minister

Can we simply decide to increase the rate of technological advance? Of course not. We can make some special efforts in some highly focused areas, but short of a cold fusion breakthrough I doubt we can do more than nudge that line a tiny bit even if Ricky were made dictator of the world.

First: about the dictator thing? You could do worse.
One of the things thats happened, is that corporate entities with a vested interest have actually slowed the rate of technological advance. How? BY financing much of the sceptics campaign in the US. Giving voice to the deniers has actually slowed the US response to the problem, in order to protect industries that they thought would suffer from change. (coal, oil) And just by eliminating the opposition of ignorance, technological moves could be enhanced. And I grant you that the fundamental religious nature of the US, provides a breeding ground for the spread of ignorance.
Second, why do you use the Soviets as an example of a way of responding to a large problem? There is no more effiicent system of innovation than that created through the free markets. Governments involvement should be in providing the intial funding, and nurturing the competitive enviroment for the nascent industries that can provide solutions that are at one and the same time both better at energy efficiency and better at reduced CO2 levels. We know some of the X. (Nuclear power?)
There is no better example of this than the US governments involvement in the early development of the computer... And the eastern Tigers who 's governments did much the same to build the industry in their countries...
That wasn't central planning and control ala the Soviets, but it was targeted policy making towards a main goal. After that, the markets take over...
And that, computers, is a technological advance, and now industry, that has changed the world more than anything else.

careful there Ricky, if it's financing that you object to, then you have to question the motivation of your own side as well. They are financed far heavier than the "skeptics" and you have to agree money can turn even science into something less than scientific it still shocks me that liberals whose cry has long been "question authority" suddenly stop questioning and embrace "authority".

You can claim, Ah but this is SCIENCE
and that is strong, but it is heavily funded science and as evidenced by at least some of the IPCC shenanigans, it is certainly wise to question authority even if hiding behind a cloak of science.

I think you've hit on something here X. A widespread ethical reassessment would have a pronounced effect on carbon emissions. I even think you could have some or all of the world's religions act as a vector for that reboot. I have rarely witnessed the mentality you describe above of, "anything goes because God will save us." Far more often I've seen the attitude of, "God gave us this beautiful world to care for and utilize. If we don't care for it properly...that's displeasing to the Almighty...and plus we won't be able to use as much of the stuff He provided."

What I have come across most often on the non-believer side is the Agent Smith attitude of "Humans are a virus...a festering canker on the beautiful face of the Earth...everything we touch turns to crap..."

So I think we can agree that the two extremes are both too kooky. Humans ARE going to be around. And there isn't going to be a Deus ex Machina to save us from poor stewardship.

But here's another given. Humans aren't going to be happy with just subsistence. They are going to try to thrive. And they should be allowed to do so. It's one of those pesky inalienable rights.

So let's use Gapminder to take the next visual step in the graph you started. What is the main driver of CO2 emissions? The generation of power...


The above graph is a graph of GDP per capita vs. energy produced per capita. If you run that on Gapminder yourself you'll see that the countries that are the furthest right (highest GDP per capita) and furthest up (most amount of electricity produced) follow a basic 1:1 progression. By and large, the more energy you produce, the wealthier your people are. Check out the cluster of countries around the U.S. and Canada. They are the countries people around the world are crawling over themselves to get to. The places where you can thrive and pursue whatever happiness you like.

So the thesis here is the more energy you have available, the better your life is. Easy access to energy helps one live longer, smarter, and wealthier than otherwise. That's deep into the core of Maslow's Hierarchy right there. It would take a pretty stunning ethical reboot to change our approach to those three.

Right now the way we make electricity is by emitting carbon. I think it's more likely to find a way to produce electricity more cleanly than to suppress the will of the people to prosper. I don't say that it's impossible; but I can't see anything other than a religious approach that could do it.

GMTom wrote:all those pretty graphs only matter if you buy into the whole CO2 theory including it being THE cause for warming. I still don't buy it nor do I buy into us being able to do very much about it.

Actually, they have a fair bit to say if you read all those pesky words around them. I'm sure Min X didn't write them simply to give you a headache.

What they show has import beyond the question of Climate Change. If we are seeing a growing population, and if that population is becoming more economically active, and if that activity relies more on power and fuel, then the demand for energy will increase.

We can make our energy production using hydrocarbons more efficient, but at the moment we are not doing so quickly enough to offset the three related factors above. So, over time the demand for oil and gas and coal will increase. Supply will not increase that quickly, either, because the easiest places to extract from have been found, and we are trying to find reserves from things like oil shale and deeper deposits.

So prices will rise. That in itself will present the whole world with a major economic issue, which could stymie growth. Reducing our dependence on oil and gas and coal makes sense in those terms, even before you consider what the effect of burning the stuff in increasing amounts is.

But it's not easy to force demand to fall in anticipation of smaller supply and higher prices. Traditional economic theory: first supply falls and prices rise, then demand reacts. You socialists have your own brand of economics. It seems to be working in places, so pray tell how you can lower demand before prices rise.

Wait... I think I might know. Since prices won't rise on their own until supplies dwindle, the government should artificially raise the price of carbon-based fuels by imposing taxes - more taxes - way more taxes. That will lower demand. It will also, however, cause inflation. If I have to use energy to manufacture and transport a pair of socks, and now the energy is going to cost me more because taxes have risen, I'll have to charge more for the socks. Inflation hits hardest at the elderly on fixed incomes and the poor. Socialism has the answer for that as well, does it not? Tax the rich and supplement the incomes of the poor and elderly. Tax energy. Problem solved.

But wait... what happens when you run out of rich people?

Here's my question: I understand why CO2 causes global warming. Why does CO2 cause greater weather variability? I keep hearing that there will be more temperature extremes, both warmer and colder. But how is that a function of CO2.

Minister X wrote:But wait... what happens when you run out of rich people?

Just redefine who's 'rich'.

Ray Jay wrote:Here's my question: I understand why CO2 causes global warming. Why does CO2 cause greater weather variability? I keep hearing that there will be more temperature extremes, both warmer and colder. But how is that a function of CO2.

It's about energy. Heat is a form of energy, and the more of it you have, the more energetic the system is.

As CO2 absorbs heat energy, the more of it there is the more energy will be in the atmosphere. Heat differences in gases cause them to move against each other, essentially heat energy is converted into kinetic energy.

Min X - I think the chances of running out of rich people are pretty slim. They appear to be very adaptable. A moderate extra tax on energy would not make the super-rich paupers. But it may well spur them on to change their arrangements.

danivon wrote:Min X - I think the chances of running out of rich people are pretty slim. They appear to be very adaptable. A moderate extra tax on energy would not make the super-rich paupers. But it may well spur them on to change their arrangements.

High energy prices don't impact the rich, they hit the poor and that's the basic conundrum.

FM - I guess it is disproportionate towards hitting the poor, although the really poor (as in developing countries) are fairly low energy users. They are usually dealing with low fixed incomes, whereas the rich have more room for manoeuvre. It is always touching when I see the pity and worries that Min X or others have for the rich.

Redistributive taxation (which is less 'socialism' than it is 'social democracy') would indeed square that circle - and it is Min X's greatest fear. But it's not really relevant for global warming.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Here's my question: I understand why CO2 causes global warming. Why does CO2 cause greater weather variability? I keep hearing that there will be more temperature extremes, both warmer and colder. But how is that a function of CO2.

It's about energy. Heat is a form of energy, and the more of it you have, the more energetic the system is.

As CO2 absorbs heat energy, the more of it there is the more energy will be in the atmosphere. Heat differences in gases cause them to move against each other, essentially heat energy is converted into kinetic energy. .

I'm still not there. And how does a more energetic system with kinetic energy cause extreme weather? How do we even define extreme weather?

Kinetic energy in the atmosphere manifests itself as wind. As in air moving about. The more kinetic energy there is, then the more air is moving or it is moving faster, or both.

Danivon, thanks.

I see extreme weather from a human perspective. In other words, it impacts our lives in a big way via drought or flood or excessive heat or excessive cold. There's always some of that going on somewhere. Are we experiencing more of it, or do we just know about it because of our modern communication structure?

How solid is the contention that wind creates extreme weather? Have academics wrestled this to the ground, or does it just have truthiness?

x

But it's not easy to force demand to fall in anticipation of smaller supply and higher prices. Traditional economic theory: first supply falls and prices rise, then demand reacts.

An aside: Actually it is expectation of reduced supply that generally causes price adjustments. Which means that some commodities are rife with speculative influences that sometimes have little to do with actual supply/demand.

There are ways that would increase the cost of oil and coal production besides taxation. One would be to eliminate all the tax subsidies and grants that have gone to oil production companies. Included in this is the artificially low lease fees that most producers receive.
Another might be to enforce restrictions on fleet movements of oil to only independently certified tankers. One of the great environmental and safety concerns is that oil tankers are regularly sinking in rough seas. Part of this is due to the poor quality of the tankers themselves, and partly due to the shipping industries exploitation of cheap labour from Thailand and Vietnam and the Philippines for its sailors. (And partly due to the increasing wave size over the last 30 years, created by increasing energy in the enviroment...)

By allowing import license only to boats that have ISO standards for safety it would have the dual effect of decreasing ocean pollution from spillage and decreasing the numbers of boats and sailors going under every week. And it would spur both tanker construction, hopefully to better standards that can hold up to increasingly rough seas, and make domestic production more competitive.(A major reason that thee is less domestic production of oil is that domestic oil is not as profitable as imported oil) Including domestic production of green energy.

Coal 's low price is also due to exploitation of US labour. The least safe occupation in the US is coal production, whilst at the same time being poorly compensated. Higher standards for labour there would make the commodity more expensive. Since profit margins for most coal mining companies are extremely healthy ...it shouldn't affect employment levels, other than reducing accidents and deaths in the industry. By insisting that ISO standards be applied to imports in the same sector to ensure a level playing field domestic production would be protected.

Bjorn Lomborg has suggested that small taxes aimed at carbon fuels, directly returned in subsidies and grants to green energy projects is the best way to move the markets . As Green energy gains
economies of scale it could compete on its own. If at the same time this is occurring, the effects of climate change become ever more apparent ...then political will and desire to move away from fossil fuels would motivate further taxes? (perhaps)
Increasing taxes is effective in helping change behaviors. Hasn't increased taxation on smoking prompted, in part, a consumer response to quit smoking?
If energy costs are higher, people find their own ways of adapting their behaviors in order to reduce their demand. That's the market reactivity you speak of...and yet can't imagine being affected by taxation. .
Fact is there are all kinds of examples of both taxation and reversed taxation(grants and subsidies) that have helped created consumer behaviours. The subsidies on corn production make your fast food economy...with resulting health problems.
If you are willing to accept oil subsidies and tax breaks and crop subsidies in one direction ...then the opposite should be acceptable as well.
A directed, focussed, response to a major economic problem - which is what climate change is as much as anything - requires involvement by more than a laissez faire attitude to corporatism and a reliance on the markets. The markets aren't interested in whats going to happen to the world of our grandchildren. But, we as people, should care. (Thats what the conservative arguement about debt is, isn't it? Concern about hobbling the next generations with our debt? Well, we're creating an environmental debt.)
Part of the economic problem in the US is the uninvolved nature of past government policy to corporations and the markets. And that created the exodus of employment and industries in the 80's and 90's that is making the current attempt to react to the great recession difficult.
Relying on the same philosophy to react to the environmental debt crisis will have the same result.
The chairman of Cisco said, "Sometimes I worry about what my grandchildren will do for a living". He worried, but, in his companies greatest expansion, still sent most of his jobs over seas. And nobody interceded with polciies that would allow him to compete in a somewhat altered market that would allow him to make decisions that made his company both successful, and still a contributor to more Americans' futures...(than just shareholders)
Waiting for the markets to independently come to terms with climate change is a sure fire fail. They need help to make long term decisions for the benefit of society.

ray

How solid is the contention that wind creates extreme weather? Have academics wrestled this to the ground, or does it just have truthiness?

Read "The Wave". The certainty of the scientific community studying wave patterns that wave heights, and power has increased over the last 30 years, and continues to increase, is startling.
One of the last areas to be reliably studied because of the problems of data collection over its extent...the use of satellite technology is providing enormous amount of information that demonstrates the growing phenomenon.
The scale of our planet, and the enormity with which it can project energy in tsunamis and storm surges and hyper events should give anyway pause to consider that global warming will be largely benign. We are largely helpless in the face of the greatest weather and oceanic events. Why should we welcome a climate where more of them HAVE to happen.
And the HAVE to happen because there is more energy in the atmosphere and the oceans due to CO2 trapping solar radiation.... and that energy goes somewhere, reacts somehow, always.