA. And it is failing because of economics, not political machinations or other conspiracies.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 18, 2004 at 02:34 PMdo-baman: I suppose your computer and internet connection are powered by the sun. If you've developed cold fusion, don't keep it to yourself. Share the wealth.
(Coming to you via coal, 75%.)
Posted by: Brian O'Connell at June 18, 2004 at 02:36 PMClimatologists care mostly about the climate. The decision on what to do about global warming, if anything, cannot be made by climatologists. They'd tend to sacrifice too much for the sake of their thing.
They're ok at explaining things, and so-so at predicting things. They'd be really bad at policy-making.
The decision is properly a political one, because that's the arena where decisions that affect everybody should be made. And the politicians will be paying attention to a lot more interests than just climatologists. (Like people who want to have a job and enjoy electricity.)
Posted by: Brian O'Connell at June 18, 2004 at 02:45 PM"I respect libertarianism because it's a (reasonably) consistent philosphy, I have little respect for a capitalism as a philosophy because it's just an arbitary point on the line between communism and libertarianism."
Do you know what free trade is and its relationship to capitalism? Because libertarians are rather hard-core on that free-trade thing. Or is your definition of capitalism derived from Das Kapital?
Hate to break it to you but Mr. Marx was pretty much wrong about everything he wrote about. As exemplified by all those huge and failed Marxian experiments of the 20th century. THIS would be laughable, except for that little matter of 100 million corpses and countless millions of lives wasted in socialist serfdom.
t, you said:
"I'm pointing out that when it comes to minimum wages, unions, public education etc, fiscal libertarians sqawk about intervention in the market. Then when someone proposes applying that same philosophy to another section of the economy such as roads or ending corporate welfare, all of a sudden its a sacred government duty."
Sorry to disappoint you, but road construction and maintenance are a government duty. At least in the United States. When you proposed taking away government funding from roads, you took away roads. Even toll roads require government subsidy to build; the tolls pay back the initial costs, generally a bond or interest free loan. There are few (if any) private roads in the world. Take away the transportation grid and you will have economic chaos. All the libetarians in the world won't change that.
"Capitalism strikes a reasonable balance between these two and delivers good outcomes for most people, but that's all it is, a compromise, and nothing to get high-minded about."
This is true. Most other economic system tried has generally failed and changed to capitalism, although socialism experiments continue at a fevered pitch. Capitalism works. Not perfectly, but fairly reliably. But my approach is not libertarin, nor high minded; it's pragmatic.
For better or for worse, what we have works. Whenever we have a "noble experiment" along your lines, the system breaks down, and things really suffer then. Look at what Carter did when he was President; Reagan fixed it, Bush continued it, and Clinton rode the wave.
"The trouble is that the environmental problems in the third world effect all of us. I don't like the idea of giving economic incentives to the third world much more than you do, however, I like the idea of the earth's temperature changing by a couple of degrees over the course of a century even less."
Most people agree that pollution is bad (including me), but the reality is, the Kyoto treaty won't help that. I pointed this out to do-baman above. Why support a treaty that's already broken?
Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 18, 2004 at 02:52 PM"Do you know what free trade is and its relationship to capitalism? Because libertarians are rather hard-core on that free-trade thing. Or is your definition of capitalism derived from Das Kapital?"
Thank you, Katherine, I suspected that t was a left winger, but I couldn't put my finger on it. You have just completed the puzzle.
t is a a left wing troll. A polite one, but a troll none the less. And a bore to boot.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 18, 2004 at 02:56 PMWhile I would disagree with T regarding the impace of climate change, it is refreshing to see a libertarian perspective on it and yes I would 110% agree that we should end corporate welfare.
However it cannot be empasized enough just how little we know about climate change, sure we know it is happening. But to what extent? whats causing it and how far will it go? For those questions we have practically no idea - most computer models have proved to be useless. If I were to see clear evidence of major climate change and were to be given clear evidence that a certain solution was not only going to work but also be economically viable then yes I would support it. But for now, for all we know Kyoto could theoretically have either bad or good consequences - we just don't know.
Posted by: Sam at June 18, 2004 at 03:01 PMActually, I've never written anything by Marx, nor have I much of a desire to do so... For the record, I despise the USSR. It's kind of funny the way anyone who doesn't agree with some aspects of capitalism is labelled as a marxist or communist sympathiser. The world really isn't that black and white.
I agree that you need government help to build roads, and once again, I never said that the government should not be involved.
What I said is that I see no reason whatsoever that people should be able to drive on those (very expensive) roads free of charge.
A simple way to make the users pay is to put a "road levy" on petrol, calculated to be revenue neutral.
Drive more? Pay more.
I would expect a cut in income and corporate taxes as compensation. Business would soon adapt.
A few years back I worked in a factory that dumped incredible amounts of water down the drain. The drainage system was getting close to breaking when the council came along and said "dump less water or we make you pay half a million to upgrade it.
They sat down, scratched their heads and worked out a few simple changes that cut our water usage by two-thirds. It cost a few grand to install.
We probably paid that back with reduced water costs within a few weeks of operation. Sometimes, business needs a kick up the arse to become more efficient and there's nothing like making them pay the true cost of their operation to do it.
While it's true that there are people co-opting the climate change science for their own political ends, this can be said of almost any movemennt.
It's a true statement that the majority of climatologists are concerned. The majority of these scientists live the lifestyle that we all enjoy, and certainly don't want to take us back to some pre-historic existance where we're one with nature...
It's funny that you mention alarmist scientists creating a stir top get grant money. Remember the "clima-sceptics"? These guys were openly paid large sums of money by fossil-fuel companies to throw doubt into the wheels. It's much more lucrative to be a climate scientist who says "nothing to see here, move along".
Senior figures in the bush administration are quoted as saying that it's a serious problem. These guys are saying it because they're genuinely concerned.
You can do research until the cows come home, but sooner or later you have to act before it's too late. That time is now.
Posted by: t at June 18, 2004 at 03:23 PMMy condolences, Katherine. You have learned from it, it seems. Too bad t can't learn, period.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 18, 2004 at 03:36 PMt
Please expalin the planets epileptic climate over the past 800,000 years or so. Why not worry about a comet hitting earth instead as someone said above if you have to obsess about something. Just take a chill pill man and GET OVER IT. You ain't stoping progress.
I truely relish the continuing implosion of junk science's marriage to socialism.
Thanks Rtfm.
Posted by: Dog at June 18, 2004 at 03:50 PMAnd why, exactly, is developing and investing in new technologies such as solar, wind, geo-thermal, fusion and cleaner forms of fission "stopping progress"?
As I stated at the top, Risk = Consequences * Probability.
The chance of getting belted by a comet is low and there's not much we can do about it.
The chances of severe disruptions to the weather over the next century, resulting in mass-migrations and other disasters is not low, and would be very serious for EVERYONE. Hence, climate change is the bigger issue.
I love the way people on "your" side of the debate accuse anyone disagreeing with them of
a) being a communist/socialist
b) trying to "stop progress"
c) needing something to be afraid of
This is what it comes back to every time. *sigh* oh well.
Posted by: t at June 18, 2004 at 04:06 PMJeffS
Hey, I am here and I am happy to be a capitalist oppressor. No need for condolences. Life can be a hell of a lot of fun!
Posted by: Katherine at June 18, 2004 at 04:07 PMI am all for a private funding/tolls for roads just as soon as the government lifts all taxes on fuel - I mean that is what they are meant to pay for isn't it t?
However I dont think that all of this tax is spent on the roads but look on the bright side - it is a user pays system after all - dont you feel better now?
Posted by: Rob at June 18, 2004 at 04:11 PMKatherine, you keep on having fun being a capitalistic oppressor! Ain't nothing like them.
Technical note to all: Under integrated emergency planning, risk does not equal consequence times probability. Rather, risk is a acceptance of the degree of potential impact that a particular incident may have on a community. In other words, how much is the community leadership willing to gamble that something won't happen? This comes from risk assessment.
The risk assessment is a function of a hazard identification and vulnerability assessment, which inventories and assesses the hazard potential (threat), probability of occurence, and vulnerability of the targeted community (ranging from one building to an entire planet -- depends on the scope of work). These varies geographically, depending upon geology, hydrology, climate, population distribution, transportation network, industrial base, and other factors.
The final risk assessment is generally made by senior leadership, based on the potential loss of life and economic damage, and how much money (if any) they are willing to spend to mitigate potential impacts.
In short, it ain't as easy or simple as t would have you think. And that's the way it works in the real world.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 18, 2004 at 04:24 PMClimate change may well be significant, but please answer this, is there scientific evidence to show the Kyoto or indeed the more extreme protocols proposed by the greens will actually have a positive effect on global climate change?
As far as I am aware, none that are conclusive. However there is ample proof of the negative economic effects such protocols would have.
And by all means, go right ahead and invest in all the technologies mentioned. Just please, dont waste my taxes on them!
Posted by: Sam at June 18, 2004 at 04:24 PMWhile I feel there should be taxes on fuel to discourage its use, I'd gladly scrap them if a levy was implemented that paid for the entire annual road bill.
I think you might find then that driving your car is not as cheap as you thought.
Of course, we'd have more money in our pockets as a result of the income tax cut.
We might as well get used to driving personel cars less - the days of ultra-cheap oil are fast dissapearing. In every year since the the late 1970's, there has been a decline in the number of new fields discovered. Last year there were no new discoveries. There were a few big write downs of known oil reserves and senior oil company executives admitted that we were running out. Bummer, hey?
Posted by: t at June 18, 2004 at 04:31 PMSam,
You hit the nail on the head. There's no doubt that if we stopped pumping out all greenhouse gases tomorrow, we would make a difference. That's impossible, so the question then is how much do we need to cut in order to make a difference.
The way I see it, we have several thousand years worth of coal left to be burnt. There's no question that if we burnt it all, we would have a serious bloody problem. We have to stop sometime, no? Why not start working on the infrastructure now? Our economise are going to have a HARD time adapting once the oil is gone, we need to use part of the wealth generated by that oil to create the technologies that will replace it.
If you don't want the government to invest in R&D, fine, but remove the market distortions that make it uneconomical for others to do so.
Sam: it is too late at night for me to go into details and search for links, but I have been following this issue for quite some time and the short answer to your question is: No.
Under the best circumstances I belive that Kyoto protocol would buy roughly 5 years on 100 year scale before the global temperatures would reach levels predicted by (admittedly flawed) current climate models.
It is way better to keep growing GDPs and developing new technologies that may in the future provide us with tools to deal with climate changes - including those caused by wobbliness of Earth orbit.
Big bummer, t.
Me, I've always lamented the loss of the railroads. Talk about a cost effective way of moving bulk materials! But when the highway system went into place, they couldn't compete economically. The rails were maintained by the companies, the roads by the government. We still have railroads....with limited carrying capacity, usually handling niche markets, instead of the general cargo and passenger market of yesteryear.
So then we got "just in time" delivery, straight from the factory into the store. Warehousing went away -- it's cheaper to ship by FEDEX than maintain a local stockpile.
That's how things really change -- economics. Not treaties (although they can set the road map), nor rule by fiat. Instead of a company charging us out the wazoo for using their roads, we pay road taxes when we buy gasoline.
I expect that we will start to see a major shift in engine technology for vehicles. Electric and hybrid cars are already on the market. These are somewhat less polluting than internal combustion engines, but they still depend on an energy source of some sort.
But, like it or not, the motivation for these changes is economic, not environmental. And the R&D for these can only be paid for by countries with a robust economy. That's the fundamental flaw of the Kyoto treaty.
If the environmentalists want real change, they would be advised to work with economic trends, and not against them. Some groups are doing that -- Nature Conservacy, for example, buys habitat for preservation, not development, but they have been known to work with developers on land deals. Too bad other environmentalists don't emulate this practice.
As a side note, oil reserves are certainly finite, but they are not running out. There's more oil in Saskatchewan than in Saudi Arabia, shale oil I think it's called. But it's cheaper to ship from the Middle East to North America than to process the Canadian stuff.
Economics again. The free market in action. As Katherine noted, that's something that libertarians love.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 18, 2004 at 05:19 PMSpiny Norman just nailed this whole long, convoluted Kyoto argument in just a few short words ... on another thread!
You can all go home now. Especially you, T.
Posted by: ilibcc at June 18, 2004 at 06:35 PMYou guys completely missed that t came up with yet another argument against a position absolutely no one was taking:
JeffS, the problems described in your article sounded catastrophic to me (millions of western european people dying of starvation).
I didn't mean to accuse of you *wanting* another ice-age, rather, you are not willing to make the tough decisisions that may avert it, or atleast minimise it.
Just how are we supposed to "avert" things like sunspots and volcanic eruptions, or any of the other natural, non-mankind-caused events that were listed as theories of what may have caused the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period? You didn't read the article, did you?
The trouble is that the environmental problems in the third world effect all of us. I don't like the idea of giving economic incentives to the third world much more than you do, however, I like the idea of the earth's temperature changing by a couple of degrees over the course of a century even less.
t, dear, NOBODY on this thread has posited that climate change, both drastic and subtle, ANYWHERE, does not affect the human race. But what would really be wrong with the earth's temperature changing "a couple of degrees over the course of a century"? That describes the course of the weather of... the past century. The scary changes that Global! Warning! pushers posit will take more than a "couple of degrees'" change to implement. And I am afraid that climate change in the Third World will mainly effect those in the Third World. If you had actually read the article on the Little Ice Age (hint: there's more than just that one page JeffS linked to: there are links to the rest of the paper on the bottom) you would have come to a passage about how the adaptable crops we have did not exist during Medieval times, thus contributing to the crop failures, famine, and starvation that were the result.
Those adaptable crops are, by the way, the result of experimentation and gene-manipulation of various types of plants. But greenies are against Evil Frankenfood™ being foisted off on innocent, uncorrupted Third World people. So the starvation that will perhaps result in that area from there not being any wheat or corn or what-have-you available that will grow after a drastic (or even normal) change to climate will not be the fault of Evil, Decadent Western Oppressive private car users, but the Concerned Carers for Third Worlders' Well-Being.
And also, NO ONE was arguing against "giving economic incentives to the third world." God knows we want the rest of the world to quit whining about how poor they are and catch up to the rest of us, or at least be able to take care of themselves. But all the economic incentives on earth won't make much of a dent in the problems in the Third World as long as the countries there are run by thugs and infested with ignorance. And wasting everyone's time with treaties that will only make it more difficult for richer countries to help is not the answer.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 18, 2004 at 08:38 PMEven if global warming is occuring AND it is caused primarily by excessive CO2 rather than methane or water vapour AND the primary source of this CO2 is fossil fuels AND we mustn't use nuclear energy to stop this AND this will cause climate change significant enough to affect human quality of life and cause economic disruption AND we mustn't use genetically modified crops to cope with climate change AND climate change will damage more fertile agricultural land than it creates AND Kyoto will make a non-negligible difference without causing more economic devastation than global warming itself, I still don't understand one thing. Why is the CO2 generated by 2-300 million Americans dangerous, while the CO2 generated by 2.6 billion Chinese and Indians of no concern?
Posted by: Clem Snide at June 18, 2004 at 09:36 PMI posted this in another thread but it seems more relevent here.
ClemSnide: Because those 2-300 million americans or around 4% of the world's population emit about 25% of all emissions!
It would seem that in a global treaty designed to cut pollution, those who are polluting the most should cut back the most. At the same time, those countries which haven't developed so much should be encouraged to develop in energy efficient ways.
Andrea: I would be most curious to see your figures that show a 2 degree celsius rise in average global temperature over the previous century.
Fair point about that top paragraph, believe me or not, I meant to say something along the lines of:
I didn't mean to accuse of you *wanting* to change the climate, rather, you are not willing to make the tough decisisions that may avert it...subsidising fuel for businesses! Can you believe it?
Posted by: t at June 18, 2004 at 10:03 PMAnd I still don't see where "t" gets his authority to decide how other people should live.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at June 18, 2004 at 11:40 PMIt would seem that in a global treaty designed to cut pollution, those who are polluting the most should cut back the most
Wrong. Those whose ratio of pollution to created wealth is the highest should cut back the most, because they're comparatively emitting more for every dollar their economy creates, and thus making worse use of the available "pollution resources" (i.e. the amount of pollution that may be safely emitted - the exact value of which being just as unclear as almost everything else about climate, of course.)
Anyway, I dare say the U.S. (and most Western countries) won't come in at the top of such a statistic. So there we have it: let's force all the third-worlders to stop heating their homes with wood; do it for the sake of mankind.
I can't help but notice that for all your bluster about being a libertarian, your economic arguments often either make no sense or simply describe what you think things ought to work like, rather than how things actually do work in the real world. And you frequently don't even bother to acknowledge when other people set you straight on that; rather, you're just moving on to the next grand idea.
On that note, I'm still waiting for you to address the following point that was raised by several people early in the thread: How do you know combatting "climate change" won't ultimately cost more money and destroy more wealth than simply rolling with the punches would? Surely that question should be of utmost importance to a money-loving libertarian like you.
Unless, of course, you're simply a lefty who masquerades as a libertarian on this site. Considering that many of your ideas about how to change things are dependent on copious amounts of government regulation and interference (which should be anathema to a libertarian), I can't help but wonder.
Posted by: PW at June 19, 2004 at 12:10 AMRobert Crawford: This is a political forum, I'm expressing the way I'd like things to be, as are you. This is hardly "deciding how other people should live".
PW: I never said I was a libertarian. What I said was that I respect it as a reasonably consistent philosophy. One I think is unworkable in real life. I also said that Capitalism is an arbitary point on the line between libertarianism and communism, that line has been drawn for practical reasons and there is nothing intrinsically good about it.
On to your argument... A lot of people forming seperate groups live on a big rock floating in space. We are forced to share an atmosphere meaning that whatever one group does, effects everybody else.
Ultimately, the only really important metric is emissions per capita - not some arbitary economics statistic that presupposes that maximum dollars is the most important thing.
The only reasonable concession to the USA's total CO2 output is to not count the CO2 costs of making produce consumed outside the USA. e.g. the USA is a net exporter of food and that excess should not count toward the total. By the same token, much of the manufacturing is now done offshore and anything imported should count toward the USA's total.
If the Americans create a whole lot of stuff that they consume themselves which has a high dollar value, how does that absolve them of the responsibility of pumping more crap into the atmosphere than anyone else?
Posted by: t at June 19, 2004 at 01:04 AMUltimately, the only really important metric is emissions per capita - not some arbitary economics statistic that presupposes that maximum dollars is the most important thing.
By that reasoning, if we all went back to living in caves and stopped all industrial production, that would be a good solution, since the only really important metric is emissions per capita.
Clearly, "arbitary economic statistics" are important too. Just not to many climatologists and others who one-issue global warming.
That the world will treat this "problem" as the most important thing, meriting a solution before all other problems is never going to happen.
Posted by: Brian O'Connell at June 19, 2004 at 01:59 AMt said:
"If the Americans create a whole lot of stuff that they consume themselves which has a high dollar value, how does that absolve them of the responsibility of pumping more crap into the atmosphere than anyone else?"
Have you looked at the measures already taken by the USA to control air pollution, including emissions covered by the Kyoto treaty? Reduction of CFC use, scrubbers for coal fired power plants, vehicle emission controls, catalytic converters for wood stoves, and so on? Do you think that us Yanks sit on the bleachers and sneer at these other "green" nations, and do nothing at all?
Of course, the point that Japan does all of these things as well, but still can't meet their quotas under the Kyoto treaty goes right over your head.
Stop pointing the finger at the western nations who are already using their economic abilities to reduce pollution, and start looking at realistic means of handling this global problem. The Kyoto treaty is not realistic.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 19, 2004 at 02:12 AMThanks for proving my point about your (lack of) understanding of economics, t. It seems you're not just in thrall of junk climate science, but junk economics, as well. Closing your eyes and saying "nyah nyah, economic facts don't matter" does not make it so.
And you still haven't answered the question of what costs exactly you'd be willing to incur to fight climate change, and whether there's any amount of money you'd consider to be too much. I guess your money isn't that important to you after all, despite your protestations on the obesity thread.
Posted by: PW at June 19, 2004 at 04:24 AMBrian: Most people stop arguing by extremes after the age of 18.
Jeff: No, I don't think that at all. I know that America is becoming more environmentally conscious, but the fact remains that you are the biggest polluter per capita in the world (followed very closely by australia), so it's not unreasonable to ask you to cut back more.
PW: I, I listed a range of suggestions that would allow us to meet our Kyoto targets. Here's a few more:
1) Implement a carbon tax and cut income and company taxes. You pollute? You pay. This would drive the cost of electricity up and give people an economic incentive to add things like solar hot water heaters, insulation, double glazing to their homes.
Additionally, if energy cost more, there would be a demand for energy efficient appliances.
2) Mandate minimum energy standards for new buildings.
3) This is more contreversial, but I think it would work quite well.
The government puts up a few hundred million for a "solarize" scheme. They send out someone who looks over your house and quotes you a price to add insulation, a hot-water system, double-glazing etc. They then install it for you and bill you a monthly fee until it's paid back.
In colder climes such as Canberra, the monthly fee would often be less than the savings on the energy bill, especially if a carbon tax was raising the price of electricity.
This would work also work with rented properties since a "solarised" house would be seen as an advantage and wouldn't require an outlay of capital from the landlord.
At present, the government subsidises fossil fuels. Basically all I want is for polluters to be taxed - the market will take care of the rest.
Posted by: t at June 19, 2004 at 11:42 AMAnd the fool just keeps going. Like the Energizer Bunny, he just keeps clanging the same drum louder and louder, as if increased volume and percussion of the same (stupid, unexamined) points somehow will cause people to scream "we agree!" out of sheer desperation to get the noise to stop.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 19, 2004 at 12:53 PMMost people stop arguing by extremes after the age of 18.
So how old are you? You refuse to acknowledge that other factors, like economics, living standards, and the like, should have any weight in deciding on environmental policy. Seems rather extreme to me. Which is why it'll never happen.
I respect libertarianism because it's a (reasonably) consistent philosphy, I have little respect for a capitalism as a philosophy because it's just an arbitary point on the line between communism and libertarianism.
Saving your respect for extreme philosophies then? No need to answer- I see that you are.
Posted by: Brian O'Connell at June 19, 2004 at 01:31 PMAnyone remember that cool Walking With Cavemen show on the Discovery channel awhile back? One of the bits was about a group of women who were separated from their clan and they had to hike back to some old hunting grounds to find shelter and food to make it on their own. They walked for days.
When they got to the old place, they found that it was flooded and marshy; uninhabitable. The land bridge between Russia and Alaska was disappearing. They were crestfallen.
The eldest, wisest woman turned to the others and scolded them, because she had warned them that their wasteful lifestyle had displeased the gods and called down this tragedy upon them. If only they had ratified the Kyoto treaty and didn't use those gluttonous SUVs to hunt mammoths.
Just kidding about that last part. They fought a mammoth and found some other people to travel with.
Posted by: Sortelli at June 19, 2004 at 05:17 PMWhat I said is that I see no reason whatsoever that people should be able to drive on those (very expensive) roads free of charge.
A simple way to make the users pay is to put a "road levy" on petrol, calculated to be revenue neutral.
Drive more? Pay more. -t
t, do you have any idea how much of the price you pay at the pump is tax?
...I'm guessing 't' stands for 'troll'. I haven't seen such an amazing combination of ignorance and hubris since high school.
Posted by: rosignol at June 19, 2004 at 07:10 PMt:
So despite having electricity production between them more than half of the USA's using a higher percentage of fossil fuels than the USA, and growth much higher than the USA, and with industrial production rising while the USA's is shrinking, and with some nine times the population of the USA, the USA must bear the biggest burden of Kyoto compliance while India and China must bear precisely none? I could understand perhaps some gap, but NONE? Also why set the base year for emissions targets before the fall of the Soviet empire, thus making compliance much easier for Germany and other ex-communist countries? I'm sure the whole Kyoto protocol was drafted with the purest of French and UN intentions, but will the USA buy it?
Posted by: Clem Snide at June 19, 2004 at 07:43 PM1) Implement a carbon tax and cut income and company taxes. You pollute? You pay. This would drive the cost of electricity up and give people an economic incentive to add things like solar hot water heaters, insulation, double glazing to their homes.
Additionally, if energy cost more, there would be a demand for energy efficient appliances.
Steven Den Beste (an engineer, so he's, like, somebody who actually knows a thing or two about the physical aspects of energy use) has a pretty thorough debunking of the "let's just improve efficiency" cult here.
In other words, you're not encouraging people to use energy more efficiently with an energy tax, you just make them reduce their usage of all appliances that need electricity. Which for ordinary people means you're generally reducing the utility they derive from those appliances (or in plainspeak: you make their life more difficult and/or less enjoyable), and for business means they'll have to reduce production. But hey, that's just basic economics, which means it can be ignored, right?
Oh yeah, Den Beste also has written tons and tons of material on why "solarizing" our electricity consumption won't work. I'll leave it as an exercise to you to find those articles on his site yourself.
PW, there's one other item. If we were able to increase efficiency (I agree with SDB, but let's humor t), it wouldn't matter.
There are two separate factors: increasing affluence and increasing population.
The linked article notes the example that while air conditioners are more efficient, most Japanese homes have two where they used to have one. People can afford to buy and use two per home. This increased use canceled the gain of increased efficiency.
But let's assume everyone just buys one air conditioner. Population increases, either by birth rate, immigation, or both. There will be more families buying more air conditioners. Again, the increased use cancels the gain of increased efficiency.
Therefore, increased efficiency of our existing technologies won't work unless you enforce the Kyoto treaty down to the individual, say by the control the number of appliances per household.
Wouldn't that be lovely? The Green Police are watching you! t would love that.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 20, 2004 at 02:06 AMPff, how will they watch me when they can't even afford to come get me once the dream is realized and gas costs $1 million a gallon and machines with moving parts are outlawed to stop all that friction from heating up the earth?
Posted by: Sortelli at June 20, 2004 at 10:34 AMThey'll hop into their rickshaws (made all natural and/or recycled materials, natch) pulled along by some underpaid, underfed white man, and scream invectives at him all the way to your home, and then watch you through the holes in your roof.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 20, 2004 at 11:35 AMOr alternatively, they'll employ that tried and true method of surveillance championed by Communist secret police organizations: they'll simply get your neighbours and/or own family to spy on you. Worked great here in the former GDR for almost 40 years.
Posted by: PW at June 21, 2004 at 01:07 AM