Actual Policy Change to Address Global Warming (1 Viewer)

[RightinNYC]

For the most part, we can all agree that something is happening in regards to the world's average temperature. While we might not know all of the causes, or what the future will hold, there are many who feel that something must be done in a timely fashion. Let's discuss.

When thinking about implementing policy, there are many facets that have to be addressed in order to provide a comprehensive solution.

How much warming is occurring?
How fast is it occurring?
How will the rate of warming change?
What are the negative effects of this warming?
What are the positive effects of this warming?
How much warming would be occurring without human input?
What would the effects of that warming be?
What can be done to stop or slow the warming?
How effective are these solutions?
How much would these alternatives cost?
What are their negative effects, both short and long term?
How long will they take to be implemented?
What effect will implementation have on economic competitiveness?
How will other nations react?


Once we begin to answer these questions, we can move toward an actual policy solution. Note: Let's not get bogged down in debate over warming itself, but rather move on toward proposals.

Throw out any thoughts on any of the questions, I'd love to see if DP could actually come together and hammer out a decent policy proposal.

 

[Sir_Alec]

Its pretty clear something is happening and the less we argue over details about studies and data the more we can figure out what to do if it all hits the shitter and if there are ways to prevent it. Whens the last time you've seen so much pink and white on the Weather channel heat index? Never! What that has to do with global warming is something I'm going to look into sometime tommorrow... or the next day :doh

 

[StrawHat]

I agree with Sir Alec. :mrgreen:

 

[tecoyah]

How much warming is occurring? Enough to worry me
How fast is it occurring? As we Type
How will the rate of warming change? Indications point to an increase
What are the negative effects of this warming? Displacement of populations (drought/sea level/starvation)
What are the positive effects of this warming? Economic advantages for some nations
How much warming would be occurring without human input? Unknown....and at this point no longer very important
What would the effects of that warming be? Eventual loss of Habitable land area/ Insect disease spread/many deaths
What can be done to stop or slow the warming? We cannot, in the immediate future.
How effective are these solutions? 100 years from now....some effect will likely be felt if we acted today
How much would these alternatives cost? More than Politics will accept
What are their negative effects, both short and long term? None...no changes will take place for a good ten years.
How long will they take to be implemented? See Above...though it will take a far more dramatic example of Nature Gone Awry for action to be serious.
What effect will implementation have on economic competitiveness? Positive in the long run, for those in the know. But, Negative to many for decades.
How will other nations react? Unknown


Once we begin to answer these questions, we can move toward an actual policy solution. Note: Let's not get bogged down in debate over warming itself, but rather move on toward proposals.

Throw out any thoughts on any of the questions, I'd love to see if DP could actually come together and hammer out a decent policy proposal.

I have worked on limited policy in this regard....lemme try to gather my thoughts (read...look in hard drives)

 

[RightinNYC]

Its pretty clear something is happening and the less we argue over details about studies and data the more we can figure out what to do if it all hits the shitter and if there are ways to prevent it. Whens the last time you've seen so much pink and white on the Weather channel heat index? Never! What that has to do with global warming is something I'm going to look into sometime tommorrow... or the next day :doh

So what should we do?

 

[tecoyah]

Reaction to this situation (it is likely too late for action in my opinion)...will hopefully come on three fronts:

1) we prepare as best we can for a worst case scenario.

2) we attempt to stop the introduction of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. (while this may have minimal impact, it certainly cannot hurt)

3) We look to human ingenuity to reverse some of the damage a climate change will inflict on world population.



This is....short of the Nuclear threat...the first time all of mankind, and thus the world as a whole fears something together. What an opportunity for collective growth.

 

[Sir_Alec]

So what should we do?

Literally bury our heads in sand until it "blows over"... joking. I admit to not being the most productive person when it comes to helping the enviroment so I think I'll start by looking for a cheap hybrid car... but I'll have to research what evidence there is that cars hurt the enviroment. Oh no! That means I'll have to takes sides with certain data and studies. This is getting harder and harder every minute :rofl

 

[ALiberalModerate]

For the most part, we can all agree that something is happening in regards to the world's average temperature. While we might not know all of the causes, or what the future will hold, there are many who feel that something must be done in a timely fashion. Let's discuss.

When thinking about implementing policy, there are many facets that have to be addressed in order to provide a comprehensive solution.

How much warming is occurring?

Roughly 1 degree Globally so far. However, this is missleading as a one degree increase at the equator can be a 10 to 15 degree increase in the polar regions. Moreover, the difference in the weather we have today, and an ice sheet a mile thick covering much of the continental United States is about 4 to 5 degrees globally.

How fast is it occurring?

As most of our current warming has occurred over the last 20 years. Extremely fast and accelerating.

How will the rate of warming change?

The rate is projected to increase with positive feedbacks such as the melting of polar ice.

What are the negative effects of this warming?

Numerous. Mass extinctions. Coastal flooding. More several storms. More catastrophic flooding. More severe droughts. Exponential increase in heat related deaths. Greater distribution of tropical diseases. Mass migrations, permafrost melt....

What are the positive effects of this warming?

Longer growing seasons. Faster crop growth rates. However, it is virtually universally accepted in science that the benefits will be far outweighed by the negative effects. For example, longer growing seasons will be countered by more intense droughts and higher evaporation rates.

How much warming would be occurring without human input?

Virtually all current models project little if any warming absent human activity. We have a warming surface, a warming troposphere, and cooling stratosphere. That is textbook greenhouse warming.

[quoteWhat would the effects of that warming be?[/quote]

Not applicable. (see above)

What can be done to stop or slow the warming?

Very debatable in science. All things being equal, if we significantly reduced carbon emissions, we could curb future warming. However, it is very arguable as to whether we could significantly reduce carbon emissions on a global scale. Therefore, some scientists have argued that instead we should just focus on adapting to the future warmth instead.

Basically, you have two schools of thought:

1. We should reduce carbon emissions by significantly increasing efficiency, and moving towards a more environmentally sustainable economy.

2. We should reduce carbon emissions, and we should move toward a more environmentally sustainable economy, but much of our efforts should be focused toward adapting to future warmth.

How effective are these solutions?

See above, very debatable.

How much would these alternatives cost?

When one looks at the consequences of Global Warming, the current savings of doing nothing is far outweighed by the future costs of warming.

What are their negative effects, both short and long term?

Very debatable. However, usually technology mandates result in a net increase in jobs, as more money is invested in newer technologies. Just the same, this would be a technology mandate on a scale never before seen in human history. So it very well could be a short term drag on growth. For example, imagine the costs to the economy if a Katrina like natural disaster happened several times as often as it does now.

How long will they take to be implemented?

That depends upon what action is taken.

What effect will implementation have on economic competitiveness?

Assuming we acted before most other nations, we would be more competitive in the long term. However, there are a lot of ifs involved here.

In the end, we cannot do anything until an ideological minority accepts the science that the vast majority of the scientific community has accepted though. As the old saying goes, the first step is admitting there is a problem.

 

[Gill]

1. We should reduce carbon emissions by significantly increasing efficiency, and moving towards a more environmentally sustainable economy.

There are negligible efforts taking place worldwide to 'reduce' carbon emissions. What IS taking place is the trading of carbon emissions. In effect, the theory of carbon trading is that I can burn a container of trash in my backyard, but if I buy the carbon rights from my neighbor, who has a few trees, I can burn two containers of trash. This hardly has an affect on total overall carbon emissions. It is simply moving them around making a few people VERY rich.

 

[mpg]

Assuming we acted before most other nations, we would be more competitive in the long term. However, there are a lot of ifs involved here.

It seems highly likely that we could destroy our economy by trying to prevent global warming. Even then, it wouldn't be nearly enough to stop it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

There are negligible efforts taking place worldwide to 'reduce' carbon emissions. What IS taking place is the trading of carbon emissions. In effect, the theory of carbon trading is that I can burn a container of trash in my backyard, but if I buy the carbon rights from my neighbor, who has a few trees, I can burn two containers of trash. This hardly has an affect on total overall carbon emissions. It is simply moving them around making a few people VERY rich.

I will agree with you there. The carbon trading system has been very corrupt so far.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It seems highly likely that we could destroy our economy by trying to prevent global warming. Even then, it wouldn't be nearly enough to stop it.

I disagree. It might have some short term consequences, however, in the long run, it would simply change the nature of some sectors of our economy. There has never been a single example since the dawn of the environmental movement where environmental mandates have been detrimental to the economy.

The problem is that efficiency improvements, technologies like carbon sequestration are only going to get us so far. What it will really require is lifestyle changes. For example, my wife and I lived in Midtown Kansas City, Missouri for the first 5 years or so we were married. We rented a row home in a historic area. However, when we decided to buy a home last year, we opted to get out of the city limits because the inner city schools are terrible and we would have been forced to send our son to private school once he started kindergarten. We ended up buying a home in a small suburb just outside of the city limits. The home we purchased is a small 3 bedroom Cape Cod built in 1941. Our home is about 1400 square feet or so not counting the basement. Our drive into the city to work is just 4 miles each way. The typical new home is at least twice the size of our home (not even a third of the character though). Granted, new homes are insulated better, but just the same, it still requires a good deal more energy to heat and cool a home that is over twice the size of the average home built 40 to 50 years ago. Moreover, these newer homes our way out in suburbs, and where our drive to work is 4 miles each way, the typical commute for someone who lives out in the newer suburbs is usually 20 to 30 miles each way. Where my wife drives a Subaru Forester that gets about 30 miles to a gallon on the highway, many of the soccer moms out the in suburbs drive large SUVs that typically get 15 to 20 miles to the gallon on the highway. It is even the little things, like where we have drought tolerant Fescue in the shade and Zoysia in the sun for our lawn, they will typically have water hungry bluegrass for their lawns. Where we have mature trees that shade our streets and homes and thus cut back on cooling bills, they will typically live in cookie cutter developments, carved out of fields and devoid of trees. Where we try to shop for groceries as much as we can from the city market, they will typically shop at the local super center.

The point is, that for us to make the necessary 70% reduction in our carbon emissions to curb future warming, we have to change our entire lifestyles. We have got to curb urban sprawl and start living closer to each other again. We have got drive more efficient vehicles and use public transit when possible. We need to purchase locally grown food when possible. We need to opt for 1500 to 2000 square feet homes instead of 3000 to 4000 square feet homes. New homes today are twice the size they were in the 40s and 50s, yet families were probably twice as big on average back then. We need to return to a lifestyle where we were more about community than status. These are not changes that would destroy the economy, but rather, they are much harder changes that would require real changes in what we value in life. The problem is that how do you do get society to do this? I suppose one could simply mandate it all, yet that would be by any definition a form of fascism. This would have to be a choice that most people made in life. The problem we have is that we only have about 10 years according to most scientists to get people to start making these choices.

 

[Gill]

We ended up buying a home in a small suburb just outside of the city limits. The home we purchased is a small 3 bedroom Cape Cod built in 1941. Our home is about 1400 square feet or so not counting the basement. Our drive into the city to work is just 4 miles each way.

I believe you have inadvertantly summed up the true debate about global warming. It is not so much the effects that global warming could have on the world, but is more the fanatical desire of the left to insist that everyone conform to their lifestyle choices. You, and when I say you I mean the global warming fanatics and the left, are insistent that everyone live in a tiny little house with a postage stamp lot near a city center. Well guess what? Not everyone agrees with you. I personally would rather live in a double wide on a couple of acres than in the middle of a city. Yet you invent catastophic theories to reinforce your own idea of the perfect lifestyle choice.

You proudly admit that you live in an old inefficient home. I have lived in older homes, but now I choose not to. Your home probably has little or no wall insulation, little or no ceiling insulation, air leaks come through single pane windows, inefficient heating and cooling systems, and I would bet that even your toilets don't meet modern energy efficiency standards. I would guess that you don't even know how much wall and ceiling insulation your house has. You claim that your house is cheaper to heat and cool than a modern larger house, but you have no basis to make the comparison.

Many of the gripes by the left reflect their incessant desire that the rest of us live like them, for instance the constant shrill cries regarding SUVs. I'll admit that some people drive SUVs that have no real need for them. But is that any of your business? Many also drive large SUVs or trucks because the DO have a real need for the size and towing capacity they provide. I hunt and fish and I'm sure your Suburu would not tow a boat of any size.

The point is, that for us to make the necessary 70% reduction in our carbon emissions to curb future warming, we have to change our entire lifestyles. We have got to curb urban sprawl and start living closer to each other again.

The above pretty well sums up the left. When you say 'we' must change our lifestyles, you mean everyone but you. You, the enlightened ones, already live the perfect lifestyle and the rest of us are expected to change ours to match your's. Us dumb hicks that don't want to live in a crackerbox house on a tiny little lot and drive a toy car are simply screwing up the world... at least according to you.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I believe you have inadvertantly summed up the true debate about global warming. It is not so much the effects that global warming could have on the world, but is more the fanatical desire of the left to insist that everyone conform to their lifestyle choices. You, and when I say you I mean the global warming fanatics and the left, are insistent that everyone live in a tiny little house with a postage stamp lot near a city center. Well guess what? Not everyone agrees with you. I personally would rather live in a double wide on a couple of acres than in the middle of a city. Yet you invent catastophic theories to reinforce your own idea of the perfect lifestyle choice.

1. I did not invent Global Warming. It is the scientific consensus, not some left wing invention. The fact that you refuse to accept science does not mean that it’s some invention, but rather it means that you refuse to accept any science that challenges your worldview.

2. I was raised in the country, I would much rather live out on some land than live in a major city. Unfortunately, like many people who live in major cities, I moved here for a career.

You proudly admit that you live in an old inefficient home. I have lived in older homes, but now I choose not to. Your home probably has little or no wall insulation, little or no ceiling insulation, air leaks come through single pane windows, inefficient heating and cooling systems, and I would bet that even your toilets don't meet modern energy efficiency standards. I would guess that you don't even know how much wall and ceiling insulation your house has. You claim that your house is cheaper to heat and cool than a modern larger house, but you have no basis to make the comparison.

There is nothing wrong with living in a new home. My point that you seem to have completely missed is that efficiency will only get us so far. We can’t simply believe that better insulation is going to reduce our energy consumption and therefore our carbon emissions when we are consistently building larger homes. However, my home is insulated. Granted, it’s not as well insulated as a new home, but the walls and attic are full of the old rock wool insulation. Moreover, being its plaster walls insulate far better than modern drywall. The toilets are the modern low flow jobs. The furnace and a/c are about 10 years old, and while they are not as efficient as the newest most efficient units out there, they are certainly as efficient as the cheap 80% efficiency units that builders typically throw in new cookie cutter homes. My home does not have double pain windows, but it does have storm windows. The old homes I grew up in down in Arkansas usually did not have a lick of insulation in them, but most older homes built up north and in the Midwest are fairly well insulated. I understand why a lot of people like newer homes. Right now I am painting mine, and every time I get to a window sill that is so rotted I have to replace it or spend a day fixing it, I cuss my old house. Just the same, the age of a home is not the problem, it’s urban sprawl. Moreover, urban sprawl is not just a global warming issue. Its also a big contributor to the high prices we are all paying at the pump.

Many of the gripes by the left reflect their incessant desire that the rest of us live like them, for instance the constant shrill cries regarding SUVs. I'll admit that some people drive SUVs that have no real need for them. But is that any of your business? Many also drive large SUVs or trucks because the DO have a real need for the size and towing capacity they provide. I hunt and fish and I'm sure your Subaru would not tow a boat of any size.

My wife drives the Subaru. In the snow there is simply not a better vehicle made. I drive a small SUV, most every weekend it has a canoe strapped to the top of it or a mountain bike on the back of it. I fish all summer long. I could not drive a dinky little car and do the things that I like doing. Just the same, I don’t drive a huge SUV either. My point in all of this is that if we really want to try to curb Global Warming, we have to be cognizant of the choices we make and the potential effect those choices have on our environment and on future generations. For example, most people recycle now because they are cognizant of the benefits of doing so. Moreover, they frown upon those who do not recycle and who litter. If most people were cognizant of the contributing effects that inefficiency has toward the environment, they would live more efficient lives.

 

[Gill]

I did not invent Global Warming.

Where exactly did I make this claim??

You completely misunderstood my post. I could care less where you live, what kind of house you live in or what kind of automobile you drive. I don't know any conservatives that would. It is the left that insists that everyone conform to their way of thinking. The point of my post was to point out the hypocrisy of the left. Your reply reinforced my reasoning.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Where exactly did I make this claim??

You completely misunderstood my post. I could care less where you live, what kind of house you live in or what kind of automobile you drive. I don't know any conservatives that would. It is the left that insists that everyone conform to their way of thinking. The point of my post was to point out the hypocrisy of the left. Your reply reinforced my reasoning.

I fail to see what supposed hypocrisy you are trying to point out. I never stated that we should force everyone to live in some environmentally sustainable fashion. In fact, I said that doing so would be fascist. Instead, I wrote that the challenge is to convince people of the merits of making choices that reduce their carbon emissions and the consequences of not doing so.

For example, you are a member of Ducks Unlimited. Ducks Unlimited puts deal of effort into convincing farmers and other landowners of the merits of wetlands preservation. They educate farmers on environmentally responsible pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer use and how those chemicals can negatively affect our nations waters and wildlife. They try to convey to farmers and landowners the moral responsibility that we have to protect the quality of our waters and the wildlife that depends on them. They do this because it’s not enough that some farmers and landowners personally take steps to minimize agricultural run off and to protect and preserve wetlands. This is because the problems associated with this issue are so vast that the vast majority of farmers and landowners must be part of the solution and all farmers and landowners have a moral responsibility to personally take steps to minimize agricultural run off and to protect and preserve wetlands when possible.

Scientists, conservationists, and environmentalists are trying to educate the public about carbon emissions and their affect on the climate. They are trying to convey to the public the potential negative impact that our choices in vehicles, housing, and in some cases lifestyle in general. Regardless of whether you want to accept the scientific consensus or not, Anthropogenic Global warming is huge problem and the negative consequences of it far out way any benefits associated with a warmer climate. We all have to take steps to be part of the solution if we hope to curb future warming. That does not mean that we all have to live in a bunch of hippie communes. It just means that we all have to be cognizant of the choices we make and their potential impact on our climate and environment. Moreover, we have a moral responsibility to do so and there is nothing hypocritical at all about informing others of the issues and what they can do to make a difference.

 

[Gill]

I never stated that we should force everyone to live in some environmentally sustainable fashion.

And I never said you were trying to force anyone. What you do, however is to imply that people that don't live like you think they should are somehow destroying the Earth. They are dumb hicks that just aren't as enlightened as you are. They just don't get it.

Case in point:

Moreover, we have a moral responsibility to do so...

If we don't agree, we are immoral huh?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And I never said you were trying to force anyone. What you do, however is to imply that people that don't live like you think they should are somehow destroying the Earth. They are dumb hicks that just aren't as enlightened as you are. They just don't get it.

Case in point:



If we don't agree, we are immoral huh?

And I never said that people who do not live like me are dumb hicks. In fact, I would think that a lot of people live a lot "greener" lives than my family does. However, there is nothing hypocritical about trying to inform people. For example, we lived out in the country on some land outside of Hot Springs, Arkansas when I was a kid. I used to think nothing of taking our used motor oil and dumping it around the fence posts, or spraying honey suckle and kudzu with diesel, or loading up on insecticides that were fixing to be taken off the market because they did a better job of killing the ticks around the house. It all made perfect sense at the time. Pouring used motor oil around the fence posts help keep them from rotting and kept the termites out of them. Spraying diesel on kudzu and honey suckle killed it to the root. Those banned insecticides did keep the ticks out of the yard. However, in retrospect, it was wrong to pour motor oil around fence posts. That ground around those fence posts is probably still sludged up with that oil today. There probably still isn’t anything growing where we would spray with the diesel, and there was reason why those insecticides we used were taken off the market. So if I poured motor oil around fence posts at my daddy’s place down in Arkansas today, knowing how much it potentially can pollute the land and ground water, it would be immoral. If I went down there and sprayed the honey suckle in the thickets around his place with diesel today, it would be immoral.

We know that human activity since the dawn of the industrial era has significantly changed the composition of our atmosphere. That is absolutely irrefutable. We know that all things being equal, increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere will warm the troposphere and the earth’s surface. That is absolutely irrefutable. It is the scientific consensus that the current warming we are experiencing is directly attributed to human activity. It is the scientific consensus that as carbon dioxide levels increase in our atmosphere that the earth’s climate will continue to warm, and that warming will have serious if not catastrophic consequences for future generations and those consequences will be felt even by many people living today.

The fact is, if the consequences of our actions have a significant negative impact on our environment, then we have a moral obligation to do what we can to mitigate those consequences by modifying those actions when we can.