Reason.com
New at Reason
Ronald Bailey puzzles over a few concrete "solutions" being bandied about to fix global warming.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|12.15.06 @ 11:36AM|#
Well, if polar bears could vote, maybe we could get some action. In fact, as Ron points out, people won't accept significant changes in their daily lives merely on the basis of what might happen, which is basically a good thing. Al Gore is smart, sincere, educated, idealistic, etc., but I don't want him running my life. Call me conceited, but I think he'd screw it up even more badly than I have. And I have to live it, not him!
By the way, Ron, what did you think of the new fish law?
|12.15.06 @ 11:53AM|#
Personally, not sure yet that global warming needs "fixing."
I'm sure the folks who will benefit from it aren't particularly eager to fix it.
ed|12.15.06 @ 12:18PM|#
It's already hot where I live, but the winters are lovely. Please continue to visit our tacky tourist attractions and pump money into our treasury so I don't have to pay a state income tax. Thank you.
I.Self.Divine.|12.15.06 @ 12:27PM|#
I just returned from my daily lunch run to Subway, and this northern Michigan winter weather is fucking killing me. Global warming? Bring it on! In fact, lets all increase our emissions...maybe then I can stop getting up 30 minutes early to shovel out my driveway.
|12.15.06 @ 12:52PM|#
And the above comments demonstrate why we'll not get around to doing anything about global warming until it's too late.
Have any of you idiots thought about what such increases in temperature (estimates far too low according to recently reported predictions by the way) will do to places that presently grow food? The difference in weather? Ditto for the expected rises in the sea level over the next 100 years. Anyone who thinks that global warming can be gotten around by better air conditioning....sheesh.
Sometimes I think we're just too stupid to survive and good riddance to the human race.
|12.15.06 @ 12:56PM|#
Is it just me or do Carbon Trading plans and Carbon taxes just sound like a huge scam.
|12.15.06 @ 1:05PM|#
Two points:
1) Think the human costs of global warming policies need to be considered -- especially the impact on developing countries.
2) Harmonized carbon taxes, if they are implemented as border taxes, would in all likelihood lead to trade disputes that would set the world trading system in a tailspin. Also, think about the implications of non-product based tariffs. Your biotech work should lead to argue against these.
|12.15.06 @ 1:17PM|#
There isn't any global warmings. It is just a liberal plot to keep Bush from fighting for our rights in iraq. What difference does it make if it is a few degrees hotterer. Also, there is no peek oil, based on economic theories there is an infinite amount of hydrocarbon molecules in the earth, it is impossible to run out of the oils. It is just a liberal conspiricy to keep Bush from fighting the iraqui terrorists that were responsible for 9-11, TWA flight 800, Pan Am Lockirbey and the war on Christmas. There is no fule besides oil and coal that we could use ever, and we can never run out, and there arnt any envirinmentil consqences.
ed|12.15.06 @ 1:17PM|#
I.Self.Divine.,
I'm going to the beach tomorrow.
Will be thinking of you.
|12.15.06 @ 1:28PM|#
ed,
global warming likely won't do much to reduce your snow shovelling. Mean average temperature changes don't necessarily result in even distribution of temperature change. And the redistribution of weatehr events from -non-eventful to more and more eventful could quite possibly make yor snow shovelling experiencce worse.
Anyway,
I hope that even R C Dean would agree that it would be a good idea to at least remove the various forms of subsidies and protections that the highly mature fossil fuel industries enjoy worldwide.
Bagger|12.15.06 @ 1:29PM|#
Jane, are you no longer going by "Juanita"?
Dan Akroyd|12.15.06 @ 1:48PM|#
Jane, you ignorant slut!
|12.15.06 @ 2:10PM|#
Even the nothing option Ron proposes means something would happen postive like.
Wouldn't a company that could build a filter or develop technology that makes coal and oil burn super clean on factories, autos, etc. be real rich real fast? Or develop a way to make solar/wind worksable and more affordable or other making other alt-fuels do-able? Isn't there a tremendous market for this?
Bagger|12.15.06 @ 2:13PM|#
grumpy realist, lead by example and kill yourself. TIA.
|12.15.06 @ 2:17PM|#
The price mechanism is still a more effective means of disseminating information about the relative value of resources than wishful thinking. The obvious (to me) problem of a carbon tax is that the governments which collect it will use the proceeds in idiotic and counterproductive ways. I am, as always, in favor of efficient use of resources.
ps- Congrats on getting your green card, "J." Good to see you making the effort to assimilate.
I. Self. Divine.|12.15.06 @ 2:20PM|#
Ed- I hate you.
|12.15.06 @ 2:37PM|#
Oh, I'll endulge in the fun of hanging around for a few years watching the damn ecosystem collapse around me and the entertainment of idiots like you running around in a panic wringing their hands and screaming: "But if we had only knoooown!"
Expect to end by slitting my wrists in the end in the approved Roman fashion.
If you guys want to get off the Earth before it all turns to shit, you'd better start your planning now....
I.Self.Divine.|12.15.06 @ 2:43PM|#
Grumpy Realist- Didn't you hear?! Al Gore just announced taht global warming is coming TOMORROW. Commence with wrist-slitting now. Thank you.
I.Self.Divine.|12.15.06 @ 2:44PM|#
that*
Bagger|12.15.06 @ 2:45PM|#
Manbearpig is going to get us! I'm serial, people!
grylliade|12.15.06 @ 2:55PM|#
I'll endulge [sic] in the fun of hanging around for a few years watching the damn ecosystem collapse around me
See, this is part of the reason why it's hard for me to take global warming activism seriously. Yes, it's happening; yes, it'd be nice if it weren't; but ecosystem collapse? Nope. Not going to happen. The world will not lose its capacity to support human life; it probably won't even lose its capacity to support the present population. None of this means that nothing should be done about global warming, but when you bandy about the idea that the ecosystem will collapse because of global warming, you just destroy any credibility you might have.
You do realize that the present ecosystem on the planet is less than ten thousand years old? (As an aside, that's one of the most amusing things about the canard that the rainforests are the "lungs of the planet"; what did we breathe when there were no rainforests in the last glaciation, then?) That the warming from the previous glaciation was on about the same order that global warming will likely be over the next century, and probably took only a short while longer? And that somehow the ecosystem survived that, and several other major temperature fluctuations since then occurring on the order of decades or centuries, without any harm? The sort of temperature fluctuation we're facing is different from previous ones only in its source (human activity); neither its magnitude nor its duration appear to be anything abnormal in the history of Earth.
Which isn't to say that global warming might not need to be dealt with. It might be more cost effective to stop global warming rather than deal with its consequences. Maybe we need to start doing something about it right now. But it doesn't need to be dealt with to avoid doing damage to the fragile ecosystem of the planet. The equilibrium of the ecosystem is a dynamic one, not a static one; if disturbed, it will find a new equilibrium, not collapse.
wingnutx|12.15.06 @ 3:03PM|#
I vote for an intentional nuclear winter.
|12.15.06 @ 3:06PM|#
If the problem were global cooling, nothing would be left to anything as unraliable as the market. We're not hot-wired to fear warmth, but the prospect of freezing cold strikes a cord deep in our genetic code. The planet's getting warmer? Hey, we'll cope.
|12.15.06 @ 3:13PM|#
The Gaia worshippers really need to get laid more often, or perhaps they need to start.
Mother Earth will be fine. She has survived countless volcanic eruptions/explosions, meteorite/comet impacts, global extinctions, etc. She's still here.
We're the ones with the problem. Wipe humanity off the globe and Earth will continue on as always, harboring and destroying life as she has all along. We'd be like a bug on the windshield of a semi.
So lighten up, asshats.
douchy realist|12.15.06 @ 3:21PM|#
but, but were DESTROYING the planet! SOMETHING has to be done! OMG! OMG! :running around, arms flailing in the air:
ed|12.15.06 @ 3:45PM|#
If it gets a lot hotter, will Canadians start behaving like Mexicans?
|12.15.06 @ 4:06PM|#
Most of the article was well conveyed, but solution #1 of "do nothing" was not fully explored. Specifically Ron did not assume global warming is a "big, bad problem" as was stated in the opening sentence. The problem isn't simply raising global temperature between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees a year. The problem is the domino effect this could have on our planet. You can't just view this issue in mostly economic terms and not address the historical data of what has happened to ocean currents at points of fluctuating global temperature throughout the Earth's history. It's not a matter of simply weighing the costs of reducing carbon missions versus a slightly warmer planet. One must weigh the costs of reducing carbon emissions against the potential of radically altering the systems
that regulate local climates. And by local, I mean North America... or Europe... or India...
I. Self. Divine.|12.15.06 @ 4:08PM|#
Manbearpig is going to get us! I'm serial, people!
_________________________________________
I almost fell out of my chair I was laughing so hard at this...
ed|12.15.06 @ 4:25PM|#
I find that all these alleged problems go away with a couple of good stiff belts of Johnny Walker.
Hellooo, weekend!
|12.15.06 @ 7:51PM|#
Go take a look at the Great Dust Bowl in the 1930s and then come back and tell me that "small ecological changes" don't have effects on the food production of an country, and by consequence, economic effects.
And yeah, the ecosystem will find a new local equilibrium. That doesn't mean that it will support people easily. Or be above water (which is likely to what is happen to Bangladesh.)
And I'd like to see some proof that at the end of it we'll have the same population carrying capacity as before. Be nice, but I doubt it. Fights over such things as agricultural land, water, and energy aren't usually good for technology producing societies--and it's the technology that allows us production. Anyone care to look at what's been going on in Zimbabwe lately?
Oh well...as said, when the surroundings lapse back into Dark Ages savagery, I'll go as a good Roman should.
|12.15.06 @ 7:58PM|#
Given that there are 6 billion people on the planet, already surviving under a tremendous variety of climactic conditions ranging from arctic permafrost to tropical rainforest to arid desert, I'm pretty confident in humankind's ability to adapt to whatever sorts of climate changes may occur.
Worst case, it doesn't take a whole lot of effort for people to move themselves to someplace with better weather or higher ground.
|12.15.06 @ 8:07PM|#
Another reason I'm not terrified about humankind releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
Where does the CO2 come from? Fossil fuels.
How did the CO2 get into the fossil fuels? Photosynthesis.
Where was all that CO2 before photosynthesis caputured it? The atmosphere...
And somehow, the planet survived.
|12.16.06 @ 12:01AM|#
That grump just isn't getting through to you.
|12.16.06 @ 1:35PM|#
Russ, the planet survives. Humans may find it a wee bit difficult. Just having the same atoms around doesn't mean beans. Care to try to breath underwater? After all, there's oxygen in that H2O, right?
Also, I suggest you read up some books on organic chemistry and carbon cycles.
|12.16.06 @ 6:18PM|#
Hey grumpy... you're hardly a realist.
A realist would avoid conflating change with calamity. He wouldn't ignore all of the potential benefits associated with climate change, and focus exclusively on potential drawbacks.
A realist will check facts before spouting hyperbole. Even the most dire prediction for sea level rise in the next century is a whole 88cm. The low end of the range was 9cm. Do you really believe this will require anyone to "breath" underwater?
A realist deals with the issue honestly and rationally... you're doing neither.
|12.16.06 @ 8:25PM|#
Why don't we do something about it?
Two cheap solutions.
1 - fill some old tankers with ferrous sulfate, let them cruise barren Pacific and Atlantic waters and cause tremendous algae growth. When it dies, bottom of ocean. or
2 - add 0.1% fine particulate to ocean bound aircraft, reflect 0.1% of sunlight. When cool enough, stop.
hmmmm?
|12.16.06 @ 10:20PM|#
Russ R,
the sea level thing seems to be in flux. The numbers you cited are from the IPCC TAR,and are model based. The next IPCC report due in Feb, was supposed to cut those numbers in half.
However, a new 'semi-empirical' method, similar to how tide books are made, and which is less reliant on models, suggests a higher sea level change. link: http://tinyurl.com/yz9dc3
An important caveat is that the highly conservative IPCC reports deliberately do not include catastrophic/super-sudden events, only slower changes. Reality does not abide by convenient models.
The ferrous sulfate thing does not work well enough, as it must be sustained for a longer period of time than originally thought. And the aircraft + ocean + fine particulate is a bit overrated too. Neither is as cheap as simply being more energy efficient + stop subsidising fossil fuels.
|12.17.06 @ 6:14AM|#
I stopped by TerraPass, and noticed this article:
http://tinyurl.com/yklhbu
"Questions You Should Be Asking Yourself About Carbon Offsets."
|12.17.06 @ 12:11PM|#
"However, a new 'semi-empirical' method, similar to how tide books are made, and which is less reliant on models, suggests a higher sea level change."
Ok if 88cm isn't enough for you, then pick a higher number. How about 2m, or 10m, or 100m?
Will that drive humanity into extinction? Not a chance.
I can say this with confidence because the planet's sea level has already risen >120m, and yet humans are still around.
If that didn't kill us off, how could you possibly conclude think that another couple of meters would?
|12.17.06 @ 12:53PM|#
grumpy realist: "Have any of you idiots thought about what such increases in temperature ... will do to places that presently grow food?"
Have you thought about what such increases in temperature will do to places that are presently too cold to grow food? Obviously not, yet you call us idiots.
|12.17.06 @ 2:43PM|#
Russ, it is obvious I am not getting through to you. As said, go look at what happened during the Great Dust Bowl and then some back and tell me that that didn't have an effect on a) the US agriculture production b) the US economy.
Changes in where the "agricultural sections" of the world are WILL have an effect on countries because borders do not move to take account of this--well, not without things like wars, usually. Which was my point. If the US turns back into a dust bowl and Canada becomes suitable for agriculture, what is the possibility that we will see a) an influx of Americans trying to move north b) attempts by the US to move the borders further north in an attempt to hold on to economic power? Can you honestly rule out either of these happening?
And my comment about water and breathing was not that we would have to breath underwater; it was that you can't just argue that because we keep the same atoms in the Earth's ecosystem it means it will be a habitat suitable for humans. Water has oxygen in it; this does not mean we can breath underwater.
|12.17.06 @ 3:00PM|#
"If that didn't kill us off, how could you possibly conclude think that another couple of meters would?"
Russ R,
you misunderstand the purpose of my post. I was not trying to argue with you, but simply to provide the latest in-context data.
|12.17.06 @ 4:01PM|#
Additionally Real Climate discusses sea level change:
http://tinyurl.com/egqsm
The earth's ecosystem is in no danger from global warming, nor is humanity in the long run. But our Civilization is.
|12.17.06 @ 5:08PM|#
"As said, go look at what happened during the Great Dust Bowl and then some back and tell me that that didn't have an effect on a) the US agriculture production b) the US economy."
Irrelevant. Not to trivialize the event, but it was limited to the Great Plains and was certainly not caused by global warming. But you still choose to use it to exemplify the global effects of climate change.
By exactly the same reasoning, I could point to the wonderful warm weather we've been having these last couple of months here in Toronto as an example of the worldwide effects of global warming (and it's probably far more related to global warming than the dust bowl was). The impact I see is a better Niagara ice-wine crop, more people outdoors enjoying themselves, and almost no expense for snow removal. I could therefore conclude that the worldwide agricultural, social and economic effects of global warming will be entirely positive. The logic in both arguments is identical.
Of course I wouldn't ever follow such a idiotic line of reasoning, but it's an example of what happens when you take a local, isolated event that's not necessarily related to global warming and extrapolate its effects to the entire planet.
But even though global warming didn't create the dust bowl, and it didn't cover the entire country, we'll continue, regardless.
"If the US turns back into a dust bowl and Canada becomes suitable for agriculture, what is the possibility that we will see a) an influx of Americans trying to move north b) attempts by the US to move the borders further north in an attempt to hold on to economic power? Can you honestly rule out either of these happening?"
No, I wouldn't rule out either... I'd expect a fair bit of a) mostly farmers, an exceedingly remote possibility of b), but you willfuly or blindly ignore an option c)... don't move the people, move the food.
Example... the climate in the continental US is entirely unsuited to growing bananas, yet they're readily available in every supermarket fruit aisle... did you ever stop to wonder why other foods should be any different?
"And my comment about water and breathing was not that we would have to breath underwater"
That's funny, because you specifically asked if I'd "Care to try to breath underwater?" Should I be ignoring everything you type? Actually, I already know the answer to that one.
|12.17.06 @ 10:46PM|#
What about this guys plan's.