climate, economics, or political power?

zogger

Tue Jul 22 12:36:20 -0700 2008

manage

You have to really identify the goals first. Not sure how other people think, but I am both pro clean environment, alternative energy in all the forms, decentalized economics to build the middle class the most, and anti big huge conjobs and scams, and when I first started reading about a "new" multi trillion dollar potential "trading market" called "cap and trade" I smelled a big fat herd of rats.

I am not convinced yet this ultra rich "they" guy is more convinced we need to save the world or just make a ton of scratch off some effort. And it is because if you are going to use economics and social engineering and laws to bring about change, a pure carrot approach works across the board at any scale, just drop any associated and sundry taxes that have to do with achieving the goal, and allow a credit for actually buying the stuff. That's it, pure tax credits or "instant rebates". works from transnationals on down, joe single homeowner on up.

You want to see a lot less co2 and get rid of coal burning and petroleum burning, drop any taxes on the alternatives, and offer some dang reasonable credits that are worthwhile and have a carry on provision for say like ten years minimum. Keep it just like it was with the original sources, you don't need to change a thing there.. People from the single shareholder on up back to the transnationals will insist their "company" takes advantage of what is the desired outcome. Individual homeowners will go "wow, free stuff, sign me up!" and you'll see a billion solar panels within a few years, drivers will go "wow, a new free car!" and a variety of electric cars will be out there shortly without any excuses or BS from the big car companies, and the environment gets cleaner real soon, and if it helps with climate moderation, good deal. So, where to stop? Right now, directly abandon the "new" middleman skimming effort cap and trade "market" being foisted on the global economy. Look at the other markets, they look pretty rigged and stupid and lopsided to me and sure aren't doing the consumer much good at all. In all the papers lately and stuff, they are starting to *sweat* profusely. Because rearranging wealth makes NO new wealth, it just diltes what is there. It is so diluted now and theoretically into future it is bankrupt, just they don't want to say that out loud, because it would lead to a global "heads on pikes" scenario. They make a few people a LOT of money at the expense of most people. I'd like to pass on any more schemes like that right now...

Now if you mean global terraforming, as much as I love science and engineering them boys aint' got all the answers yet, I think they are starting to ask a bit more intelligent questions, and I *distinctly* remember some wild scheme they were going to pull or wanted to pull back in the "global cooling, new ice age" coming days, and that was spread soot over the entire arctic ice to melt it. I am not kidding that was one plan being pushed as an emergency massive multinational effort, cover the arctic with carbon black of some sort to reduce albedo and have it absorb heat. Now, aren't we glad we didn't do that then? Spray all sorts of stuff in the atmosphere, make global artificial clouds? Seed the ocean with [chemical of the day]? Set off nukes in the upper atmosphere because..that one I am not sure about. Build huge mirrors in space? (that's still a death ray scheme if you ask me..) All sorts of wild stuff. and that's it, it is *wild* stuff.

I say, let the UN and all the "cap and trade" folks pick one small area of the planet that is really totally screwed up environmentally-wise, turn loose all their scientists and traders on it, see if they can make it pretty close to perfect, just like I want to see the US Federal government make one metro area-DC-the standout "nice" place in the US with the least but most efficient government and the best living conditions for the least money for the most people and lowest crime rate and so on and so forth. I *dare* them to do that.. when they can do that, I might believe them better. When we can go a long time and not see a lot of "market" panic because they run things just so gosh garn smoothly and fairly I might believe them on another "market" they want to open up. And along those lines.

I want to see some more credible "put up or shut up" actions, not just advice or coming soon or aw heck, looks like we need 50 more laws that are going to cost you extra and get involved in a war on carbon and carbon based life forms-us and the planet- that will be run by the same guys who brought you the war on some drugs and war on some poverty and war on some tarism and on this or that. I don't need any more of their wars fought on my behalf, including a war on carbon.

climate, economics, or political power?

Richard Gay

Tue Jul 22 14:35:21 -0700 2008

manage

I guess if we act like we're not here, that should be enough...

climate, economics, or political power?

Thomas Lord

Tue Jul 22 15:54:47 -0700 2008

manage

The best approximation of the best common-sense notion of hiding our impact from the environment (judged by direct observation, gut feel, a little bit of science but not too much) -- the best of that we can muster, yeah. At least to "get our bearings," climatologically speaking. Premature large-scale outcomes of macro-climate-control have as their most probable outcome among desirable options (imo) a situation in which control is perfected but over an overall less-desirable range of parameters. That is, we'd have a control range that goes from "crappy but survivable environment" to "even more crappy but survivable environment" and a complete loss of "desirable".

(This makes no bet, though, that any desirable outcome is more probable than a loosing outcome (we thrash the macro-environment for a few years and then all die).)

"Calming" industrial and consumer outputs cools the game, considerably. The uncertainty of our influence is itself alone enough to make a priority out of backing off and trying to see where we really are.

That the same push to zero-net emissions and sustainability generally would also result in a more stable macro-economic environment, should the push succeed, why, perhaps that's just a Huge Clue about what we ought to be doing.

The same result is obtained if you just think in terms of resonance and say that it's a bad idea to put huge amounts of coherent energy into the world in the form of climate-significant emissions and impacts. A good reason to not extract and atmospherically dump so much carbon, for example, is that to do so is so "loud" a coherent signal -- of geologic scale. As a society, we should feel vulnerably exposed by having recently been that loud and, yeah, "make like we're not really here" would be the natural response to that recognition.

-t

climate, economics, or political power?

StonePiano

Tue Jul 22 17:29:58 -0700 2008

manage

Nathan Smith is right to ask these questions.  In recent times, cultural world views (forgive the clumsy generalisation) have shifted from entirely human-centric to another extreme.  We once believed that we were the centre and purpose of God's creation.  We now believe that we are not only insignificant in the universe, but a localised threat.

Frankly, I consider this teenage angst.  We need to get over it.  We are what we are, and we best look after ourselves.  We are self-aware, and we are becoming aware of our planet.

I guess if we act like we're not here, that should be enough...

No, whether we have a "right" to be here and alter our environment depends on your view of universal ethics.  But I think that organisms which fight for their own survival will have a much better track-record than those which condemn themselves for existing.

Our first steps should be modest.  Reducing pollution and human activity greenhouse gas emissions is reasonable.  Yes, unexpected consequences are always possible.  But at least lower levels of emissions has been tried before. Until we observe a measurable effect from this action, other modeling is interesting, but highly speculative.

Now if someone suggested capping the volcanos, then I'd get nervous.

To answer the question, the optimum environment is the one that suits us.  Venus may like being at 700K, but we liked it how it was in the summer of '69.  In other words, we like the climate that is tried and tested.  Perhaps humans will have the technology to manage and significantly ease what would have been the next global ice-age or hot period.

Perhaps the single most important thing we can do to wisely manage the environment, is maintain a strong economy.  Money == choice.

More On Climate Management

StonePiano

Tue Jul 22 17:32:24 -0700 2008

manage

Furthermore, we need to start experimenting on Venus and Mars.

More On Climate Management

Michael Smith

Tue Jul 22 19:45:02 -0700 2008

manage

We could do it that way but I suspect it will take so much time that we will work out the answers on our own.

climate, economics, or political power?

Richard Gay

Tue Jul 22 18:54:30 -0700 2008

manage

Exactly my point, if we act like we're not here, we won't be. The next best thing would be to live like animals; that would probably balance things out, but nobody is going to go for that. So, we'll have to think things through a bit. My thought is that we have to quickly learn to think in terms of closed loops, total recycling, minimal impact or return to original state where natural resource disturbance is concerned, and in the end a grand plan to reduce the population (by attrition and reduced birthrate) to something that is sustainable. Good luck with that, but I think it's the only viable answer as the load must be matched to the resources.

On Climate Management

Spider

Tue Jul 22 19:45:40 -0700 2008

manage

I think humans are dreaming if they think they can drastically alter the climate of the planet.  At local levels some changes can/have be made ie. the reduction of pollutants from domestic/industrial coal/wood fires. Stopping the use of freon gases in domestic/industrial refrigeration that damage the ozone layer.  The recycling of domestic/industrial waste has been happening for years. The planting of thousands of trees has been going on for many years. The conservation of wetlands has also been happening for many years and attempts at preserving/saving some species of animals/fish/insects etc. has also been going on for many years.

Humans have been trying to preserve and clean up their backyard for a long time. To stop/prevent cyclic climate change of the planet is wishful thinking. The best we can do is to try and find less polluting forms of energy, keep our back yard clean, and be prepared to adapt to the natural climate changes of the planet.

On Climate Management

molo

Wed Jul 23 14:11:32 -0700 2008

manage

I don't think the issue should revolve around the temperature.  The issue should revolve around the contents of the atmosphere.  That is, when we can bring this chart of CO₂ levels back down to pre-industrial-revolution levels, then we can stop worrying about CO₂ levels.

Of course that is not the only greenhouse gas. We would have to do the same with the others as well.

-molo

On Climate Management

N. Dan Smith

Wed Jul 23 14:40:21 -0700 2008

manage

Why do we want the CO₂ levels to be the same as before the industrial revolution?  When before that era will be our "zero year" and why?