The environment thread

[kapkomet]

Not once have you ever had no further comment.

[Gregory Pratt]

2:22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.

 

2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

 

2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

[BigSqwert]

My official stance is centered around point 1. I know there's issues concerning global warming. I also think we should be good patrons of our planet. I'm all for that. But I don't think that we start shutting down our economy, etc. because we don't KNOW what all the effects are and I personally think that we are pretty damn arrogant to think that we can "destroy" the planet like the Goracle and their ilk contend.

 

Why would our economy shut down? Who's proposing that we do that?

 

As far as the "grant money" issue, I don't think that's entirely true, yet I think the Goracle and people like him feed a frenzy, much like BushCo create a frenzy on the "war on terror" - or at least a Democratic view of it. It's sort of the same thing.

What a terrible analogy. Bush needed to convince Congress that we needed to invade Iraq. Al Gore doesn't need to convince the scientists across the world about anything. They're the ones that convinced him, with scientific evidence, that there is a problem.

[kapkomet]

Why would our economy shut down? Who's proposing that we do that?

What a terrible analogy. Bush needed to convince Congress that we needed to invade Iraq. Al Gore doesn't need to convince the scientists across the world about anything. They're the ones that convinced him, with scientific evidence, that there is a problem.

The costs of "cleaning up our environment" such that the Goracle proposes would pretty much shut down capitalism as we know it. But that's ok, socialism is really what most of them are after anyway.

 

The last one - it really isn't that far off from what's happening. It's not about who's convincing who. It's about the reality of the world in which we live.

[BigSqwert]

The costs of "cleaning up our environment" such that the Goracle proposes would pretty much shut down capitalism as we know it.

You really believe that? I'm dumbfounded.

 

What exactly is he proposing that will cripple the global economy?

Edited October 23, 2007 by BigSqwert

[NorthSideSox72]

The costs of "cleaning up our environment" such that the Goracle proposes would pretty much shut down capitalism as we know it. But that's ok, socialism is really what most of them are after anyway.

Quite the opposite - its a huge business opportunity.

 

In fact, continuing your parallel... the cost to have gotten this country COMPELTELY energy independent, as an example, would cost less than the over 1 trillion dollar cost so far of the Iraq War, have resulted in a ton of new jobs, cleaned up our environment substantially and done a lot more to make us safer than this debacle of a war.

 

But hey, hyperbole seems to work better than fact, yeah?

 

[southsideirish71]

Kyoto costs

[kapkomet]

Quite the opposite - its a huge business opportunity.

 

In fact, continuing your parallel... the cost to have gotten this country COMPELTELY energy independent, as an example, would cost less than the over 1 trillion dollar cost so far of the Iraq War, have resulted in a ton of new jobs, cleaned up our environment substantially and done a lot more to make us safer than this debacle of a war.

 

But hey, hyperbole seems to work better than fact, yeah?

Sure, there's opportunities with every business "shift". I'm not that stupid, but thanks for insinuating that I am. (I'm kidding on the last part).

 

Irish linked one such "cost" report on cleaning up our environment. It would kill the steel industry, put us in a situation where the power grid (which is already on thin ice) would completely fail, etc. I think OVER TIME it can be done, but to listen to the Goracle, we're going to die in 10 years if we don't fix it NOW.

 

In all seriousness, there has to be a shift in thinking, and I'm all for that. I think we can work towards cleaning things up but it has to be done in a way that will not disrupt the economy... AND Asian countries (read: China and India) need to be on board as well.

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Sure, there's opportunities with every business "shift". I'm not that stupid, but thanks for insinuating that I am. (I'm kidding on the last part).

 

Irish linked one such "cost" report on cleaning up our environment. It would kill the steel industry, put us in a situation where the power grid (which is already on thin ice) would completely fail, etc. I think OVER TIME it can be done, but to listen to the Goracle, we're going to die in 10 years if we don't fix it NOW.

 

In all seriousness, there has to be a shift in thinking, and I'm all for that. I think we can work towards cleaning things up but it has to be done in a way that will not disrupt the economy... AND Asian countries (read: China and India) need to be on board as well.

I haven't seen anyone ask for the kind of massive shifts that would wreck the steel industry (though, honestly, that industry is 75% wrecked anyway for entirely non-environmental reasons). Now, I am sure there are some crazies out there calling for unrealistic changes. But looking, for example, at energy independence, a stronger push for green space and putting a REAL pollution credit market out there... you could do those things in a way that wouldn't wreck any industries at all, and in fact probably make the overall economy much more robust.

 

[BigSqwert]

In other news:

 

British Green Grocer Plans U.S. Rollout

by Mairi Beautyman, Berlin, Germany on 10.23.07

 

Tesco, Britain's largest retailer--which also happens to be on Fortune magazine's list of top 10 Green Giants--is heading to the U.S. The initial rollout includes 122 store locations in Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Southern California.

 

In Europe, Tesco has introduced sustainable business practices including wind-powered stores, high-tech recycling, and biodiesel delivery trucks. Although much of the U.S. plans are still under wraps, Tesco has pledged to reduce energy consumption by 30 percent when compared to a typical grocery store; source more than 60 percent of its products locally; open in underserved areas; and pay wages starting at $10 an hour.

 

The stores, about four times the size of a typical convenience store and one-third as large as a traditional supermarket, will serve a middle-of-the-road niche with an edited selection of produce.

 

"Tesco is taking a very hard green approach in the U.S.," says Mohan Sodhi, professor and head of operations management at Cass Business School in London. "They are even using polar bears as a mascot."

 

Beyond polar bears, the retailer reportedly already has the competition scrambling.

 

LINK

[southsideirish71]

I haven't seen anyone ask for the kind of massive shifts that would wreck the steel industry (though, honestly, that industry is 75% wrecked anyway for entirely non-environmental reasons). Now, I am sure there are some crazies out there calling for unrealistic changes. But looking, for example, at energy independence, a stronger push for green space and putting a REAL pollution credit market out there... you could do those things in a way that wouldn't wreck any industries at all, and in fact probably make the overall economy much more robust.

 

 

A Clinton Administration report estimated that stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels would cost 900,000 U.S. jobs in 2005.7 This figure rises to 1.1 million annually from 2008-2112, according to DRI/McGraw-Hill.8 Of course, extending emission caps to Kyoto's demands of 7 percent below 1990 levels would have an even greater impact on employment losses.

Edited October 23, 2007 by southsideirish71

[BigSqwert]

In a worst case scenario, 6 billion jobs will be lost if the world is destroyed.

[Balta1701]

The costs of "cleaning up our environment" such that the Goracle proposes would pretty much shut down capitalism as we know it. But that's ok, socialism is really what most of them are after anyway.

 

The last one - it really isn't that far off from what's happening. It's not about who's convincing who. It's about the reality of the world in which we live.

Here's the other side of the issue though...when you refer to only the costs of mitigating the problem and compare it to a baseline, as was done in that "Kyoto costs" link, it assumes that the world's economy will be able to continue to churn forwards with no negative effects due to lack of mitigation efforts. In other words, it actually assumes a stable climate!

 

The cost issue can not be dealt with by comparing the costs of mitigation to the costs of doing nothing in the case of a stable climate, because this situation can't exist. You can't argue that we shouldn't fight a fire by saying "if we don't fight the fire we won't have to pay the firemen overtime" because the cost of destroying San Diego has to be taken into account as well.

 

We are literally talking about massive shifts here. Just a smattering of examples can be found in this section of the IPCC report. Things like significant changes in the glacial melt patterns that feed the rivers of southeast and central Asia on which 2 billion + people live, continued drying of the Southwestern U.S., northward shifting of growing seasons (imagine a U.S. that is too hot and dry to grow corn).

 

It's also probably worth noting that the IPCC contains a cost estimate as well. I'll cite an executive summary since the language and diagrams are a bit hard to follow:

 

Economists use models to estimate the economic impacts of efforts to reduce emissions. Economic modelling relies on a wide range of assumptions, which are critical to a model's conclusions about the cost of stabilizing GHG levels. Key assumptions involve the discount rate; the emissions baseline, related technological change and resulting emissions; the stabilization target and level; and the portfolio of available technologies.

 

Economic models produce lower cost estimates when they use baselines with slowly rising emissions and when they allow technological change to accelerate as carbon prices rise. Costs are also reduced when the Kyoto Protocol's flexibility mechanisms are more fully implemented.

 

If revenues are raised from carbon taxes or emission schemes, costs may be lowered if the new revenues open the door to tax reforms or are used to promote low-carbon technologies and remove barriers to mitigation. Some models even give positive GDP gains because they assume that economies are not functioning optimally and that climate change mitigation policies can help to reduce imperfections in the economy.

 

Many economic models report the costs of reducing emissions in terms of "GDP losses". For example, by the year 2030 the global average macro-economic cost of ensuring that GHG levels eventually stabilize at 445-710ppm ranges from less than 3% to a gain of 0.6%. This translates into an annual reduction in the GDP growth rate of less than 0.12% to less than 0.06%. This small loss should be compared to projections that the global economy will likely expand dramatically over the next several decades.

 

(By 2030 the global average macro-economic cost of ensuring that GHG emissions will eventually stabilize at between 445 and 710ppm is estimated to be between a 3% decrease in global GDP and a small increase compared to the baseline. This should be compared to projections that the global economy will likely expand dramatically during this period of two-and-a-half decades.)

 

Economists use cost-benefit analysis to compare the costs of action to the costs of inaction (that is, of climate change damages). They quantify climate change damages in monetary terms as the social cost of carbon (SCC) or time-discounted damages. Due to large uncertainties in quantifying non-market damages, however, it is difficult to estimate SCC with confidence. As a result, SCC estimates in the literature vary a great deal and are likely to be understated.

 

 

Comparing SCC estimates with the carbon prices for different levels of mitigation (see below) shows that SCC is at least comparable to, and possibly higher than, carbon prices for even the most stringent scenarios assessed by the IPCC. In other words, the cost of stabilizing GHG concentrations at low levels tends to be comparable to, or lower than, costs of inaction.

 

It is also important to remember that climate policies can bring many win-win benefits that may not factored into cost estimates. These include technological innovation, tax reform, increased employment, improved energy security and health benefits from reduced pollution. As a result, climate policies offering significant co-benefits can offer a true no-regrets GHG reduction policy in which substantial advantages accrue even if the impact of human-induced climate change itself would turn out to be less than current projections suggest.

[kapkomet]

In a worst case scenario, 6 billion jobs will be lost if the world is destroyed.

 

I guess that's one way to look at it.

[Jenksismyhero]

We are literally talking about massive shifts here. Just a smattering of examples can be found in this section of the IPCC report. Things like significant changes in the glacial melt patterns that feed the rivers of southeast and central Asia on which 2 billion + people live, continued drying of the Southwestern U.S., northward shifting of growing seasons (imagine a U.S. that is too hot and dry to grow corn).

 

It's also probably worth noting that the IPCC contains a cost estimate as well. I'll cite an executive summary since the language and diagrams are a bit hard to follow:

 

From what I've heard about the IPCC, they have about as much legitimacy as Rush Limbaugh in speaking the truth about any given issue. They have known activists on their membership lists (who aren't scientists) and they refused to remove prominent global warming authors from their "reports" once the authors found out the "reports" were not an accurate account of what they had written.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

SSI - could I have the link for that article/piece? I just want to read the report details. Not questioning it at all, I don't doubt the number in theory. I am just curious about some other aspects.

 

[southsideirish71]

SSI - could I have the link for that article/piece? I just want to read the report details. Not questioning it at all, I don't doubt the number in theory. I am just curious about some other aspects.

 

Original quote from the Washington Post quote

 

Original site I found this on

Clinton House Report quoted

Edited October 24, 2007 by southsideirish71

[NorthSideSox72]

Original quote from the Washington Post quote

 

Original site I found this on

Clinton House Report quoted

Danka. I'll add this to the stuff YASNY gave me and have plenty of reading material for the plane ride back to the states.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Not to be forgotten, there are major health impacts on all of us related to climate change. Unfortunately the administration has decided that we shouldn't hear from those silly scientists and their facts.

 

[BigSqwert]

Not to be forgotten, there are major health impacts on all of us related to climate change. Unfortunately the administration has decided that we shouldn't hear from those silly scientists and their facts.

Didn't they do the same thing with that NASA guy a while back with regards to CCGW?

[NorthSideSox72]

Didn't they do the same thing with that NASA guy a while back with regards to CCGW?

Yeah, its not new. This administration really dislikes letting the public actually hear scientific evidence of anything that doesn't fit their view. Everyone spins, but this admin takes that and just goes straight to good old fashioned censorship.

 

[knightni]

"The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, well I read a science fiction novel that tells me it’s not a problem. If the crib’s on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame-retardant. You take action. The planet has a fever."

 

 

And, the only prescription is...more cowbell?

 

[Balta1701]

So, while we're noticing these things, I may as well point out that 7 of the 10 busiest fire seasons in U.S. history have been since 1999 and #s 1 and 2 are 2006 and 2007.

[YASNY]

So, while we're noticing these things, I may as well point out that 7 of the 10 busiest fire seasons in U.S. history have been since 1999 and #s 1 and 2 are 2006 and 2007.

 

That's not global warming. That's HAARP!

[southsider2k5]

Yeah I can't imagine why people would get the idea that some people would exploit the global warming debate for their own gains and profits...

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

 

CNN MEMO: USE FIRES TO 'PUSH' 'PLANET IN PERIL' SERIES; DON'T 'IRRESPONSIBLY' TIE TO GLOBAL WARMING

Thu Oct 18 2007 14:11:42 ET

 

According to notes from CNN's Monday news meeting network president Jon Klein tells employees to use the California fire tragedy to "push" their "Planet in Peril" special, but warns reporters not to "irresponsibly link" the fires to "Global Warming."

 

 

 

Developing...