Global warming: Deal with it?

Roughly covers what my view on the global warming issue has been for a some time now.
Kind of nice to discover at least some people agree with me

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-sci-adapt26mar26,1,4555621.story?page=1&coll=la-headlines-frontpage


Basically we can’t really do shit to control CO2 emissions on a global level, so it’s largely a waste of money trying.

For example; China (a ‘developing nation’ hence exempt from any emission targets) is already above the per capita average that the world as a whole needs to aim for if we are to have any hope of dropping below 1990 emission levels. And China ain’t slowing down any time soon - apparently now even on target to double the emissions of the US within 10 years!

Not saying it’s a total waste as there are obviously other immediate and local benefits from reducing consumption and increasing efficiency. But I think it’s nonsense to believe that (without any major technological breakthrough) we have any hope at all in lowering CO2 emissions - let alone stabilising them.

The dollars spent chasing this could be much better spent on things we can actually fix right here and now.

I'd argue its not a waste of money trying to reduce carbon emissions - as I see the biggest threat to our species as being we don't pull together

therefore anything that can help us reach a global all encompassing solution to the future problems we face on this planet has got to be good - even if wasteful in the initial stagesI'd agree witht he article in that we should be seeking a multiple means of addressing the problems rather than simply focus on one area

what isn't addressed is our desire for more - I don't believe a capitalist system can do anything but continue to reduce our resources and destory our environment in the desire for short term profit and personal gain

we need practial measures to address human problems and those environmental ones we can tackle whilst seeking a political and economic means that serves to cater to our human traits but also benefit all not simply the few (I don't believe there is such a system now that would work except totalitarianism, be it left or right wing in nature)

in a nutshell our undoing is how we have created our world and to change it is simply daunting at any level

until we can pull together at a global level we face extinction

To be honest I'm happy if the argument moves in this direction - if we can finally get beyond the blind denial stuff (almost there but NZ in particular is still a long way behind) and get to the arguments of what to do about it then we are at least on the right track.

I'm not convinced that this "let's keep emmitting and spend the money elsewhere" thesis is that strongly researched but I think scientifically (followed by economically) rational debate on our response is a good idea.

Interestingly though trapper, that Pielke guy quoted in that article has responded to it himself, saying he believes mitigation of emmissions is still important but needs to go hand in hand with adaptation. And that the LA Times author "characterizes one of the most insidious assumptions - that support for adaptation necessarily means a loss of support for mitigation"
so sorry mate, but even he doesn't agree with you!

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/

Trapper... while it's totally not the common opinion I actually think you make a good point.

On the face of it the idea of reducing carbon emissions is great.. but with China, India and the USA in particular basically making negative headway - nothing that anyone else does will make any difference.

I also think the Kyoto Protocol carbon credit system is a total farce... thought up by nations/companies who wanted a system complex enough that the worst offenders could just pay their way out of complying with emission goals. That wont achieve anything except making the end product they're selling more expensive. (it'll become like insurance factoring: "if we do this it'll cost us xx, but if we don't bother at all it'll only cost us x so why bother?"

In real terms, our carbon emissions will probably double before they ever start coming down again considering how seriously people/nations are really taking the subject.

(Then again, I also think we should legislate against selling bottled water for more than 50c/L)

R

FYI.. I wasn't arguing against emissions reductions goals... but that they wont be heeded to by the people who the entire world needs to. They simply wont.. they'll pay lip-service to it for decades to come - saying "more research", "inconclusive evidence", "need tax cuts" etc..

R

That's one of the points of a market based trading scheme - make things more expensive to pollute, so it is cheaper to invest in "greening" yourself or buying the "greened" rights from others who have done it for you. Once the market and legislation is up and running (an END goal of Kyoto, not a beginning goal) then it becomes more cost effective for a business to reduce their emissions than pay for them.

True, but the industries which are the most polluting traditionally are the ones which either have little competition or have shown they will collaborate (cullude) with others (oil industry, power generation etc). Therefore the punitive aspect of not reaching emissions goals is not a real punishment to them - since they can just pass the costs onto the consumer with almost zero chance the consumer will either change providers (would that work with oil companies? No) or be able to find alternative means.

R

Yes there is some interesting "price elasticity" arguments to be made - broadly speaking though, if the CDM can create enough credits that are cheaper than the punitive "tax" over their cap then they would still look to purchase them. You're right that that will only transfer the emission-reducing elsewhere but that's not necessarily a bad thing...

Like RobW I support the emissions tax over the cap and trade system.

However while I think it needs tweaking to place some kind of additional pressure of non Annex I countries, Kyoto does have its place if effectively utilized, for instance I think the CDM and JI are beneficial mechanisms.

errr… don’t jump to conclusions bro – the above is completely inline with my thoughts.

ahhh, using China as the scape goat again.

I don't think its so much that Trapper uses China as a scapegoat, more so and example and that he is more thinking in terms of aggregate emissions. I.e. even with all the Annex I countries "successfully" reducing their collective emissions by the 1990 base level of %5 stipulated in the first commitment period (2008 - 2012) it's still going to equate to achieving nothing unless Non Annex I countries are somehow pressured into curbing their emissions too.

Otherwise we are not really making any net progress and yet time is running out. All I can say is that we absolutely need to offset our C02 levels before we hit those critical tipping points climate scientists have elaborated on. Which based on the scientific literature, 3 Degrees is enough to worry me, let alone the unlikely but possibility of 6 Degrees nearing 2100. Perhaps in Kyoto II and the second commitment phase, we could adopt %5 for Non Annex I and perhaps %10-15 for Annex I countries.

Now developing nations should have a reduced burden, granted, perhaps a higher allocation of assigned amount units or AAUs. But we must urge an aggregate reduction, not simply an Annex I reduction. I am thinking at the moment, that if they make it harder for Annex I countries, so that they are bound to just tip over their assigned amounts in the second commitment phase, then it would encourage Annex I to help Non Annex I countries via the CDM and JI mechanisms to offset there spill over as its cheaper for them to do so and still assists Non Annex I countries.

Thus and while many Annex I countries are bound to struggle, it should encourage some collective albeit difficult participation at least, rather than some simply using it as an opportunity to sign up and reap the rewards while continuing to expand industry at the same time because of no assigned commitments. Something is not right with this, I know its only the first phase, but it is paramount that China be encouraged to participate somehow, even if its not allowed to increase its emissions in Kyoto II, rather than reduce them, this would at least be a start, otherwise we are not going anywhere.

A totally shit situation to be in however, considering Annex I have had a fun playing field for a while and China has not.

Precisely - it was never the intention of the first UNFCCC to include developing countries in the emissions caps, only in the CDM so that they can contribute to the effort in that way. Kyoto is much much more about setting up and embedding the trading mechanisms than it is about reduction in itself - it is the first 4 year step on a multi-generational change program. Anyone who expects the first protocol alone to solve emissions issues is taking an absurdly short-term view on a subject that takes decades to evolve.
As to who is given emissions caps in subsequent commitment periods, this will be yet another massive political battle - China and India could plausibly qualify as transitional by then so be included under the JI at least...

well, I presume you noticed my , but you did say:

From reading Pielke's other comments, it seems he is saying lets think beyond simply reducing emissions and begin to consider how we adapt as well... Which hopefully is your view like mine.

Considering China and India as being countries with economies in transition and thus being applicable for the JI mechanism is a positive direction and is something I support.

I also think people need to stop calling for outright stronger commitments in the second commitment phase. For instance %40 reductions (as some are calling for) are just too high in my opinion. It’s a political firestorm and could have the opposite effect intended, i.e. if the obligations are too high, opposition parties in each Government will oust those in power and pull their countries out of Kyoto altogether.

The harder penalties is most likely to hurt the poor in each economy too, i.e. it's not just the evil industrialists who will be forced into submission as many of the environmental movement and anti-capitalist hardliners envision, rather its going to be those in the lower socio-economic regions, that are hurt the most, as costs will simply be passed on by the overly burdened businesses towards the consumers via an increase in prices to offset their rising costs.

If they are energy companies for instance, we will see spikes in our electricity bills during particularly hot or cold seasons.

This entire reduction of emissions goal needs to be carefully administered as to encourage participation rather than repeal it, even if we are failing with reductions initially, its better to have countries on board. We need to recognize this aspect before we call for harsher reform or dismiss Kyoto as a failure completely.

okay, i forgave you guys

If not us, who?
If not now, when?

the aliens will save us!!!!