Debate
Free World: The book
Latest
Commentary
Suggested Websites
Timothy Garton Ash
What should we do about global warming?
| It's beyond all reasonable doubt that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to dangerous global warming. Most EU countries have cut their emissions; the United States has barely begun. Unless the US does more to restrain itself, how can we possibly expect China, and other rapidly industrialising countries to do the same. What is to be done? |  |
Debate 1/3
Roger Davies, Briton living in Germany
Your first sentence is not undisputed, and not just by unreasonable people.
So, even if global warming is happening, then we should establish in a scientific way why this is so. The Russian Academy recently reported to Pres. Putin that there was a close relationship between sun storm activity and fluctuations global temperatures. It is therefore reasonable, at present, to assume that there will be other contributors to any global warming, not just CO2.
Even if we find out that global warming is happening, we then need to find out whether humans have significantly contributed to the warming. I believe humans are responsible for approx. 2% of the CO2 emissions. To attempt to reduce global warming by changing our behaviour is like trying to save electricity by living in darkness while at the same time leaving the electric oven on 24hrs a day.
On a purely pragmatic basis, the US is probably right (s. also Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist") to consider that the money (a scarce resource) spent on reducing CO2 emissions would be better spent on providing clean water and basic sanitation to poor countries and people. Not very sexy, but effective and life-saving; and we know this to be the case because of the experiences made in 19th Century London.
I have lived in Germany for over 30 years now, and it is
as well to remember that the Green party there is the "become respectable"
remnant of the '68 rampages. They are "alternative" but, as
you say in "Free World" the Germans are ideologues ("Was
soll das bedeuten?"); the German Greens, who exported their politics
to the disaffected in the rest of the world, are ideologues' ideologues.
All their arguments are of the nature of "apocalypse in 50 years
time" and never of the optimistic variety in the sense of let's solve
real problems as best we can now, and solve any problems that might arise
from that later. And, most follow Prof. Schneider of Stanford, in thinking
that it's so important to save the planet that they're justified in lying
to the people and frightening them if there's any question about the evidence
that the planet is being wrecked.
Ich kenne meine Pappenheimer.
China? Once they're a bit better off, they won't put up
with a wrecked local environment any more than the people of Salford were
prepared to.
What's to be done. How about "Don't panic, stay calm, and have trust
in people everywhere to have a pretty good idea of what's in their own
best interest".
Daniel Gordon, UK
This is a hard one. The only realistic answer is: we're just going to have to consume less. Current European, let alone American, lifestyles are simply unsustainable if replicated at a global level (and we can hardly tell the rest of the world they can't have what we in the West have).
This is going to require an enormous amount of will-power: it means prioritising the survival of humanity ahead of our short-term convenience. But a good start, that is open to individuals to take right away, would be: don't own a car. You'll not only have the satisfaction of doing something about global warming and impending world energy crisis (not to mention the thousands of needless deaths on the roads), but you'll feel healthier and happier from the walk to and from the bus stop / train station.
Why not try it?
Michael Remler, United States
Global warming is only the most recent neo-Malthusian fashion. This too shall pass. These eno-Malthusian obsessions come, dominate the chattering class for a period and pass. In the 200 years since Malthus they have NEVER been right. There have been Ice Ages and warm periods since the formation of the Earth's crust. The scientists who are so sure they know what will happen next have no idea why the past has happened. There can be no doubt that climate change in whatever direction, for whatever reason, at whatever rate will create problems that must be managed - and they will be. Remember the anxiety 1000 yrs ago about the severe preasure on the peat market created by the decline in readily available forrest wood in Europe? Relax, you think better that way.
DoomMastered, South Chicago, USA
I'm looking forward to Chicago becoming a bit warmer. I'm
looking forward to planting some citrus trees in the yard. Some tropical
birds around the house would be nice.
I'm ready! I think i'll go race around the bypass in my SUV.
D. L. Granberry, USA
If a prolonged period of climatic warming has begun, it
is entirely too late to stop it or even limit it very much. We are, after
all talking about a very large system with a great deal of momentum. What
is needed right now is a strategy for accommodating the changes in climate,
sea level, et cetera.
Mind you, I am not holding my breath while waiting for such strategies
to emerge. It would appear that finding a way to cope with a looming influenza
pandemic is well beyond the grasp of world leadership.
Richard, USA
http://www.freeworldweb.net/images/globalwarming_big.jpg
That picture is pretty telling - The global warming red cloud is ONLY
over USA. HAHAHAHAHHAA
Susan Starke, USA
The US has more to lose by adopting the Kyoto treaty than any other country. It's being asked to damage its economy severely for a mere theory. According to the US Constitution, the Kyoto agreement, like all international treaties, has to be approved by the US Senate. That will never happen, as constituents whose jobs will be affected by the treaty will crucify their congressmen who vote for it. Even under Clinton, Kyoto was dead. If European electorates won't agree to cuts in social programs to save their economies, why should they expect American voters to accede to economic decline for the sake of a dubious theory? Yes, the USA pollutes. But it also produces. China, Brazil, etc. should be held to the same environmental standards as the US, but they aren't.
Paddy, California
What a lot of ill-informed ideological claptrap. Those who deny the reality of climate crisis share the morals of holocaust denialists. Global climatic disruption is real, its killing people and wiping out species now and will continue to do so at an accelerating rate. We can't stop climate disruption, so we must take measures to adapt to it and hopefully mitigate its worst ravages. But we can slow it down and reduce the long-term temperature increase. Doing so will eventually require a global deal which includes the highest polluters agreeing to make major cuts in their pollution and in helping to pay for cleaner technologies in the poorer countries that still emit very little compared to the sizes of their populations. (Anti-Kyoto whiners that complain about Brazil and China not having to cut their emissions can be ignored - everyone involved knows that Kyoto only lasts until 2012 and that big developing countries must be included in the deal for post-2012). The more responsible and moral governments are now ready to start discussing such a deal.
Duncan Robertson, Cornwall, UK
Hello!
So, some still dispute that global warming has reality.
To keep them company, I'll become a flat-earther and
adopt Pictish Fundamentalism as my faith. It's too late
for pointless argument. Soon the Earth's poles will be ice-free and Mr
Blair in Parliament will be up to his knees in seawater. DO let's have
urgent and constructive debate upon the biggest problem of all.
John Webber, UK
For the last 50 years or so, for every second of every
day, millions of vehicles have been pumping greenhouse gasses into the
air all around the world. Study after study is now confirming that this
, along with all the other fossil fuel burning activities, is a major
factor in the global warming that we have experienced during this period.
To continue denying this seems to me to be ostrich-like behaviour of the
highest order.
The problem indeed is what do we do about it? I don't believe we can leave
it to human self-interest as suggested above, mainly because there is
a conflict of interests of major proportions taking place. The current
trend always seems to favour short-termism. We live in a 'want it all
now' society and damn the consequences. When the likes of President Bush
keep throwing us straws to clutch to justify our lifestyle, most of us
do so. To persuade today's consumers to reject that lifestyle in order
to try to curb a threat of as yet unknown scale is probably an impossible
task, even for the most persuasive politician.
My belief is that it's too late anyway. I think the only thing we can
do is to prepare responsibly for the future problems we are likely to
encounter; flooding and other extreme weather damage, spreading of diseases
related to hotter climates, displaced populations whose home environment
is no longer habitable to name a few. Perhaps we can also hope that future
generations don't judge us as harshly as they probably will.
Michel Bastian, France
Incidentally, there are reasons for the US not signing
the Kyoto protocol other than just Bush catering to business interests.
You´ll be surprised to hear that even the Clinton administration
had reservations about it.
First reason: it hasn´t been scientifically established that there
is indeed a global warming problem. There are very strong indications
of this, but no definitive proof. This means that administrations will
have a devil of a time getting the Kyoto protocol through to their electorate,
especially, of course, business interests. Incidentally, the american
industry isn´t the only one whining about it, french industry isn´t
very happy with it either.
Second reason: the Kyoto protocol includes a system of "emission
shopping" that lets one country "buy" emission rights from
another country. Now this isn´t really the object of the whole thing:
the object is to reduce emissions, not set a global emission standard
which might or might not be adequate and then open up an emission sales
market.
Third reason: the Kyoto protocol does not adequately address the question
of promoting alternative energies. This is crucial, because in the long
run, you´ll have to find alternatives to the current dependence
on oil, if only to escape the political implications. If you don´t
force governments to implement alternative energy programs, you´ll
leave it to industry to do something about it, and they don´t have
an interest in that unless it brings them the same (or preferably more)
profits as the current energy sources. Needless to say that won´t
be the case for a long time yet.
So there are reasons not to like the Kyoto protocol. However, to do a
bit of Bush bashing again, there´s no reason to completely refuse
any negotiation about it.
To Roger
>I have lived in Germany for over 30 years now,
and it is as well to remember that the Green party there is the "become
respectable" remnant of the '68 rampages. They are "alternative"
but, as you say in "Free World" the Germans are ideologues ("Was
soll das bedeuten?"); the German Greens, who exported their politics
to the disaffected in the rest of the world, are ideologues' ideologues.
All their arguments are of the nature of "apocalypse in 50 years
time" and never of the optimistic variety in the sense of let's solve
real problems as best we can now, and solve any problems that might arise
from that later. And, most follow Prof. Schneider of Stanford, in thinking
that it's so important to save the planet that they're justified in lying
to the people and frightening them if there's any question about the evidence
that the planet is being wrecked.
Ich kenne meine Pappenheimer.
Ich auch :-). Actually, I don´t agree with you on a few things here. For starters, it´s not really true that the Greens in Germany are remnants of ´68. The Green party only ever really emerged in Germany in the early eigties from the pacifist and ecological movements, and at first it was only preoccupied with those two issues. Only afterwards, when they were starting to actually draw votes and get into local parliaments did the greens work out a program that actually tried to deal with all the other political issues, and this program was more or less socialist in nature. Also, the green party in germany nowadays isn´t about "apocalypse in 50 years time" any more by a far cry. Actually, it was a green politician, Joschka Fischer, who more or less invented the word "realpolitik". And no, afaik they don´t lie to justify their politics. They do, however, have a slight tendency to overreact when it comes to unproven ecological issues, like global warming.
Robert, USA
Global Warming is now undeniable. There is some doubt as
to the cause but the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field
say it is almost certainly due to human release of greenhouse gases.
It should also be obvious that as long as "developed" countries
are dependent upon oil supplies in muslim countries that our military-industrial
complex will use this dependence as an excuse to meddle in their affairs
with disastrous consequences. The ascendance of companies like Haliburton
is evidence of the merger of the military and oil-extraction industries.
While renewable energy sources can make a contribution I have never seen
any credible claim that they can provide anything like the amount of energy
that it would require to sustain current energy consumption levels, let
alone extend US or EU consumption levels to the rest of the world. There
is no such thing as a nonpolluting energy source. All energy sources have
their detrimental environmental effects, which is why conservation has
to be the first recourse. The first thing to go should be the dependence
upon the automobile, the source of the most egregious and avoidable waste
of fossil fuels. It is overused by at least an order of magnitude for
personal transport. Getting rid of it would help alleviate the current
plagues of obesity and heart disease - the number one cause of death in
the US.
I see a lot of alarm about the potential "economic damage" of
changing our energy use habits. What exactly is "economic damage"?
There will still be an economy no matter what we do. It seems that this
is all about maintaining the status quo - not a worthy endeavor. It's
a goner in any case. If after converting our transportation system to
mass transit and implementing alternate energy sources we still don't
have enough work to keep everyone employed than we can get started with
worktime reduction (and I don't want to hear about "lumps of labor").
The reason that the Kyoto Protocol does not require anything of developing
nations is because their per-capita greenhouse gas generation is such
a small fraction of ours (it was even smaller in 1990 which is what the
protocol requirements were based on). Any fair agreement would have to
be based upon greenhouse gas emmission per capita and we can hardly ask
the Chinese, for instance, to limit their per capita emissions to less
than half of ours. We have to show that we are acting in good faith.
Jessi, Boston, USA
I just realized that I rather bluntly swore in my contribution. If the statement is too much for your site, feel free to edit it out (or if it's not too much, you could do the old "shit = s***" trick =P) I would rather have my ideas edited for the sake of getting out my opinion than having the whole thing rejected for the sake of my casual language. Thanks! =)
Jessi, Boston, USA
When a person quits smoking, even after 20, 30, 40 YEARS
of it, their lungs immediately begin the intense (if slow and imperfect)
process of self-repair. Nature is the most remarkable system in effect
on this planet, and the only one that just never gives up!
So to those people who think that it's "too late anyway" I say,
SHAME ON YOU!!! And to those of you who have any doubts about the status
of global warming, no offense but, WAKE UP!!! This is not some urban legend
or small-town wives' gossip ring. Scientists the world over are finally
coming to the inevitable, nearly unanimous agreement: it's here and it
is a real threat. Maybe not to us, but I have noticed a human tendency
to reproduce...
What should we do about it? Well of course, we SHOULD cut back on a lot
of our luxuries (namely automobiles). This isn't realistic though, and
it probably isn't going to happen (even I, who love alternate modes of
transportation, still must admit that the convenience of my car makes
me spoilt and unwilling to relinquish it entirely).
So what can we do? Well for starters, we need more scientists to study
solutions and more engineers to carry out those solutions: they've already
begun with the hybrids, let's keep going, we're the smartest species ever
in existence folks!!! As for the common man: well duh, SUPPORT the solutions,
BUY the hybrids, until they do better then BUY the new better stuff! And
truly, do seek alternate transportation when you can, and PLEASE walk
when possible: it feels great, really!
And YES we need international unity on this one (i.e. Kyoto, but stop
whining about responsibility and just DO IT). If really bad Hollywood
movies have taught me anything, it's that in the face of terrestrial disaster,
the planet ALWAYS comes together as one. Let's try it for real, eh?
Most importantly, we need to spread the idea that WE ALL DON'T HAVE TO
BE HEROES. I'll be the first to admit: I said we need more scientists
and engineers, though personally I'm neither (I'm pre-med, does that make
up for it?). But I am looking into a hybrid for my next car, and I do
make a daily effort to walk whenever I can. Admittedly, it's small, but
if we can get everyone to make small efforts, we'll have taken our first
step, and once we're comfortable there, we can move onto the other foot.
Remember: One voice can whisper but 6.4 billion voices can make a whole
lot of noise.
Susan Starke, USA
In response to Paddy, California:
It's not "ideological claptrap" to admit the fact that voters
in truly democratic countries are not going to support politicians whose
policies will damage voters' livelihoods. Sorry, but the US is not run
by technocratic elites, your so-called "responsible and moral government."
The US government is accountable to the US voters only. If and when the
environment becomes too smelly and dangerous to tolerate, the electorate
will support the necessary changes. Is this selfish? Maybe so, but the
US is the economic motor of the world. Slow it down, and you'll have a
lot more immediate difficulties to deal with than global warming. And
in response to Robert, USA; so the automobile is "overused...for
personal transport." I'm assuming you live in a large (probably coastal)
city, otherwise you would not be making such a claim. Large-scale public
transit is impractical and economically unviable in large swathes of the
US. I personally drive to work because there is no other way for me to
get there, unless I spent 6 hours a day walking.
Jan Paul, USA
Here's a thought. Yellowstone National Park is one of the
largest calderas in the world. The last time it erupted, it laid down
three feet of ash a thousand miles away in the midwest. A volcano of that
magnitute going off, scientists say would cool the earth to start another
Ice Age and those scientists say the dog-gone thing is 40,000 years overdue
for an eruption.
Or how about this, the polor ice caps melt in 100 years like they say
and add five feet of water depth to the oceans. Hmmmm? Five extra feet
of water weight on 3 quarters of the earth. That ought to make a few volcano
pop on the parts of the earth the "bulge" to relieve the pressure
that weight creates. Get enough of those puppies belching gas and ash
and we could see all kinds of climate change just have we would have seen
in every cycle like this throughout the history of this planet. Some changes
so extreme it wiped out dinosaurs. Or how about the super volcano that
erupted and according to scientists (those pesky critters) reduced the
earths population to about 10,000 humans. Maybe that was when the "Big
Flood" occurred. Bet it rained like crazy around the world after
that cloud entered the sky and cooled the atmosphere (that's probably
just an implausable guess though)
Anyway, the normal cycles of the earth, the sun, and other factors beyond
our power will probably alter what we are concerned about in the next
century or so or at least before we really can have an impact. Doesn't
mean we should do our best to keep our air healthy to breath, but we don't
need to over value our ability to control it either.
Bob Powelson, A Canadian in Korea
You say; "Global warming is undeniable." I say
prove it, but in that proof remember that the statistical approach is
very suspect. There are in ascending levels of error, lies, damned lies
and statistics.
What should we do about it? Nothing for now. Perhaps we could start with
generating electricity with nuclear power.
Joe Larson, USA
To those who say "prove it first": if the evening
news reports police saying there is a burglar in the neighborhood, do
you leave your window open just because "its hot out, until they
prove there is a burglar i'm leaving the window open"?
Human induced global climate change is nearly indisputed in the scientific
community, the people who are supposed to know about this kind of thing.
Who are the most outspoken folks on the other side? Big industry, politicians,
and people who think the good folks will be Raptured up out of any mess
we make. I'll take the scientists any time.
Peter, Boston, Mass.
Please read Ross Gelbspan's "Boiling Point" for
the most serious and widescale understanding of the global-warming crisis.
You may be concerned about terrorism, poverty, developing-country youth
surge, financial crisis, but nothing compares with the fallout of global
warming and its feedback effects over the next 100 years.
There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been in the past 420,000
years, and all of this increase -- from 270 ppm to 379 ppm -- has occurred
since the Industrial Revolution. The past two years are the first two
years on record that parts per million of CO2 increased in the atmosphere
by more than 2% each year. Previously it had been around 1.6 per year.
Watch for more extreme weather events, steer clear of the Big Oil and
Detroit PR machines, and, most important, don't exhaust yourself arguing
with conservative flat-earthers on the science or the rumors about climate
change. Simply direct them to the Web site of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, or refer them to the recent multi-country Arctic assessment
(ACIA).
Eddie, Tennessee, USA
Daniel Gordon, UK wrote
"But a good start, that is open to individuals to take right away,
would be: don't own a car. You'll not only have the satisfaction of doing
something about global warming and impending world energy crisis (not
to mention the thousands of needless deaths on the roads), but you'll
feel healthier and happier from the walk to and from the bus stop / train
station."
Because the nearest Train/Bus station is over 80 miles away?
Michael Hulbert, USA
I work next to the Mississippi river. Where one giant ship after another passes by; another up river passes, and another down river passes. Ships from countries all over the globe. They burn low grade fuels, that polute the skies. The emmissions equel 1000's of sitting cars in traffic. We have spent money for years developing cleaner emmission standards for cars. Meanwhile, these giant ships pass gas without laws and not enforced. We need global law that will stop these monsters.
Robert, USA
Susan,
Large scale public transport is not as unpractical as you might think.
I have traveled around rural England, for example, and it seemed as though
every village with one hundred people had hourly bus service. If the US
was like this you would have no trouble getting to work on public transport.
As it is there are cities in the US with 50,000 people where you could
grow old and die waiting for a bus to take you out of town. Also if you
could walk to work in 3 hours (9 miles, I figure) you could easily bike
to work in less than 1. When the days are long enough I make about half
of my 30-mile one way trips to work by bicycle. The rest I do by public
transport or some combination of public transport and bicycle. I am fortunate
to live somewhere where this is possible but that is no accident. I can
choose where I live.You're right in saying that it will be politically
very difficult to implement the unnecessary changes. It looks to me like
it will take some serious economic restructuring in order for it to done
- before civilization collapses completely, that is.
Jan Paul, USA
We have been in a warming trend for thousands of years and the fact that it is accelerating doesn't eliminate the fact that all our efforts to reduce the pace of Global Warming will only change the time table by a generation or a few generations even if we did get everyone on board. We should do all we can do, but most developing nations will cheat or not get on board because the citizens will not be willing to make the necessary sacrifices. And when the next super-volcano erupts and triggers another mini-ice age, I suppose people will want us to do something about global cooling. If the ice caps are melting, as I believe they are, won't that make some parts of the world more habitable? Will northern Siberia be warmer? Can't we move to more hospitable places. Thats what a lot of people have already done. I remember during the dust bowl years of the midwest how many people moved to California and other states. I actaully like it warmer, being from a cold state and I certainly don't mind moving to where I am more comfortable. However, don't ask me to give up my creature comforts just so things aren't as warm. Sounds harsh, doesn't it. Yet that is exactly what a majority of people say even when they agree the earth is getting warmer. They just don't care that it is getting warmer. They will tell you, so what, we are living longer than the generation of my parents and we have more freedom to travel and can build larger homes and consume more food, etc. So, how do you argue against their perception of what is important. They don't think your perception, even though true, is worth worrying about if it means giving up even one thing. Doesn't make it fair or right, but it is their perception of what is important. Phoenix,Az. almost lost a sales tax extension for freeways because they included a mass transit system in the extension. They say they want cars not trains.
Bob Powelsen, A Canadian in Korea
I have spent most of my life in Canada. It is, on a worldwide
basis a pretty cold country and it has one of the highest proportionate
to population CO2 emission rates in the world. If indeed greenhouse gasses
are solely responsible for warming then why should Canada be penalized
because of proportional emission rates or total emmission rates?
Consider a number of factors:
1. Climate - it is a darned cold country and it requires the use of fuels
of many kinds from wood to petroleum products to heat homes etc. even
to a livable standard.
Have you ever tried riding a bicycle 3 kilometers in minus 30 weather
after a huge snowstorm? I would much prefer to take my gas guzzling SUV
and put in 4 wheel drive.
2. Distance - it has a small population spread over vast distances. In
many parts of Canada it is economically impossible to supply public transportation
of the kind necessay for a decent lifestyle. In tiny England it is possible
to have hourly bus service in nearly every little village. In Canada we
don't even have a daily transcontinental train service between the largest
cities. We go by air because of the time and distance factor.
3. Resources - we have the resources and we have the wealth. Can anyone
give me a good reason why I should drastically lower my standard of living
so that some third world polluter like China or Indonesia can minimally
raise their standard of living?
4. Nukes - Why is everyone so adamantly opposed to using nuclear power?
For the same reason that people on this forum call those like me who question
greenhouse gas science "flat earth conservatives". Nuclear energy
is probably the least polluting of all on a total basis. Proper care of
spent fuel etc. would make it a great alternative, but unreasoning fear
and opposition makes it impossible.
5. Public Transport - The biggest problem with public transport to me
personally is the darn fool louts, scum and barbarians I have to share
it with.
J David L, USA
What should we do about global warming?
Nothing.
It is not real science...
Ramiro, Madrid, Spain
It's very dissapointing reading all this.... I thought nobody would deny there's a global warming due to human activity... I expected to read posts just about different ways of dealing (or not) with it..... It makes me feel very sad.
Michel Bastian, France
> I have spent most of my life in Canada. It is, on
a worldwide basis a pretty cold country and it has one of the highest
proportionate to population CO2 emission rates in the world.
Well, that might well be, but I doubt they´re even coming close
to the US, the EU or Russia in overall emissions. So in my mind Canada
is not really the problem.
> If indeed greenhouse gasses are solely responsible for warming then
why should Canada be penalized because of proportional emission rates
or total emmission rates?
Consider a number of factors:
>1. Climate - it is a darned cold country and it requires the use of
fuels of many kinds from wood to petroleum products to heat homes etc.
even to a livable standard.
Have you ever tried riding a bicycle 3 kilometers in minus 30 weather
after a huge snowstorm? I would much prefer to take my gas guzzling SUV
and put in 4 wheel drive.
Yup, good point. Actually, this is a valid point for most countries with
big distances to cover and extreme climates (like Canada, but also like
the US, Russia, Australia or China). When people have to go somewhere,
they need a car, because there isn´t any public transportation around
in most places. Case in point: from my apartment in the city (Cologne,
Germany) I can easily go visit my aunt in the countryside by bus (public
transport) or even by bike. No big distances involved, no climate problems.
In America or Canada, I´d have to have a car for that because the
place I want to go to could well be 40 or 50 km off the nearest airport,
train or bus station (if I´m lucky). Also, in Canada in Winter,
I probably even couldn´t leave my home without snowshoes and a huge
big shovel.
> 2. Distance - it has a small population spread over vast distances.
In many parts of Canada it is economically impossible to supply public
transportation of the kind necessay for a decent lifestyle. In tiny England
it is possible to have hourly bus service in nearly every little village.
In Canada we don't even have a daily transcontinental train service between
the largest cities. We go by air because of the time and distance factor.
Indeed, you´re right. Again, this goes for America, Russia, Australia
and China as well.
> 3. Resources - we have the resources and we have the wealth. Can
anyone give me a good reason why I should drastically lower my standard
of living so that some third world polluter like China or Indonesia can
minimally raise their standard of living?
Like I said: emission shoping is not a good system. Either everybody makes
sacrifices or you won´t be able to sell Kyoto to the people.
> 4. Nukes - Why is everyone so adamantly opposed to using nuclear
power? For the same reason that people on this forum call those like me
who question greenhouse gas science "flat earth conservatives".
Nuclear energy is probably the least polluting of all on a total basis.
Proper care of spent fuel etc. would make it a great alternative, but
unreasoning fear and opposition makes it impossible.
Again, you´re right. There is no viable alternative to nuclear power
yet if you don´t want to revert to fossile energies.
> 5. Public Transport - The biggest problem with public transport to
me personally is the darn fool louts, scum and barbarians I have to share
it with.
Well, there are worse things ... though I can´t think of any right
now :-).
One thing you forgot to adress, though: emissions by industry. I´m
not a scientist, but afaik industry´s the one that produces a lion´s
share of all global emissions, so they´d be an interesting target
for emission cutdowns. However, if you want to cut industry emissions
down you are inevitably going to produce more cost for businesses who
emit. This wouldn´t be a problem except for economical reasons:
any big business who gets tighter environment rules will tend to try and
recoup the cost on other factors (mostly labour and prices). Or, even
worse, they´ll just emigrate to countries that have a higher emission
allowance and lower wages. So you´re probably only going to make
more businesses emigrate to India or China. That´s one of the reasons
emission shopping is not going to work. If you´re really serious
about cutting down on industrial emissions, you´ll have to impose
a truely global emission reduction. I wish you loads of luck with that,
because you´re going to need it.
Bottom line: the only viable way out is going to be alternative energy
source development and improvement of nuclear waste management.
Bob Powelson, A Canadian in Korea
Bastian:
You said;
Bottom line: the only viable way out is going to be alternative energy
source development and improvement of nuclear waste management.
In the province of Saskatchewan in Canada there are a large number of
underground Potash mines. These mines are 3000 feet (1000 meters) down
in Sedimentary rock. Sedimentaty basins have practically no risk of earthquake,
for example. Bacause Potash (Sodium Chloride) and Salt (Sodium Chloride)
are found together theSalt beds a nearly totally dry. A fail safe system
of storage for nuclear waste in such a place would be quite simple.
The problem of course is transportation. Also easy to solve.The problem
with nuclear energy is that it has been demonized as incredibly dangerous
and even evil. Yalk about secular fundamentalism.
Joel Simon, Boulder, CO, USA
If anyone has suggestions for an activity that a group of high school students can engage, in order to inform or to begin to organize around issues concerning global warming, I would be grateful to hear from you. I read sections of Timothy Garton Ash's book to my high school writing class as an example of persuasive writing, and they were moved and excited by his work. Our school dedicates 4 days in May to work with students on social projects and issues and I would love to coordinate a group based upon the slowing of global warning. But how does one Begin! When can I do? What can they do? I'd be grateful to hear from people who can guide us towards an appropriate local agency or towards individuals who might offer us some constructive ideas.
Todd Fine, USA
I think the real problem with the Kyoto treaty from the
American perspective is that it seems to be unfair to the United States.
How can the United States revert to the same date-based levels as Europe
when its economy, population, and fossil fuel use have grown much more
rapidly since 1990? If China, India, and other third world countries are
not in the treaty, US manufacturing will continue to go overseas at an
even faster rate. Europe does not have as much of an issue with manufacturing
shifting to Asia, although that is increasingly changing. Clinton and
Gore signed a flawed treaty, knowing that they had no intent of ever ratifying
it.
The United States would be much more willing to involve itself in a treaty
that had a longer target date. A tradeable permit scheme would probably
be preferable, and like the sulfur dioxide permits would probably be embraced
by Wall Street. And it would also probably be better if nations had permits
that were not only assigned year by year, but could extend over multiple
years, perhaps even to a long-term 2050 target date. That way different
countries could shift their technologies at different rates without being
forced to immediately buy a great deal of permits or have to buy expensive
new power plants right off the bat.
The status quo agreement would have a huge hit on the American economy,
which might even reduce the economic vitality needed for the technological
innovation crucial to a shift away from fossil fuels. And also to the
innovation necessary to respond to the effects of warming itself.
I don't think the United States is completely averse to acting on global
warming. Much of the original research was done in the United States and
our position tends to be overly caricaturized.
JZ Smith, California
The evidence seems reasonably clear that the earth is warming
slightly, but as has been said by others in this forum, warming and cooling
patterns have repeated over and over in history. There are now credible
theories that sun spot activity may be responsible. Read, research, inform,
and enlighten yourself, and you will see that the science is not yet proven
either way.
If you simply accept what the media tells you about "global warming"
without researching the facts yourself you will be horribly mis-informed.
Consider the motivations behind those who stand to gain from a worldwide
acceptance of the popular theory of "global warming".
Robert, US
To all the people who point out that you have to have a car to live in some countries and not in others because of larger distances and lack of public transportation, the point is that there should be good public transportation everywhere and people should have incentives to use it. Most people can choose where to live. People choose to live large distances from where they work because they don't have to pay for all of the problems caused by that choice. In the US at least, most people who live in rural areas don't make their living there. They choose to live in the country and drive to the cities to work and shop and everyone has to suffer the resulting geopolitical and environmental consequences. In a saner world people would be encouraged to live closer to where they conduct the business of their lives and public transportation would be available to get them around.
Andreas Paterson, United Kingdom
The first sentence:
"It's beyond all reasonable doubt that carbon dioxide emissions contribute
to dangerous global warming."
Seems to be a cause of a fair dispute. Some people suggest that we need
a measuring system.
Global warming is no mere theory, it has been studied and is still being
studied all over the world. It has been carefully measured by many systems
and it vast majority of those who study it in agreement that it is a serious
problem that needs to be solved.
The Copenhagen consensus and Skeptical Environmentalist are frequently
wielded as weapons by those who have the most to lose from any measures
to curb global warming. Bjorn Lomborg who headed the Copenhagen consensus
and is author of the Skeptical Environmentalist is a statistician, not
an environmental scientist and much of his work has been called into question
by other scientsts.
His key assumption that we could take the money we saved on stopping global
warming and use it to fight third world poverty is to underestimate the
complexity of both these tasks. We cannot simply take money from one and
put it in another.
The India and China are developing economies, to hold back their emissions
would be to hold back their growth and their development. Despite their
growing economies, the vast majority of people in these two countries
still live in poverty. The vast majority of people in the US do not live
in poverty, further to this there is much that could be done in the US
to curb it's emissions.
If the US does not take the lead on climate change, the rest of the world
is unlikely to follow. In the end, we will all lose as a result.
Chris Morton, Human Race
Global warming is a sub-set of a worse problem ie that cash spend is roughly proportional to energy use, so being rich is doubly a BAD THING. It is pretty obvious that there is no way the poor of the earth could ever catch up on the energy usage of the rich (Buckminster Fuller calculated that in 1963 it could be done within 10 years, by 1970 that the chance had passed); therefore for a fair world as well as a more stable climate, WE need to cut down OUR energy usage in every possible way. There will be turbulence, but until politicians can see that ordinary people are willing to sacrifice something, they will feel obliged to carry on promising more and formulating actual policy accordingly (whatever they say).
Robert, NY
Chris is right. We (that means everybody reading this) need to do this - starting NOW. The government won't do anything. They can only follow and probably will resist even doing that.
Paul Mendez, Brazil
This is the end, my friends.
Here in Brazil, Amazonia is burning day after day.
Jan Paul, USA
Andreas Paterson, United Kingdom said "If the US does
not take the lead on climate change, the rest of the world is unlikely
to follow. In the end, we will all lose as a result."
The U.S. has been one of the leading nations in curbing emissions. However,
remember that even the framers of the Kyoto treaty have publicly admitted
the treaty will not work because of the nations exempted. The U.S. is
continuing to reduce emission and you also have tht fact that more research
and use of safe Nuclear facilities could do even more.
But, you also have to remember that one of the goals of some people is
to use treaties like this to make sure more jobs go to China and other
third world nations becasue the environment is not their primary agenda.
They use the concern over global warming to try and reduce the economic
power of the U.S., Europe, and Canada. This is idiotic. This is already
taking place and the U.S. could very easily be down the economic ladder,
in a few years, from China which is moving from communism to capitalism
and now has a middle class population of between 100 million and 200 million
middle class citizens depending on what you set as the low end of middle
class. They have from 2 to 4 times the buying power of the U.S. and Europe.
They are expanding rapidly with pipelines and transportation systems to
rural areas to bring those areas on board the manufacturing boom. Religion
is exploding with some days seeing 35,000 people converting to Christianity.
They are using the booming economy to upgrade their military and build
nuclear submarines more quiet than any other nation currently has including
the U.S. They are educating their youth and provinding businesses with
low taxes and an educated, flexible work force. They have the potential
in a few years to bury U.S. and European manufacturing and yet we exempt
them from the Kyoto treaty becasue they are "developing." They
just discovered an oil field as large as 1/3 of their total oil reserves
and are exploring and developing partnerships with Canadian oil companies
to get more to satisfy their rapidly growing demand. In the Hong Kong
area they have a wage for factory workers that due to their increased
buying power (buying Chinese made products) is the equivilant of over
$25 an hour if they just buy Chinese made products. And, what don't they
make. Their imports are mostly raw materials and equipment to make the
goods with, not the goods themselves.
Now, regarding taking the money we spend on global warming and doing something
about the poor nations. Well, the poor nations are the biggest pollution
sources so why not use that money upgrade their power plants or manufacturing
plants or use the money to increase their trade capability with the stipulation
and a certain amount of profit has to be used for pollution control. Nope,
we'd rather pick on Europe and the U.S. and Canada and cause them to lose
more jobs.
The idea of the transportation systems going out to the rural areas of
America have never and will never happen becasue the people, including
the ones already living near transportation systems will not stand for
the tax increase it would take. Heck, they won't even shop American when
they can buy the same product made in China for a dime less at a discount
store and you think they really care enough about America, global warming,
or even their own health in some cases, to pay more for transportation
systems. The politicians can't run it through becasue they won't be able
to stay in office and keep it in effect even if they did pass it. That
is the downside of a government that isn't totalitarian and I, for one,
am glad it isn't. But, China even though moving to capitalism isn't moving
away from totalitarism. They can put the student who doesn't excel into
forced labor in a rice field or digging ditches, can you? They can fire
the worker who doesn't do his job and probably could even get away with
shooting him, but, more than likely he will end up in some rural area
of China digging ditches for a pipeline until he dies from exposure and
overwork. A totalitarian government can do that, can yours?
Look, I want all people of all nations to have decent wages and a good
life. I don't begrudge the Chinese for climing the economic ladder. But,
there is a "cost" to their climbing the ladder if we don't prepare
for the transistions that come with that climb. More manufacturing jobs
will go to them and we in Europe, the U.S. and Canada will become more
consumer oriented nations. Are our youth being prepared for that transition
or do we still think there will be enough good paying manufacturing jobs
for a relatively less educated and skilled workforce that can be used
in repetitious tasks found in factories than what is being provided in
China and other parts of Asia?
However, back to global warming which most scientists admit that even
if they are correct, all the work we could possible do might only change
the timetable a few decades. A few decades in a process that has been
going on for thousands of years, ever since the last ice age. And then
when it gets warm enough or if we have a super volcano erupt and fill
the atmosphere with a sun shielding dust cloud, we will start back into
another ice age. Then what will people do to stop that? Encourage emmissioins?
Remember one eruption in recorded history showed a cooling of something
like 1/2 a degree for a couple of years and caused the "year without
a summer."
"The most likely cause was volcanic influences. Proponents note that
a number of major volcanic eruptions preceded 1816: Soufriére and
St. Vincent in 1812: Mayon and Luzon in the Phillippines during 1814;
Tambora in Indonesia during 1815. The volcanic theory of climatic influence
relates increased volcanic activity with decreased temperatures due to
the increased reflection of solar radiation from volcanic dust blown and
trapped high in the atmosphere. The Tambora eruption has been estimated
to be the most violent in historical times. The explosion is believed
to have lifted 150 to 180 cubic kilometres of material into the atmosphere.
For a comparison, the infamous 1883 eruption of Krakatau ejected only
20 cubic kilometres of material into the air, and yet it affected sunsets
for several years after." (http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/history/1816.htm)
Yes, we need to do what we can in the U.S., Europe and Canada, but we
also have to look realistic to what Asia, exempt polluters, and world
economics is doing that is going to affect people more than global warming
as far as how they live. The best thing will be for the countries exempted
to climb the economic ladder enough to start joining in emissions control.
For many Asian countries this is starting to occur, but they still need
the exemptions for awhile probably.
Robert, USA
Jan Paul,
You're right in that what we do won't mean a thing if the Chinese follow
our development model. The point is that since our per capita emmisions
are so much greater than theirs (in 1990 the ratio was something like
20/1) we can't ask them to cut back until we make a good faith effort
to reduce our own emmisions. They're already following our lead; since
we don't do anything about our emmisions they don't do anything about
theirs; since we expand our military to dominate the energy-producing
areas of the world they expand theirs to try to stop us. They're way behind
us in both areas but time and demographics is on their side.
JayF, UK
Only about half of the 0.6 deg C rise in the last century
can be reasonably attributed to increased CO2 because the tiny increase
in GHG forcing up to around 1925 was more than offset by volcanic aerosols.
Any rise after then would not come into effect until around
1945 (coincidentally a time when the earth began cooling up until 1975).
Mt Pinatubo erupted in 1991 producing a reduced forcing of around -2.5
W/m2 which caused a peak cooling of around 0.5 deg C. This implies a climate
sensitivity of about 0.2 deg C per W/m2. There are many, many other modern
day observations consistent with this.
Also applying Stefan-Boltzmann law for black-body emissions gives a sensitivity
of 0.18 deg C per W/m2, i.e remarkably close to ALL empirical observations.
Method of Calculation is as follows (where E is energy; T is temperature)
E = k*T^4 where k=5.67*10^-8
dT/dE = 1/(4*k*T^3) where current earth temp is about 288 K (about 15
deg C)
A doubling of CO2 will, at most, produce an increased forcing of about
4 W/m2 (IPCC say 3.8 W/m2).
This implies a temp increase of JUST 0.8 (0.2 x 4) deg C for CO2 doubling.
The current rate of increase in CO2 atmospheric levels, i.e. 2 ppm per
year means that any doubling won't happen until well after the year 2100.
MSU Satellite data (available since 1979) - one of only two resources
that provide an accurate, even and complete representation of the entire
globe supports a "very moderate" warming. Data from Radiosondes
attached to weather balloons (available since
1958) - the other resource - is also in close agreement with the satellite
data.
So the crisis appears to be a global temperature rise of 0.8 deg C in
MORE THAN 100 YEARS.
Robert, USA
JayF,
You're going to have to present some credentials if you expect your calculations
to be taken seriously. Although I have three university degrees in the
sciences I am not a climatologist and therefore cannot determine whether
or not the equations you use are appropriate. The fact that the overwhelming
majority of climatologists have said that GHG-forced climate change is
a problem that must be addressed puts the burden of proving otherwise
on the skeptics. Skeptics should be prepared to show how the rest of the
scientific community is wrong and why they know better.
Marcos, Spain
I tend to believe the IPCC panel reports. First: the people
in the panel seem to have the right credentials to talk about the issue.
Second: I just cannot see what may be their common vested interest (and
please do not say that they just want more money for research, research
is an activity without fixed end or plan).
Also it is pretty obvious to me that uncontrolled combustion of fossil
carbohydrates (petroleum, gas, coal) will put much carbon that was previously
fixed in mineral form back into the atmosphere. It is also important to
notice that the timescale of geological fossil carbon accumulation has
been several orders of magnitude greater than that of its current release.
The issue with climate change is not change per se, is change too fast
to allow adaptation.
I do not know the details of the Kioto treaty, but it seems a step in
the good direction. For instance, here in Spain we "enjoy" a
near duopoly of electrity production. Well, one of the pair has made a
very impressive effort to increase its production share by renewable sources.
This has been made with the declared purpose of gaining a financial upper
hand on its competition. This is a move justified mostly because of the
new Kyoto-based emission regulation.
Since fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource, curbing emissions this
way has also the benefic side effect of decreasing our dependence on them.
Kadriye, Turkey
I'm amazed at the general shortsightedness of the submissions
- anyone who opens their eyes and looks at the seasons can see global
warming taking place. Obviously none of you are gardeners. None of you
will enjoy a peaceful old age; none of your kids will live to enjoy their
three score and ten. Unless you
Live near your work in a small energy-efficient unit.
Stop buying imported food and grow your own.
Ignore all advertising and buy only the consumer good you really need.
Stop using aircraft when a train will do the job.
Encourage all your friends and neighbours to follow your example.
Then, when you've done all that, worry about the Chinese.
Alexander Snow, Spain
what should americans do about global warming?
Robert, USA
Is there a readily-accessible source of information regarding
the relative energy efficiencies of various modes of transportation. When
I travel I have to decide whether to fly, rent a car, take the bus or
the train. But I don't know how to determine which uses the least energy
and by how much.
I assume that other people have similar concerns so if someone knows of
a good source, please let us know. If no good source exists, somebody
should create one.
