Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Jonathan Rauch explains why there are no easy answers in the global warming debate.
|3.23.07 @ 8:14AM|#
Why does everybody talk about taxing CO2 emissions rather than
taxing fossil fuels? As I understand it, burning non-renewable
fuels is the issue. Why not just call it a fossil fuel tax and be
done with it?
This is not to say that I'm necessarily in favor of it, I'm just
wondering why it's always called a carbon tax rather than a fossil
fuel tax.
|3.23.07 @ 8:26AM|#
t,
A CO2 tax would not be equivalent to a fossil fuel tax. Different
fuels (coal, gasoline, diesel) would be assessed based on their CO2
output when burned. Also, alcohol (clean, renewable, bio-friendly)
would also get taxed. Not to mention HFCS!
Very good article. Hits the central point, that the best response
to global warming will come from people acting in their own self
interest. And global management of civilization is exactly the
wrong way to proceed.
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 8:34AM|#
Finally a thread on global warming! We've been waiting for the opportunity to discuss this topic almost as long as we've been waiting for Mr. Doherty to mention his new book.
|3.23.07 @ 8:44AM|#
Hey, everybody forgot about those 747s blowing sulphite smoke into the antarctic sky? That was my favourite adaption! Bring it on!
Passim|3.23.07 @ 8:56AM|#
Doherty has a new book? Why didn't anyone say so?
Seriously, this was an exceptional article, but I'm not going to
hold my breath waiting for the scary rhetoric to tone down.
|3.23.07 @ 9:04AM|#
Denier, denier!
Pants on fire!
We gotta DOOOOOO sumpthin'!
(Doesn't every single thing which burns give off CO2?)
|3.23.07 @ 9:17AM|#
I think an overall consumption tax is a way to handle it. It takes energy to create and use something consumable. Therefore, taxing consumption is taxing energy. We can use the global warming scare to drop the income tax in favor of a consumption tax.
|3.23.07 @ 9:20AM|#
Warren-
Ah- I forgot. I was thinking carbon fuels. Long time since science
class.
Not being a dick, what's the status of Hydrogen fuel
infrastructure? Much progress?
|3.23.07 @ 9:30AM|#
P,
I'm not up on all the latest, but I think Hydrogen fuel cells are
the big thing. As always the problem with H2 is supply. You pretty
much have to crack water to get any appreciable quantities. That's
always going to cost more than what you get back. At least until we
get that cold fusion thing figured out.
ed|3.23.07 @ 9:31AM|#
Wait a minute! We haven't even defused The Population Bomb yet! And the Acid Rain is literally eating us alive! And all our nuclear plants are Chinas waiting to Syndrome! This global warming thing will just have to wait its turn.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 9:35AM|#
I just ran across conservapedia and this is there article on climate change: http://www.conservapedia.com/Climate_change
|3.23.07 @ 9:35AM|#
Ed:
Let's not forget the rainforests and avian flu epidemic. They were
in line as well.
|3.23.07 @ 9:36AM|#
Definitely one of the better global warming articles I've read
in a while. I'm a science ignoramus -- always was pretty good at
math, but science was by far my weakest subject in high school and
college. Thus I'm not very confident discussing things like climate
change, b/c I really have no idea what I'm talking about --
although that doesn't seem to stop a lot of other people on both
sides of the issue from expressing strong opinions.
But Rauch made a lot of good points without resorting to either
hysteria or denial.
|3.23.07 @ 9:36AM|#
ed,
Relaaaaax, the nuclear holocaust is going to make all those
problems go away.
ed|3.23.07 @ 9:40AM|#
the nuclear holocaust is going to make all those problems go
away
Well, that's a relief.
Now will somebody Do Something about Nancy Grace?
|3.23.07 @ 9:40AM|#
Great article, but...
Fortuitously, a carbon tax could also reduce the U.S. budget
deficit
PLEASE for the love of god, lets not look at the carbon tax as
another way to raise money for the government. The vast majority of
the money collected by this tax should be put towards actual
scientific research aimed at producing 'greener' energy.
I mean you want to talk about incentives? Yes, a carbon tax
encourages the consumer to seek out cleaner energy, but it will
encourage the government to do precisely the opposite if we let
these tax dollars get rolled into the general budget.
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 9:40AM|#
Why does everybody talk about taxing CO2 emissions rather
than taxing fossil fuels? As I understand it, burning non-renewable
fuels is the issue. Why not just call it a fossil fuel tax and be
done with it?
For one thing, there are systems to sequester CO2 from plant
emissions into the ground. My favorite use for that is reviving oil
fields, but that's just me :)
What the heck are you calling non-renewable anyway? Every bit of it
is organic :)
Someone brought up alcohol, that goes over to that whole shell game
about "my carbon was sequestered in the same year it was made, so I
am better than mr. gasoline". Somehow, equal emissions are more
virtuous if the plant they came from was alive more recently.
|3.23.07 @ 9:42AM|#
Anyone else think it would have been helpful to tell us what urgent action Blair was proposing - before convicting him of mindless panic?
ed|3.23.07 @ 9:48AM|#
Blair['s]...mindless panic
Blair's very words are self-incriminating. His actual proposals
would only add time to his sentence.
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 9:49AM|#
ed,
You forgot killer bees.
From previous discussions over the past few months we have learned
that C8H18, organic hydrogen, is natural.
Biodiesel from people, or sea life too, you must call it "free
range" since neither is "natural enough" any more.
Carbon sins can be washed away with carbon credits.
Any broblem posed by the Left can be solved with word games, since
every problem from the Left began as a word game. This one is no
different.
|3.23.07 @ 9:49AM|#
I believe the argument for saying using plants or whatever is better than fossil fuels is that the carbon in plants is still a part of the "system." Coal or oil would sit under the earth for another few billion years if we didn't dig it out.
|3.23.07 @ 9:51AM|#
About the tax:
All countries of the world, except the US have already taxed gas to
the utmost (100% tax on gasoline is the norm, worldwide) - big fat
good it did to the "climate warming" !
A carbon tax, though useless in terms of carbon emissions, would
nevertheless be acceptable, if, and only if, it were offset by a
reduction in other taxes (like the income tax).
thoreau|3.23.07 @ 9:52AM|#
Along with what FFF is saying, burning plants to release CO2 and
then growing new crops is part of an annual fluctuation, not a
long-term trend.
And I agree with most of what Rauch said in his article.
|3.23.07 @ 9:53AM|#
"Blair's very words are self-incriminating. His actual proposals
would only add time to his sentence."
Good god. Could there be a better illustration of the closing of
the American mind?
thoreau|3.23.07 @ 9:53AM|#
Jacob-
If a carbon tax were offset by cuts on whichever taxes are most
burdensome on small businesses and high-tech startups, that sort of
policy would seem to be ideal from the standpoint of encouraging
new fuel technologies.
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 9:54AM|#
Grotius:
Oddly enough, friends and family have been asking the very same
question. Unfortunately, publishers are very picky about insisting
that one actually write the damned thing first.
BTW, I don't begrudge Mr. Doherty hawking his book in the slightest
and I'm sure I'd do the same thing in his position.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 9:55AM|#
DAR,
Oh, I'm sure you could get an advance on a proposed work, in light
of your many talents.
thoreau|3.23.07 @ 10:01AM|#
I know, FFF, a global warming thread should already have 80+
posts by now.
What, are people trying to conserve electricity? No real
libertarian would do that! (And yes, I'm totally messing
around.)
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 10:09AM|#
Gimme Back My Dog,
I can't believed you'd joke around about The Y2K! I mean, it shut
down the clock at the US Naval Observatory!
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 10:09AM|#
BTW, I don't begrudge Mr. Doherty hawking his book in the
slightest and I'm sure I'd do the same thing in his
position.
Keep your shirt on and things should be fine :)
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 10:11AM|#
I can't believed you'd joke around about The Y2K! I mean, it
shut down the clock at the US Naval Observatory!
Think it can stop the clock on Global Warming?
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 10:16AM|#
Ah, the great Y2K disaster, I remember it well. Airplanes falling from the sky, toasters gone wild, people trapped on stopped escalators, cats and dogs living together... which reminds me, shouldn't we get started on averting the great Y10K disaster before it's too late?
|3.23.07 @ 10:16AM|#
I've been busy reading about the impending showdown between the
Turks, the Kurds, and ourselves in northern Iraq.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/turkey/story/
0,,2041022,00.html
And "Iraqi medical crisis as doctors flee"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/
6479997.stm
Cheers!
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 10:18AM|#
DAR,
I believe a lot of folks question whether all the money spent was
worth it.
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 10:19AM|#
OT: British Sailors have been captured by Iran.
Think they will be impressed into service for Iran?
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 10:21AM|#
D.A. Ridgely,
I predict that jacking up the price of energy even to the mild
levels advocated in the article, will produce a 401K disaster.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 10:22AM|#
P Brooks,
There are approximately ~4 million external and internal refugees
of Iraqi origin. About 1/2 of them are external at this point.
ed|3.23.07 @ 10:23AM|#
Good god. Could there be a better illustration of the
closing of the American mind?
Well, DS, as words have meanings, and as Blair did say, "We don't
have the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto", I'd have to insist
that such hyperbole justifies my calling Blair a twit.
lunchstealer|3.23.07 @ 10:24AM|#
ed,
Acid rain is still wreaking a certain amount of havoc in forests
and streams. The Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act improved the
situation to some degree, but it's not exactly a non-problem. It
was never a sci-fi toxic-avenger type threat, but it's still worth
considering. And a good deal of acid rain is caused by power plant
emissions, so reducing coal emissions helps both acid rain and
global warming.
|3.23.07 @ 10:25AM|#
If Congressional Budget Office report were to conclude that a governmental policy was going to reduce GDP growth by 14%, the writers of this magazine would be calling anyone who supported it baby killers.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 10:26AM|#
lunchstealer,
Some of the rhetoric associated with the acid rain problem was
pretty, hmm, stark.
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 10:30AM|#
lunchstealer,
Copper Hill, TN is an example of localized increased acidity that
had a dramatic effect. Much of that effect was plants that like
acidic soil took over. They tend to be yellowish, so flying over
that area one goes from lush greens to a big yellow blotch on the
landscape.
I am surprised that the alarmists did not descend on the town like
locusts (or killer bees?) to use it as an alarmist example of what
the whole world would look like due to acid rain.
|3.23.07 @ 10:34AM|#
I have a problem with the reasoning that, because the people
concerned about it realize we need to ramp up our response out of
pragmatic concerns about the scope of what can be done immediately,
it's not really an emergency.
Think of our response after Pearl Harbor. Did we immediately level
Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Launch a million-man invasion force? Put
10,000 ships to sea? No, because we couldn't. That had nothing to
do with the scope of the threat.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 10:34AM|#
P Brooks,
Anyway, Iraq has become one of the world's worst refugee
problems.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 10:39AM|#
joe,
Whatever the merits of your arguments, I'd just like to note that
within six months the war against Japan had turned decisively in
our favor. So yeah, our response, especially in light of the
technology at the time, etc. was pretty immediate.
|3.23.07 @ 10:39AM|#
Um, since there actually was a large effort throughout society to address the Y2K problem, and the predicted disruptions failed to emerge because of that effort, with very little cost to the economy, that would seem to be an example that supports, rather than refutes, the idea that we should recognize and fix the global warming problem.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 10:41AM|#
In other words, Pearl Harbor was on Dec. 7, 1941 (FDR accent) and Midway was ~June 4 and a couple days following that date.
|3.23.07 @ 10:41AM|#
Grotius-
Unfortunately, that is true; and there is no indication of any
abatement of the refugee exodus in the forseeable future. How many
visas has the U S gov't issued, I wonder?
The particular BBC article referenced above indicates a near- total
breakdown in medical care in Iraq (Oops- I guess I should have
verified this with the Office of the Vice President).
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 10:42AM|#
joe,
A lot of nations (which were just as technologically advanced) did
far less than the U.S. re: Y2K and came up with basically the same
result.
|3.23.07 @ 10:43AM|#
Grotius,
The beginning of our response was immediate. The period between
that (which actually pre-dated Pearl Harbor, but let's set that
aside) and VJ Day (or whatever date you'd like to choose as being
determinative) was based on the practicalities of how quickly we
could mount an effective response.
Which goes to ed's point - ""We don't have the five years it took
to negotiate Kyoto", refers to when we begin, not when we solve the
problem.
|3.23.07 @ 10:45AM|#
"Fortuitously, a carbon tax could also reduce the U.S. budget
deficit and the geopolitical leverage of sinister "petrocracies"
such as Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. Policy prescriptions don't
come any more convenient than that."
??
I dont get how that's "fortuitous."
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 10:46AM|#
joe,
The point is that we immediately (given the technology of the time)
kicked the crap out of the navy of the Empire of Japan when it
presented us with the oppurtunity to do so.
|3.23.07 @ 10:46AM|#
"A lot of nations (which were just as technologically
advanced) did far less than the U.S. re: Y2K and came up with
basically the same result."
They also spend less on prescription drugs with basically the same
result.
Is your point that the US overreacted, or that we subsidize a lot
of the world's research? Either way it doesn't really support your
point.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 10:48AM|#
Lamar,
I don't believe we subsidized any nations Y2K response. Which may
be why there were all those travel warnings about going to Europe
post-Y2K.
|3.23.07 @ 10:50AM|#
In other, happier news, straight from the "patting myself on the back" desk, I am doing my part to "reduce global warming" by stabbing a new(er) motor in my Honda, which will enable me to reduce my gasoline consumption by about two-thirds. (Now that spring has pretty much sprung, I can park the Land Crusher Wgn.) I'm doing it for all the precious little children.
|3.23.07 @ 10:51AM|#
Fortuitously, a carbon tax could also reduce the U.S. budget
deficit
Only to the extent that (a) it is a net addition to our tax burden
and (b) it is not spent on new altertnative energy programs.
Anybody here still support it?
Oh, and of course (c) it isn't frittered away on more pork.
VM|3.23.07 @ 10:51AM|#
Congrats, P Brooks! You've earned the pat :)
And Gro, don't forget the tireless work Peter Gibbons, Samir, and
Michael did to avert the Y2K crisis!
thoreau|3.23.07 @ 10:52AM|#
As I understood it, the biggest potential Y2K problems were in
older systems, not newer systems. Poorer and less advanced
countries often skip generations of technology, whereas the richer
countries had companies still using systems that they had bought
some time ago.
The lesson here is that 21st century economic development in China
and India need not be as carbon-intensive as it was for the
West.
|3.23.07 @ 10:53AM|#
Grotius,
1. One battle is not "kicking the crap out of" the enemy. If it
were, we'd be speaking English right now!
2. Six months (or whatever time frame you'd care to use) is not
"immediate." We immediately started to fight Japan; we didn't
finish the job until the practicalities of production and
operations allowed us to.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 10:54AM|#
VM,
Heh.
thoreau,
It seems to be the case that most older systems that were never
upgraded in the U.S. had no problems at all.
Guy Montag|3.23.07 @ 10:56AM|#
In other, happier news, straight from the "patting myself on
the back" desk, I am doing my part to "reduce global warming" by
stabbing a new(er) motor in my Honda, which will enable me to
reduce my gasoline consumption by about two-thirds. (Now that
spring has pretty much sprung, I can park the Land Crusher Wgn.)
I'm doing it for all the precious little children.
So, starving the plants and flowers is your idea of being
friendly? HA!
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 10:57AM|#
joe,
In the context of naval and military history it is quite immediate.
Then again, this is the third time I've reiterated that
point.
We sent a goodly portion of their naval air arm to the bottom of
the sea. Given their dependence on such for the sort of far flung
offensive operations needed to maintain their empire it was indeed
a severe ass kicking. Midway was the battle on which the whole war
pivoted.
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 10:58AM|#
One battle is not "kicking the crap out of" the enemy. If it
were, we'd be speaking English right now!
Huh?
thoreau|3.23.07 @ 10:58AM|#
P Brooks-
What kind of Honda? What kind of motor? Is this a hybrid or
something else? I own an Accord (let me rephrase that: the bank
owns an Accord and I send them money). If I could cut my gas
consumption by 2/3 for a reasonable price I'd think about it.
|3.23.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Could any of you intelligent persons point me in the direction of where the numbers are for the claim of CO2 = temperature increase? I want to know what the estimates are that drive the climate models, i.e. X tons of CO2 = Y BTUs, X BTUs = 1° C of increase in the temperature of the earth and the references to base the estimates on. I have been looking for a while and have not found what I consider the basics for man-made climate change. If the math does not add up then I cannot see that man is the cause. I do not understand that if "the science is settled" that these calculations are not the first things presented in any discussion of man/natural climate change.
|3.23.07 @ 11:01AM|#
"In the context of naval and military history it is quite
immediate."
No, Grotius, it is quite FAST. Not immediate, fast. The beginning
was immediate, the end (or turning point, if you like) took as much
time as it took. I'm not having difficulty understanding your
point, so much as you are having difficulting understanding the
definition of a common English word.
|3.23.07 @ 11:04AM|#
D.A.,
It was a reference to the lack of success in battle initially
experienced by the Continental Army under Washington.
|3.23.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Tommy Grand,
Good call. I was wondering the same myself. Ugh, that's a pet peeve
of mine.
|3.23.07 @ 11:04AM|#
If Congressional Budget Office report were to conclude that
a governmental policy was going to reduce GDP growth by 14%, the
writers of this magazine would be calling anyone who supported it
baby killers.
Think of our response after Pearl Harbor. Did we immediately level
Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Launch a million-man invasion force? Put
10,000 ships to sea? No, because we couldn't. That had nothing to
do with the scope of the threat.
Um, since there actually was a large effort throughout society to
address the Y2K problem, and the predicted disruptions failed to
emerge because of that effort, with very little cost to the
economy, that would seem to be an example that supports, rather
than refutes, the idea that we should recognize and fix the global
warming problem
You really know how to stay on message. Do you get your talking
points from Gore's monthly newsletter.
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 11:08AM|#
You really know how to stay on message. Do you get your
talking points from Gore's monthly newsletter.
Some of us suspect he's the editor.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 11:12AM|#
Anyway, our response to Japan's attack was immediate and crushing in its nature. The Battle of Midway was a pretty clear example of us kicking the crap out of the enemy.
|3.23.07 @ 11:12AM|#
Now that's level of substance I've come to expect.
Would either of you care to address any of those arguments?
|3.23.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Grotius,
Midway was a big sucess, but it was not victory over Japan.
Declaration of War = adoption of global warming policies
Midway = 10% CO2 emissions reduction.
VJ Day = end of the global warming problem
|3.23.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Why does everybody talk about taxing CO2 emissions rather than taxing fossil fuels? As I understand it, burning non-renewable fuels is the issue. Why not just call it a fossil fuel tax and be done with it?
Well, let's say we go the "tax the things we oppose," route.
Further, suppose you run a coal plant, Thoreau. Which tax is more
likely to encourage you to reduce C02 production (if you can find a
way to reduce emissions that's cheaper than the tax), and which is
likely to discourage your going to that expense since that's just
another cost that won't help your tax burden a bit?
|3.23.07 @ 11:16AM|#
But thank you, Grotius, for your willingness to do more than shout "Gore Cooties" at me.
|3.23.07 @ 11:17AM|#
Would either of you care to address any of those
arguments?
What arguments ?!? I don't see how anything in your first three
posts provides any basis for a rational discussion of the points
expressed in the orginal article.
thoreau|3.23.07 @ 11:18AM|#
Fair point, Eric. A tax on CO2 output rather than fossil fuel input could encourage sequestration.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 11:19AM|#
Anyway, Midway in hindsight was the decisive battle of the war. It was also basically at the end of the time window that some of Japan's naval leaders expected to be able to carry any advantage versus the U.S. I always feel a bit sad for Japan's naval leaders. Many of them would have perferred not to go to war.
|3.23.07 @ 11:20AM|#
I prefer taxes on consumption to taxes on income, so if the global warming alarmists are willing to do away or reduce FICA and income (goodby AMT?)taxes on a permanent basis, and replace it with a tax on carbon emissions, I'll call their bluff. Heck, if this is the crisis they claim it to be, let's get behind some constitutional amendments which assign taxes on income to the dustbin of history, and replace it with a tax on clearly defined carbon emissions.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 11:21AM|#
A lot of folks would might be opposed to rolling back other taxes because they might see that as encouraging consumption.
|3.23.07 @ 11:21AM|#
What, are my words too big? This is a very simple concept: we
began immediately. We didn't solve the problem immediately, but our
response was immediate.
If you don't get it this time, Grotius, it is no longer my
problem.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Wikipedia's material on whether the U.S. response to Y2K was worth it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y2K#Was_the_expenditure_worth_the_effort.3F
ed|3.23.07 @ 11:26AM|#
Could any of you intelligent persons point me in the
direction of where the numbers are for the claim of CO2 =
temperature increase?
I can help you with that, Whiskey. The direction is up the Hershey
Highway, aka Al Gore's butt hole.
lunchstealer|3.23.07 @ 11:27AM|#
Grotius | March 23, 2007, 10:26am | #
lunchstealer,
Some of the rhetoric associated with the acid rain problem was
pretty, hmm, stark.
Yes it was. And a lot of people ignored it for that reason, and
there's been a lot of environmental damage because of it. So when
morons dramatically overstate environmental problems, I get pissed
off. But there are relatively few of those to chastise on this
site, and a lot of people would jump all over them, so you may not
notice me as one of those people.
But there are those who base their attitude toward acid rain, or
other environmental issues entirely on ridicule of the extremists,
and thus dismiss problems like acid rain completely. If you want to
form a sensible opinion on global warming, don't start with the
premise that since "Day After Tomorrow" was retarded, that it isn't
a problem. That's not quite as retarded as "Day After Tomorrow",
but it's close.
|3.23.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Joining you way off topic, Grotius, I'm not a big fan of counterfactuals, but studying history can sometimes get a little too deterministic. I do wonder once in a while how the world may have changed if the torpedo planes don't spot the Japanese fleet, or if Spruance waits a little while longer to launch. Of course, the ultimate trump card was being put together in New Mexico, but who knows? A little less luck and fortitude for about 15 minutes in the Pacific, combined with a just a tiny bit more wisdom by the Charlie Chaplin caricature in Berlin, in regards to the Eastern Front, and the world may be a lot different.
|3.23.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Just as conveniently, the most efficient way to get started
is also the simplest, albeit not the easiest politically: tax
carbon emissions. "At around $30 per ton of CO2 over a 25-year
horizon, experts seem to think this is the kind of price that will
encourage the kind of technologies that are necessary," says Billy
Pizer, an environmental economist at Resources for the Future, a
Washington think tank. That would translate into an additional 27
cents or so on a gallon of gasoline and about a 20 percent increase
in residential electricity bills (more like 34 percent for
industrial users). Unpleasant, but hardly radical. Perfectly
do-able, in fact.
In general, I am opposed to the idea of using the tax system to
engineer society. However, "use fees" and other taxes aimed at
charging individuals for the public services they actually consume
(e.g., gasoline taxes collected for road-building) do have a
natural, limiting effect on consumption of those services. In other
cases, "fines" and other forms of charging individuals to clean up
the consequences of their activities is justifiable. Carbon taxes
as a way of preventing those consequences before they actually
happen is a stretch. But they are far more palatable that goverment
mandated quotas and allocations.
|3.23.07 @ 11:33AM|#
Well, Grotius, if they are opposed to encouraging consumption in general, as opposed to consumption which produces the most CO2, then I guess that they really don't mean what they say. We may as well find out, and if we get rid of the current tax structure as a result, I'd be happy with that.
|3.23.07 @ 11:34AM|#
"as words have meanings, and as Blair did say, 'We don't have
the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto', I'd have to insist that
such hyperbole justifies my calling Blair a twit."
What Blair said:
"But we can't wait the 5 years it took to negotiate Kyoto. We
simply don't have the luxury of time.
"We need to accelerate the international discussions on a future
framework for after 2012.
"During the coming year, we must take major steps to agreeing the
elements of this future framework. The German G8 in 2007 will be
vital. This report will form the essential context for such
discussion.
"And in Europe we must go further too. We should extend the EU
Emissions Trading Scheme beyond 2012 and bring aviation into the
heart of it.
"We should find ways to join this EU trading scheme up with others
around the world including the one I helped launch with Governor
Schwarzenegger and his Democrat colleagues in California a few
weeks ago.
"We must agree new EU energy efficiency standards and launch a new
initiative to make all new coal power stations carbon
neutral."
Blair's proposal for what the post-2012 framework should look
like:
---
(1)A goal to stabilise concentrations of emissions in the
atmosphere. (2) A range of policy tools, including a global cap and
trade scheme, regulation and tax which can be used by countries to
help create a carbon price and encourage investment in the
low-carbon technologies that we already have. (3) Accelerating
technological innovation through R and D and demonstration projects
and allowing new technologies to come to market. (4) Stronger
measures to help poor countries adapt.
----
Seems to me there are three arguments to be had: about the science;
about the solutions; or - like Rauch - with a straw man of your
choosing.
ed|3.23.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Point taken, Lunchstealer. But as in the classic tale of the boy who cried wolf, viro alarmists are their own worst enemy. Legitimate environmental concerns are thrown out with the illegitimate ones by people who have been burned one too many times by doomsday scenarios that never come to fruition. Those of us with long memories (the pre-MTV crowd) are understandably wary when we hear about the latest disaster-of-the-century-of-the-week.
|3.23.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Again, Jake, I'd only be willing to pursue the carbon tax agenda with the global warming alarmists as part of a grand bargain to get rid of the current tax system, lock, stock, and barrel, probably via the amendment process. Let's find out if the alarmists really are sincere in their beliefs as to the critical nature of the problem of carbon emissions.
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Midway = 10% CO2 emissions reduction
Maybe so, but "10% CO2 Emissions Reductions" is going to make an
even worse action movie.
Oh, and by the way, joe,... GORE COOTIES!
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Will Allen,
Defeat at Midway could have caused a couple things: (1) it might
have lengthened our war with Japan; and (2) it might have harmed
our "Germany first" strategy. overall though a defeat by the U.S.
there would have been far less costly to the U.S. than a defeat by
Japan. If anything that is the case based simply on our ability to
out manufacture Japan with regards to new ships, planes, etc.
|3.23.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Maybe so, but "10% CO2 Emissions Reductions" is going to
make an even worse action movie.
Until there's a forbidden love interest between the daughter of
interned environmentalists and the son of a conservative global
warming denier, you can't even start production.
The hardest part will be finding something about global warming
that actually kills the son.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Will Allen,
In other words, time was always against Japan; that's why they
wanted to roll-up a huge buffer zone between the U.S. and Japan
within a short period of time. What I guess they didn't count on
was an island-hopping campaign (probably because they didn't expect
most of their carrier fleet to be sitting at the bottom of the
sea).
|3.23.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Will Allen,
In the context of 2007, my favorite counterfactual would be, what
if Hitler had agreed to stop the advance towards Stalingrad in the
early Fall of 1942, and had sent the additional men and supplies to
Rommel instead?
I'll let you guess which country is Germany, which war is
Stalingrad, and which war is North Africa.
|3.23.07 @ 11:45AM|#
D.A.R.,
"Maybe so, but "10% CO2 Emissions Reductions" is going to make an
even worse action movie."
In a world where carbon emissions are at 90% of their 2007
levels...one man can't seem to shed those last fifteen pounds
"Oh, and by the way, joe,... GORE COOTIES!"
Cootie shield no backsies!
|3.23.07 @ 11:48AM|#
People are talking like the result at Midway was a certainty. It
by no means wasn't. The US was fortunate to win that battle,
especially at the cost of only one carrier.
A 10% reduction in CO2 emissions will cost a lot more, and its
achievement without extreme cost is even more in question than
victory at Midway.
|3.23.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Yeah, but time is meaningful in war, Grotius. I agree that the manufacturing base of the U.S. guaranteed that Japan could not win, especially given the Manhattan project. But if Hitler would have had enough sanity left to hold off on the mass executions of those captured in the East for another year or two, the Stalinists may have collapsed, and that may have resulted, along with a U.S. defeat at Midway, in Japan and Germany not losing, at least not nearly as unconditionally.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 11:50AM|#
MikeP,
Oh, it wasn't a certainty. Indeed, there were some near disasters
on the U.S. side. In hindsight though it proved to be the turning
point in the war.
Grotius|3.23.07 @ 11:52AM|#
Will Allen,
Well, ideologically the destruction of the USSR was paramount in
the Nazi program. So issues of strategy and tactics were secondary
in comparison to that. Shit, if Hitler and his clique had been
smart they would have done a lot of things that he didn't do and
refrained from a number of other things.
|3.23.07 @ 11:53AM|#
Fair point, Eric. A tax on CO2 output rather than fossil fuel input could encourage sequestration.
Possibly that, or efforts to reduce C02 output. Or the use of
magnetohydrodynamic systems or fuel cells (if they ever get those
practical). Taxing fossil-fuel input would fail to do such things
and would put a burden on all processes and products that use
fossil fuels for things other than burning... things like
electric cars made out of light composites.
|3.23.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Apologies for confusion-
(and delay; the phone rang as I was about to hit "submit")
The Honda will not become 2/3 more efficient than it previously
was. However, when I bring it out of dry dock (it burned an exhaust
valve last fall, just as it became time to switch to the "winter
car"), I will realize a significant fleet mileage
improvement.
The Land Crusher, in four wheel drive, is just the ticket when
there is a foot of fresh snow. Unfortunately, it gets surprisingly
terrible mileage, like about ten mpg, chugging up and down the hill
and trundling around town; when I park it, and start driving the
Honda (Civic wgn), which gets thirty mpg or better, I will achieve
a reduction overall in gasoline consumption.
An effective and productive response, at the margin, but
unsatisfying to the central planner mentality.
|3.23.07 @ 11:57AM|#
That counterfactual would be meaningful, joe, if North Africa was the strategic fulcrum. It wasn't, just like if a certain tall Saudi national of some infamy had dropped dead of a stroke on September 12th 2001, the strategic fulcrum would have been affected very little.
|3.23.07 @ 11:58AM|#
In hindsight though it proved to be the turning point in the
war.
No one knew going in that it would be the turning point. Sinking
four Japanese carriers made it so.
Similarly, the turning point in solving global warming will not be
known ahead of time. But it's pretty certain that no one in 70
years will say something like, "The turning point in solving global
warming was when we achieved a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions."
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 11:59AM|#
The hardest part will be finding something about global
warming that actually kills the son.
Okay, I take it back. Maybe we've got something here. If it turns
out the conservative father and his son are vampires -- every scene
they're in until the end is indoors or at night -- you know, a
trick ending, maybe we get M. Night Shamalamadingdong to direct --
then it will be easy to kill off the son by exposing him to the
harsh sunlight in the final scene. Think Romeo &
Juliet as done by Hammer House. Casting suggestions,
anyone?
|3.23.07 @ 12:03PM|#
Who has time to think about global warmi^H^H^H^H^Hclimate change
when we've got WEST NILE VIRUS breathing down our necks!?!?
We've got to DO SOMETHING! AND FAST!
|3.23.07 @ 12:04PM|#
What I am saying, Grotius, is that the most effective way for Hitler to complete the destruction of the U.S.S.R. after Barbarossa began was too simply wait a while before starting the mass executions, thus depriving Stalin of a significant way to rally the Soviet population. Stalin's hold on power in 1941, after years of purges and enforced famine, was very brittle indeed. Just by waiting a little while before showing his fangs to the captured populations, Hitler may deprived Stalin of the opportunity to rally.
lunchstealer|3.23.07 @ 12:05PM|#
Point taken, Lunchstealer. But as in the classic tale of the
boy who cried wolf, viro alarmists are their own worst enemy.
Legitimate environmental concerns are thrown out with the
illegitimate ones by people who have been burned one too many times
by doomsday scenarios that never come to fruition. Those of us with
long memories (the pre-MTV crowd) are understandably wary when we
hear about the latest
disaster-of-the-century-of-the-week.
Oi. Yeah, it's a whole thing. I kinda let myself get sucked into a
similar thing in the run-up to the Iraq War. I got so wrapped up
fighting the exaggerations and half-truths from the anti-war side,
that my own opposition to the war got sort of lost in the
shuffle.
|3.23.07 @ 12:18PM|#
No responce to my question. Is it that hard for the man made CO2 is destroying the world supporters to come up with just the basics? Where is the science that you are basing this dramatic increase in government?
|3.23.07 @ 12:19PM|#
Will Allen,
Regardless of whether Hitler considered Russia or North Africa "the
strategic fulcrum" of his grand strategy, denying Rommel the
divisions and supplies that would have made a decisive difference,
so that they could be instead used to marginally increase the
stength of Army Group South, merely guaranteed that North Africa
would be lost, without allowing Stalingrad to be won.
And regardless of grand strategies about the importance of the
Eastern front to his ideological ambitions, Hitler's decision to
order Paulus to stay in Stalingrad and take it, rather than go over
the defense and focus on smaller tactical victories, guaranteed his
loss in that battle, and ultimately the whole war.
It's not a question of whether Libya and Egypt were more important
than Russia, but of whether one limited victory and one total
victory are better than two defeats.
|3.23.07 @ 12:28PM|#
What is all this crap about WW2 and Y2K? We're talking about climate change here. Arguments by analogy really only work if the analogies are fairly apt - which for a variety of reasons they aren't here.
|3.23.07 @ 12:28PM|#
Whiskey - the IPCC Third Assessment Report goes into some of what you're asking, as well as the confidence levels in the science in question. You can probably derive the equation you want from the statistics in part 1. I recommend a thorough read, as it's both rather convincing on the claim that global warming is happening and significant and yet rather obviously being ignored by statist fear-mongers, who cite it as an authority for claims it doesn't actually make.
David Rollins|3.23.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Jesus fucking Christ, a 27 cent increase in the cost of gasoline
and all the Reasonoids can say is "good article"? Where are the
real libertarians?
We don't need no stinkin' taxes. Not for any reason except imminent
homeland invasion.
D.A. Ridgely|3.23.07 @ 12:39PM|#
What is all this crap about WW2 and Y2K? We're talking about
climate change here. Arguments by analogy really only work if the
analogies are fairly apt - which for a variety of reasons they
aren't here.
Well, WW2 and Y2K both have a "2" in them and so does CO2, which
makes them similar and analogies work on the basis of similarities.
You see? It's simple, really, once you see the common thread. Take
thread, for example. Thread is like rope, only thinner. So, if the
thread goes on long enough, commenters will entangle themselves in
these knotty problems and by analogy have enough rope to hang
themselves with. I hope that helps.
|3.23.07 @ 12:45PM|#
What is all this crap about WW2 and Y2K? We're talking about climate change here.
To be fair, we rarely talk much about climate change in any of
these threads. They mostly turn into tribal conflicts between Team
Red-leaning libertarians and real Reds and the Blue-leaning ones
and occasional real Blues.
|3.23.07 @ 12:47PM|#
Jesus fucking Christ, a 27 cent increase in the cost of gasoline and all the Reasonoids can say is "good article"?
I'm as real as they get, but I have to admit I'm tempted by one
aspect of Gore's plan - shifting all federal taxes to emission
taxes and such.
On the other hand, I'm not dumb enough to believe that would result
in anything but emission taxes on top of all our other taxes.
:)
ed|3.23.07 @ 12:51PM|#
How the heck did Hitler get entangled in the global warming
debate?
Everybody knows it was all Goering's fault.
Sing along with Freddie|3.23.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Goering has only got one ball
Goebbles has two but they are small
Himmler has something similar
And Hitler has none at all!
David Rollins|3.23.07 @ 1:03PM|#
Eric:
Yeah sure, and the national sales tax will obviate the need for the
income tax rather than become an additional tax.
Read my lips.
|3.23.07 @ 1:31PM|#
joe, given one is not making a decisive difference in regards to the strategic center of gravity, achieving a total victory in peripheral theater X is not necessarily of paramount concern.
|3.23.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Well, that is why it would be important to insist on the subtitution of emitted carbon taxes for income and payroll taxes to be made by the amendment process. Heck, there may be enough Republicans who despise the current tax code and payroll tax system, along with enough independents who despise it, and enough global warming alarmists, to form the super majority required by the amendment process. If nothing else, it would be revealed whether the alarmists believe their climate theories more than they love the current tax code.
|3.23.07 @ 1:43PM|#
Will,
Let's set aside theories about "strategic center of gravity." I
certainly disagree with you about Iraq being more important than Al
Qaeda, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it is.
Going 1-0-1 (victory in Afghanistan, indecisive outcome in Iraq) is
better than going 0-1-1 (defeat in Afghanistan, indecisive outcome
in Iraq), or 0-0-2, or heaven forbid 0-2.
If 21,500 more troops had been sent to Afghanistan last month
instead of Iraq, it would have provided us with a decisive
advantage. That same number of troops in Iraq, on the other hand,
merely takes us from having 3/10 of the troops we'd need to achieve
victory in Iraq (even being optimistic and assuming that a
half-million-man security crackdown would lead to the political
solution necessary for victory) to a little over 1/3 of the troops
we need in Iraq.
Just as a corp or two for Rommel would likely have let him take the
Suez and Cairo, while they were a rounding error in the casualty
reports in Stalingrad.
thoreau|3.23.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Take thread, for example. Thread is like rope, only thinner.
So, if the thread goes on long enough, commenters will entangle
themselves in these knotty problems and by analogy have enough rope
to hang themselves with. I hope that helps.
Nicely done, DAR.
|3.23.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Joe, Iraq, is a place, Al Queda is a very, very, loose
collection of individuals. The place is more important, because it
is what lies under the ground in that place, and the Persian Gulf
in general, which largely fuels, literally, the conflict. The
conflict will not be concluded until the people in the Persian Gulf
govern themselves, including their natural reources, and choose to
trade profitably with the rest of the world.
In any case, given the reality of an Wahabicized Pakistan with
nuclear weapons, 21,000 additional troops in Afghanistan most
assuredly would not be decisive in that theater, unless it is
accompanied by the repeal of a policy which harms ourt interests
there more than any other, the creation of a black market in
opiates, with our continued attempts to stamp it out via
eradication. When somebody with a chance of holding power in this
country starts to advocate that repeal, then let's start talking
about what level of troops may be critical in Afghanistan. Until
then, it is all a waste of time, or at least a prolonged holding
action.
A victory by Rommel in Cairo, accompanied by the Nazi defeat at
Stalingrad, likely doesn't change the outcome of the conflict at
all.
Mike Laursen|3.23.07 @ 2:47PM|#
I mean you want to talk about incentives? Yes, a carbon tax
encourages the consumer to seek out cleaner energy, but it will
encourage the government to do precisely the opposite if we let
these tax dollars get rolled into the general budget.
Exactly. Don't be surprised if fifteen years from now politicians
are arguing that we'll just have to live with global warming
because cutting back on carbon tax revenues will cause too many
budget cuts.
We can use the global warming scare to drop the income tax in
favor of a consumption tax.
I suppose it could happen. I'll try to rein in my
cynicism.
Carbon sins can be washed away with carbon credits.
Didn't the idea of "cap and trade" come from the libertarian camp?
It has at least one great quality: material goods that had no
tradeable value, like acres of Amazon rain forest, would suddenly
have more value.
what if Hitler had agreed to stop the advance towards
Stalingrad
joe, I think you occasionally make very good points, but, come on,
invoking Hitler?!
|3.23.07 @ 3:05PM|#
Will,
If we lose in Afghanistan, it will become al Qaeda's place once
again, and I didn't like how that turned out last time. As nasty as
the forces likely to take over Iraq may be, they are not remotely
as dangerous to us as al Qaeda.
Good point about the opiate issue.
"A victory by Rommel in Cairo, accompanied by the Nazi defeat at
Stalingrad, likely doesn't change the outcome of the conflict at
all." Ah, but let's recall, I am not the one calling for continuing
the offenseive into Stalingrad/staying the course in Iraq. I am
calling for us/the Germans to "stop the advance towards Stalingrad
in the early Fall of 1942" and "go over the defense and focus on
smaller tactical victories" in Iraq/Stalingrad. In other words, to
step back from the all-out, throw-in-your-last-reserves strategy
that led to the Germans' defeat.
I don't want to bet it all on the surge working, and watch the
Kurds fall under some Arab monster's boot in three years while we
fly helicopters off the roof. I think it's time to shorten our
lines, lower our sights to what can realistically be accomplished,
and reinforce our successes in Kurdistan, Anbar, and Afghanistan.
Not to mention, actually having a reserve available for
contingencies.
Imagine if the Germans had set up winter lines in September 42, let
their supplies and reinforcements catch up, and sent two extra
corps to Rommel. Rommel takes Egypt in 42, and most of his army
takes part in a new push into Stalingrad in 1943 (or wherever else
OKW came up with). That's what I'm tallking about.
Mike,
I'm not calling anyone a Nazi here, just using Germany as an
historical example of an army on the offensive. Can you seriously
not think about military lessons from WW2 because Hitler was
involved?
|3.23.07 @ 3:11PM|#
I don't want to bet it all on the surge working, and watch
the Kurds fall under some Arab monster's boot in three years while
we fly helicopters off the roof.
joe,
By my count you just opened a sixth front! Haven't you learned
anything from history?
|3.23.07 @ 3:23PM|#
joe, I am not advocating defeat in Afghanistan. I am saying that
21,000 troops will in no way be decisive in that country adjacent
Pakistan, especially as long as we are attempting to stamp out the
market in poppies via eradication. You can fight a war in
Afghanistan well, or you can fight a pointless War on Drugs. You
can't do both. If we aren't willing to end our drug policy, we may
as well keep just enough tropps in Afghanistan to fight a holding
action, and no more. Let me know when somebody with chance of
gaining significant power power electorally in Washingon D.C.
advocates ending the War on Drugs.
As to appropriate strategy in Iraq, I'm far from an expert. It is
significant to me that a guy like Petreaus took the job he is
trying to perform right now. It is significant to me that
independent voices with some military training on the ground, like
Michael Yon, have not denounced the the current strategy as
hopeless. As in all wars, however, disaster is forever just around
the corner, so I'm certainly not predicting success.
|3.23.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Mike P,
Uh, you do know that we're already in northern Iraq, right? That
Iraq is already an open front?
Will,
I know you're not "advocating defeat." I think that's a disgusting
and unfair charge for one American to make about another, and I am
most certainly not saying that about you.
What I am saying is that continuing, even escalating, the war in
Iraq is starving our mission in Afghanistan of troops, particularly
the specialists that are in such short supply there. I fear that
this shortage threatens our efforts there with defeat.
|3.23.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Uh, you do know that we're already in northern Iraq, right?
That Iraq is already an open front?
I was talking about this thread, and I miscounted: Vietnam is the
seventh front in the argument.
Global warming, the Pacific theater, North Africa, Russia,
Afghanistan, and Iraq are the first six.
Mike Laursen|3.23.07 @ 4:39PM|#
Can you seriously not think about military lessons from WW2
because Hitler was involved?
Umm, wasn't the original post about global warming or
something?
|3.23.07 @ 4:44PM|#
(Doesn't every single thing which burns give off
CO2?)
Every single LIVING THING gives off CO2. The debate is
ridiculous.
PLEASE for the love of god, lets not look at the carbon tax as
another way to raise money for the government. The vast majority of
the money collected by this tax should be put towards actual
scientific research aimed at producing 'greener' energy.
Right. I bet my house that "investing" from a virtually endless
pool of resources will NOT generate ONE SINGLE useful product,
because of two reasons:
1) There is no incentive to come up with a product, becase,
2) There IS an incentive to keep calling for more funds: "I'm
tellin' ya, we're ALMOST there, we j'st need mo' money!"
That is how government does things, and government will collect
this "carbon" tax regardless if the terminally naive think it
should not.
|3.23.07 @ 5:00PM|#
This is not to say that I'm necessarily in favor of it, I'm
just wondering why it's always called a carbon tax rather than a
fossil fuel tax.
Thoureau, it is called carbon tax not because of the
reasons given before, but because the name is so vague (on purpose)
that will serve to tax ANYTHING, under the pretense of "saving the
planet".
Only a terribly naive person, of the unicorn-sighting kind, would
believe even for an instant, that such "carbon" taxes are meant to
lower emissions.
biologist|3.23.07 @ 6:52PM|#
Gamito | March 23, 2007, 4:44pm | #
(Doesn't every single thing which burns give off CO2?)
Every single LIVING THING gives off CO2. The debate is
ridiculous.
true, but primary producers (mainly photosynthetic organisms like
plants, algae, and cyanobacteria) take up more carbon dioxide than
they give off
what does that have to do with the debate, or make the debate
ridiculous?
|3.23.07 @ 7:43PM|#
Wow, I've been thinking about subscribing to Reason lately after reading "Hit & Run" for months, but this article is making me rethink. Rauch just recycles a lot of standard arguments and says there's no reason to worry about any particular level of atmospheric CO2. Maybe he's right, but a lot of actual scientists disagree with him, and I'd like to know why Rauch is so sure of himself. But, of course, he doesn't make or cite any arguments supporting his claims. Bravo for at least acknowledging climate change, but otherwise this is weak tea.
|3.24.07 @ 1:09PM|#
A cool new technology for reducing global warming...
http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/03/21/micro-wind-turbines-small-size-big-impact/
Collaboration btw industry and government funded research
anyone?
Extremist voices on both sides of the debate harm the chances of
intelligent action. JR is write about that. He cites some pretty
weak sources for his claims. Nordhaus uses an Ivory Tower model
that ignores the positive impact on the economy that increased
efficiency brings to the table. There is no reason to believe that
addressing global warming will be a drag on the economy.
As for taxes. Gore's proposal is to SHIFT taxes from labor and
income to materials throughput. This is a very consistently
proposed solution from the environmental movement. It is important
that it be implemented as a shift rather than an add on. It is also
necessary to pair it with reductions in subsidy for carbon
inefficient endeavors. It is not a matter of environmentalist
believing their rhetoric. It is a matter of legislatures believing
& implementing it faithfully.
More options currently available for reducing your energy
consumption.
http://www.est.org.uk/myhome/generating/
http://www.flexcar.com/
http://www.zipcar.com/
http://www.greenbuilding.com/
If you want to avoid coercive government solutions, start using
those private options that are available now. If the problem goes
away on its own through private action, government will have no
reason to get involved. This will require abandoning the denialist
wait and see stance, and actually encouraging changed practices in
the private sector.
|3.24.07 @ 1:16PM|#
MikeP,
If you are still around. These micro-turbines are an example of the
kind of technology that the developing world can adopt that is both
more energy efficient and cheaper than building giant coal fired
power plant for residential electrification. Distributed energy
production is the way it will be done in the coming century. And
yes, the companies from the first world that make these low-priced
solutions will profit from them.
|3.24.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Biologist,
the debate is ridiculous because the environwackos have converted
what is essentially the result of normal biological function into a
"pollutant" that must be limited, or eliminated. Even in the case
of burning fossil fuels, what humans are doing is not much
different that what many other organisms do every day: convert ne
form of energy into another, to LIVE.
biologist|3.24.07 @ 5:48PM|#
Gamito:
thanks for elaborating on your straw man and demonstrating that a
little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.
yes, (nearly) every organism must produce carbon dioxide in order
to survive. the dangerous part is taking the large quantities of
organic (carbon-containing) material (fossil fuels) from where they
are harmlessly sequestered under the ground, and converting them to
carbon dioxide and releasing it into the atmosphere, increasing the
overall carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. it's not
you and me metabolizing organic compounds and exhaling them that is
the problem, it's you and me oxidizing organic gasoline to carbon
dioxide by driving around.
before the widespread use of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide
"fixation" (conversion into organic compounds) far exceeded carbon
dioxide release by oxidation of organic compounds. In fact, it had
to, since all living things ultimately derive their energy from
primary producers like plants.
burning of fossil fuels adds another carbon dioxide input into the
system at a rate that apparently outstrips the ability of primary
producers to convert it into organic compounds.
|3.25.07 @ 11:41PM|#
"the dangerous part is taking the large quantities of organic
(carbon-containing) material (fossil fuels) from where they are
harmlessly sequestered under the ground, and converting them to
carbon dioxide and releasing it into the atmosphere, increasing the
overall carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere."
Is IT dangerous, biologist? Because you just beg the question by
asserting such a thing.
"before the widespread use of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide
"fixation" (conversion into organic compounds) far exceeded carbon
dioxide release by oxidation of organic compounds."
Far exceeded? Really? CONSISTENTLY? At what rate? And, you are not
talking with an ignoramus, Biologist. The problem, and I have
indicated it, is calling CO2 a "pollutant".
biologist|3.27.07 @ 1:24PM|#
Is IT dangerous, biologist?
apparently so
Because you just beg the question by asserting such a
thing.
it is not my assertion, I'm repeating the conclusions of others. do
you have a more substantive counter-argument than "I don't believe
it."?
Far exceeded?
yes
Really?
yes, approximately 90% of energy is lost by inefficiency of
conversion as organic energy moves from one trophic level to the
next. therefore, as a rough approximation, carbon dioxide fixation
needs to exceed oxidation by herbivores by at least 10 times to
sustain herbivores. that doesn't even take into account the energy
the producers need to support themselves.
CONSISTENTLY?
no, but what difference does that make? IIRC, the explanation for
some of the major extinction events is reduced photosynthesis
because of sunlight being blocked by clouds of dirt and dust
suspended in the atmosphere from asteroid impacts.
At what rate?
I would hypothesize by at least ten times.
And, you are not talking with an ignoramus,
Biologist.
do you have evidence to support your assertion?
The problem, and I have indicated it, is calling CO2 a
"pollutant".
so your complaint is semantic, rather than substantive
Site 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