Let's say just for the sake of argument that AGW is real

[Papa bull]

Well, first of all, we should banish all the people who have been falsely misrepresenting science to the sidelines. Because the issue is real, and the delay they are causing in working out a solution is inexcusable, much like the people who fought the effects of cigarette smoking and health are responsible for many deaths and untold suffering because they desired short term profit over long term solutions. In fact, looking at this from the perspective of the tobacco fights in the 70s, 80s and 90s is instructive.

That being said, the first thing that needs to be addressed is to mitigate further CO2 emission. That means moving off of fossil fuels, but especially coal and oil, to other means of energy. Alternative energy is critical here, expansion of safe nuclear energy too and I would also think massive funding toward fusion research is helpful. This can be accomplished by a few different means. For those who want heavy government hands involved, mandating this stuff works. For those who prefer a market approach (I concur with this) a carbon tax or a cap and trade in carbon credits will be helpful. Ensuring the developing world gets with the program will also be useful, but since China is actually ahead of the US on this, it wont be too tough.

Coal and Oil can still work if we figure out some way of carbon sequestration. Its not a crazy idea to divert CO2 from coal plants into underground reserviors.

Lastly, geoengineering may be necessary at some point. removing the excess CO2 from the atmosphere might be challenging, but its possible to do theoretically. Less useful may be means that have unintended consequences, such as SO2 seeding and encouraging phytoplankton blooms, etc. But science should also be exploring these avenues. Decades from now, things may become clearer on solutions and the early work will give a jump start to solutions.

Of course, there are issues and costs with all of these things. And I expect the AGW crowd will be whining about all of them, just as the pro-tobacco crowd whined about 'freedom' when we resticted smoking rights, increased tobacco taxes, and made smokers paraihs. But I think most people looking back realize that we have all benefitted from a society that is attemtping to limit smoking.

All options should be evaluated and the cost vs. benefit must be considered. It's a hard sell to try to get people to accept financial hardships in an economy that's struggling as a result of actions taken so cost/benefit analysis is essential.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That sounds like a good idea but how would we generate the electricity needed if we replaced combustion engines with electric engines...... Without using fossil fuels to fire the generators?

When I said "sequester CO2 from sources," I meant from power sources. Sorry I didn't clarify. There are ways of doing that, but they are costly. we can still use coal, oil, and natural gas power generation. Adding all that special equipment however...

There is also the nuclear option...

 

[Papa bull]

When I said "sequester CO2 from sources," I meant from power sources. Sorry I didn't clarify. There are ways of doing that, but they are costly. we can still use coal, oil, and natural gas power generation. Adding all that special equipment however...

There is also the nuclear option...

I follow you, now. I think you're on the right track and that these are the practical options as long as the cost/benefit isn't crazy.

 

[Threegoofs]

All options should be evaluated and the cost vs. benefit must be considered. It's a hard sell to try to get people to accept financial hardships in an economy that's struggling as a result of actions taken so cost/benefit analysis is essential.

Obviously. But the cost of doing nothing is quite high, and the cost of stalling and doing nothing, as has been done the last decade by Conservatives desperate for short term profits at the expense of long term prosperity, is getting more expensive every day. Ten years ago, this wouldnt have been too bad in terms of cost. Ten years from now, the cost will be much higher than today.

Heck- thirty years ago we could have made some substantial inroads on minimizing our dependence upon oil and developed alternative energy. That stopped when Reagan tore the solar panels off the roof of the White House as a show of solidarity with the profitable energy companies.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I follow you, now. I think you're on the right track and that these are the practical options as long as the cost/benefit isn't crazy.

Well, the cost/benefit is crazy. That's why there is no serious discussion, because the population isn't convinced that CO2 is a problem. It would slow our economy dramatically I bet. It would produce temporary jobs installing the equipment, but then our wealth would be so drained...

Naturally, the manufacturing of the special equipment would be outsourced, like anything else these days... We would benefit other nations who we contract to.

We would probably have to use the force of our military to make many nations comply...

If CO2 really is a serious problem, we would have to police the world! You all ready for that?

 

[Papa bull]

Heck- thirty years ago we could have made some substantial inroads on minimizing our dependence upon oil and developed alternative energy.

I disagree. We can't rely just pull a new alternative energy out of our RSU just because we want one and are omnipotent Gods. A technology that doesn't exist even in theory would have to be discovered before there is an alternative to oil that approximates the cost to output ratio, let alone the convenience and portability of such a compact
Liquid fuel.

 

[Threegoofs]

I disagree. We can't rely just pull a new alternative energy out of our RSU just because we want one and are omnipotent Gods. A technology that doesn't exist even in theory would have to be discovered before there is an alternative to oil that approximates the cost to output ratio, let alone the convenience and portability of such a compact
Liquid fuel.

You dismiss the significant environmental cost of fossil fuels, as people are wont to do when the focus on short term profits. If you assume a 5 degree C rise by 2100- the minor inconveniences of having to pay a bit more when you drive your electric car, or the minor inconvenience of taking mass transit instead of driving as a single person in your massive car to and from work everyday will be laughable.

Solar can produce electricity. Lots of it. It's getting more efficient, but its always been usable- even in the simple form of hot water heaters painted black on rooftops.

 

[Papa bull]

You dismiss the significant environmental cost of fossil fuels, as people are wont to do when the focus on short term profits. If you assume a 5 degree C rise by 2100- the minor inconveniences of having to pay a bit more when you drive your electric car, or the minor inconvenience of taking mass transit instead of driving as a single person in your massive car to and from work everyday will be laughable.

Solar can produce electricity. Lots of it. It's getting more efficient, but its always been usable- even in the simple form of hot water heaters painted black on rooftops.

I'm not dismissing the environmental cost of fossil fuels at all. I think we disagree on their nature. If you are convinced the temperature wl climb 5 degrees celcius on average by 2100 then we aren't on the same page with much of anything because that's more than the 3-8 degree fahrenheit range that the most radical alarmists are calling for. You're talking 12 degrees.

And I think we disagree on how minor the "inconvenience" would be of switching wholesale from fossil fuels to electric. It would be economically catastrophic. The reason so many people aren't buying in is largely because it would set us back to lifestyles of the late 1800's economically. We would be back to the economy before oil.

 

[ArcaniteCartel]

For those fretting about global warming... let's just scrap all the scientific kerfuffle over whether anthropogenic global warming is real and assume for this argument that (a) the Earth is rapidly warming and (b) it's man's Co2 emissions that are causing it.

What would YOU have us all do about it?

Take as much carbon out of the energy cycle as possible

1. Convert the national energy infrastructure
- nuclear power generation
- use hydrogen to fuel internal combustion engines
- update the electrical grid so that it is less lossy, "smart", and more resilient to natural disasters
- where carbon must still be used, use natural gas
- keep oil for the production of synthetics
- supplement where feasible with solar and wind - these won't be the mainstay
- invest in new forms of nuclear power research (fusion, LENR). Plus more advances in reactor design.

2. This will need to be done as a national program, much like the Apollo program was. This will be larger.

 

[Threegoofs]

I'm not dismissing the environmental cost of fossil fuels at all. I think we disagree on their nature. If you are convinced the temperature wl climb 5 degrees celcius on average by 2100 then we aren't on the same page with much of anything because that's more than the 3-8 degree fahrenheit range that the most radical alarmists are calling for. You're talking 12 degrees.

And I think we disagree on how minor the "inconvenience" would be of switching wholesale from fossil fuels to electric. It would be economically catastrophic. The reason so many people aren't buying in is largely because it would set us back to lifestyles of the late 1800's economically. We would be back to the economy before oil.

Sorry, I should have clarified I was making the number up as a worst case scenario. Fine. Go with 5 degrees F. Same deal. Massive disruption, extreme cost.

And the thing you're missing is that you DONT switch wholesale. Fossil fuels will still be needed, just at a much lower level. But between conservation, efficiency, mass transit and moving to nuclear/solar/wind, etc, you can make a huge dent in the CO2 emissions. But every day we delay, it will get costlier and more economically difficult.

 

[flogger]

Take as much carbon out of the energy cycle as possible

1. Convert the national energy infrastructure
- nuclear power generation
- use hydrogen to fuel internal combustion engines
- update the electrical grid so that it is less lossy, "smart", and more resilient to natural disasters
- where carbon must still be used, use natural gas
- keep oil for the production of synthetics
- supplement where feasible with solar and wind - these won't be the mainstay
- invest in new forms of nuclear power research (fusion, LENR). Plus more advances in reactor design.

2. This will need to be done as a national program, much like the Apollo program was. This will be larger.

Theres a couple of major problems with all of that massive cost . What if we are wrong it doesnt work ? What are we still trying to fix now the warming has stopped ? One has to ask is this all about fighting climate change or simply a war against human aspiration and profit ?

Given the current obervations vs modelled predictions we should simply carry on 'as is'... in my opinion. Obviously leaner and cleaner options for current power generation should be implemented when it is economically feasible to do so but not before .

 

[Threegoofs]

Theres a couple of major problems with all of that massive cost . What if we are wrong it doesnt work ? What are we still trying to fix now the warming has stopped ?

Apparently, you missed the title of the thread.

Not surprising.

 

[Papa bull]

Sorry, I should have clarified I was making the number up as a worst case scenario. Fine. Go with 5 degrees F. Same deal. Massive disruption, extreme cost.

And the thing you're missing is that you DONT switch wholesale. Fossil fuels will still be needed, just at a much lower level. But between conservation, efficiency, mass transit and moving to nuclear/solar/wind, etc, you can make a huge dent in the CO2 emissions. But every day we delay, it will get costlier and more economically difficult.

Here are the things that make me very skeptical that we've got a practical solution to an actual problem.

1. Somewhat reducing Co2 won't stop the problem if it's a real problem, especially if we're the only ones doing it.

2. The cost of these changes are grossly underestimated by people who think it would just be a minor inconvenience.

3. We could actually live just fine with even 10 degrees warmer. We'd have to make some adjustments but I think the nature of those adjustments is dwarfed by the nature of the adjustments to our lifestlye that severely curtailing the use of oil or other fossil fuels. However, if we can come up with an alternative energy that is as plentiful and cost efficient, it's a whole different story. The problem with that is there is no such thing.

Seriously, I believe that even if AGW is a real problem, we will probably find we're better off adjusting to it than wrecking our economy. The adjustment to a climate change will be easier than going back to the 1800's economically, in my opinion.

Again, this is all supposing that the Earth actually IS warming at an alarming rate and that the warming will continue and that it's man-made and that it's reversible.

 

[flogger]

Again, this is all supposing that the Earth actually IS warming at an alarming rate and that the warming will continue and that it's man-made and that it's reversible.

Indeed . And all of those big assumptions are becoming less and less credible as the observed reality increasingly departs the AGW hypothesis. Given that this is the case one has to ask what still motivates the dwindling band of AGW disciples and what thier true motivations for still wanting to impose thier economic hair shirt on the rest of us really are ?

 

[Jerry]

For those fretting about global warming... let's just scrap all the scientific kerfuffle over whether anthropogenic global warming is real and assume for this argument that (a) the Earth is rapidly warming and (b) it's man's Co2 emissions that are causing it.

What would YOU have us all do about it?

Nothing.

The Earth will be fine, man will survive, life will go on.

And if there were a global calamity, well maybe we need a good shake-up to make a meaningful, lasting change.

Bring it on.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Nothing.

The Earth will be fine, man will survive, life will go on.

And if there were a global calamity, well maybe we need a good shake-up to make a meaningful, lasting change.

Bring it on.

I agree, we don't need to mitigate it, but I was trying to play the game.

It simply means the regions closer to the equator will become hotter, and the regions nearing the poles will become mare habitable. Siberia, Alaska, etc. could become booming population centers. Beachfront property will be several feet higher. So what? populations naturally move anyway.

 

[ttwtt78640]

For those fretting about global warming... let's just scrap all the scientific kerfuffle over whether anthropogenic global warming is real and assume for this argument that (a) the Earth is rapidly warming and (b) it's man's Co2 emissions that are causing it.

What would YOU have us all do about it?

To quote Alvin Lee, from Ten Years After, "tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more". AGW is like many other leftist causes - a manufactured vision of impending doom. The "solution" is always to let "them" implement control, always including income redistribution, and place a gov't (usually global) in charge to "make needed changes".

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

Get back to nature. More organic farming...more walking and biking and less cars. Place huge carbon taxes on buying cars. Use peaceful diplomatic means to force other countries to become more environmentally friendly.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Get back to nature. More organic farming...more walking and biking and less cars. Place huge carbon taxes on buying cars. Use peaceful diplomatic means to force other countries to become more environmentally friendly.

How are you going to place a carbon tax on Asia?

 

[Threegoofs]

Well bull, why don't you answer your own question? What if the temp is going to rise 6 degrees by 2100?

What should we do?

 

[flogger]

Thats currently looking about as probable as a major asteroid strike ! :lol:

 

[flogger]

How are you going to place a carbon tax on Asia?

Nobody is going to force them to do anything they dont want to do whilst they have the West by the balls financially. I'm sure they are delighting in the dragging anchor of our self imposed AGW penance as thier economies zoom past us.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Nobody is going to force them to do anything they dont want to do whilst they have the West by the balls financially. I'm sure they are delighting in the dragging anchor of our self imposed AGW penance as thier economies zoom past us.

So, what do you think the alarmists answer are regarding Asia? That we go to 18th century lifestyles, and let Asia do as they please?

 

[flogger]

So, what do you think the alarmists answer are regarding Asia? That we go to 18th century lifestyles, and let Asia do as they please?

The plain fact is most of them dont care about what happens in Asia the third world or anywhere else outside thier own myopic national fish tank. The real target for them are those they envy within thier own communities. This is about penalising aspiration and profit and everything else comes a long way behind that thinly veiled agenda. One can witness this on virtually any thread with the partisan political smearing starting every time they get put on the defensive.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The plain fact is most of them dont care about what happens in Asia the third world or anywhere else outside thier own myopic nation fish tank. The real target for them are those they envy within thier own communities. This is about penalising aspiration and profit . Everything else comes a long way behind that thinly veiled agenda. One can witness this on virtually any thread with the partisan political smearing starting every time they get put on the defensive.

It sure does appear you are correct!