An Expedition Through Manhattan Explores the Effects of Climate Change

Ronald Bailey | September 11, 2007

The New York Times' superb science columnist, John Tierney takes a walk with Skeptical Environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg through Manhattan to the Bridge Cafe to explore the effects of climate change. Here is some of what he found about the effects of sea level rise:

Since record-keeping began in the 19th century, the sea level in New York has been rising about a foot per century, which happens to be about the same increase estimated to occur over the next century by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The temperature has also risen as New York has been covered with asphalt and concrete, creating an “urban heat island” that’s estimated to have raised nighttime temperatures by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. The warming that has already occurred locally is on the same scale as what’s expected globally in the next century...

The impact of these changes on Lower Manhattan isn’t quite as striking as the computer graphics. We couldn’t see any evidence of the higher sea level near the Bridge Cafe, mainly because Water Street isn’t next to the water anymore. Dr. Lomborg and I had to walk over two-and-a-half blocks of landfill to reach the current shoreline.

And his findings about the effects of higher temperatures and mortality:

The first is that winter can be deadlier than summer. About seven times more deaths in Europe are attributed annually to cold weather (which aggravates circulatory and respiratory illness) than to hot weather, Dr. Lomborg notes, pointing to studies showing that a warmer planet would mean fewer temperature-related deaths in Europe and worldwide.

The second factor is that the weather matters a lot less than how people respond to it. Just because there are hotter summers in New York doesn’t mean that more people die — in fact, just the reverse has occurred. Researchers led by Robert Davis, a climatologist at the University of Virginia, concluded that the number of heat-related deaths in New York in the 1990s was only a third as high as in the 1960s. The main reason is simple, and evident as you as walk into the Bridge Cafe on a warm afternoon: air-conditioning.

So what to do about global warming:

The lesson from our expedition is not that global warming is a trivial problem. Although Dr. Lomborg believes its dangers have been hyped, he agrees that global warming is real and will do more harm than good. He advocates a carbon tax and a treaty forcing nations to budget hefty increases for research into low-carbon energy technologies.

But the best strategy, he says, is to make the rest of the world as rich as New York, so that people elsewhere can afford to do things like shore up their coastlines and buy air conditioners. He calls Kyoto-style treaties to cut greenhouse-gas emissions a mistake because they cost too much and do too little too late. Even if the United States were to join in the Kyoto treaty, he notes, the cuts in emissions would merely postpone the projected rise in sea level by four years: from 2100 to 2104.

“We could spend all that money to cut emissions and end up with more land flooded next century because people would be poorer,” Dr. Lomborg said as we surveyed Manhattan’s expanded shoreline. “Wealth is a more important factor than sea-level rise in protecting you from the sea. You can draw maps showing 100 million people flooded out of their homes from global warming, but look at what’s happened here in New York. It’s the same story in Denmark and Holland — we’ve been gaining land as the sea rises.”

But what if global warming is worst than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects:

The biggest limitation to his cost-benefit analyses is that no one knows exactly what global warming will produce. It may not be worth taking expensive steps to forestall a one-foot rise in the sea level, but what if the seas rise much higher? Dr. Lomborg’s critics argue that we owe it to future generations to prepare for the worst-case projections.

But preparing for the worst in future climate is expensive, which means less money for the most serious threats today — and later this century. You can imagine plenty of worst-case projections that have nothing to do with climate change, as Dr. Lomborg reminded me at the end of our expedition.

“No historian would look back at the last two centuries and rank the rising sea level here as one of the city’s major problems,” he said, sitting safely dry and cool inside the Bridge Cafe. “I don’t think our descendants will thank us for leaving them poorer and less healthy just so we could do a little bit to slow global warming. I’d rather we were remembered for solving the other problems first.”

Whole New York Times article here.

Some of my own reporting and opining about the role of wealth in ameliorating future global warming here and here.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Miggs|9.11.07 @ 9:59AM|#

In before joe.

|9.11.07 @ 10:01AM|#

It takes a lot of effort to become adept as misdirection.

Heat stroke? Is that what you hear climatologists warning us about?

|9.11.07 @ 10:05AM|#

Sweet, global warming is not a problem! Just put the entire world permanently indoors in the AC.

Problem fixed, and good for G.E. stock too.

|9.11.07 @ 10:06AM|#

This sounds far too reasonable and level headed for global warming talk. Which is exactly why the parishioners at the Church of Apocalypse won't hear a word of this heresy.

Russ 2000|9.11.07 @ 10:14AM|#

A "carbon tax and a treaty forcing nations to budget hefty increases for research" is the opposite of creating more WEALTH.

|9.11.07 @ 10:18AM|#

Talking about the effects of the Kyoto Treaty is like noting that the first Vigra pill didn't cover the R&D costs, or noting the cost of a VCR in 1981.

The purpose of Kyoto was to spur technological innovation which would allow for even greater reductions in carbon output to be achieved later, at a much lower per-unit cost.

Lomborg and Tierney know this, but they keep playing dumb.

pilight|9.11.07 @ 10:18AM|#

Air conditioning causes global warming. To make it cooler indoors you must push the heat outside, and outside is where they measure the temperature.

Heat stroke? Is that what you hear climatologists warning us about?

Yep. See report on public health effects of climate change and North America here.

One relevant quote from the report:

"Temperate and polar regions are expected to warm disproportionately more than tropical and subtropical zones[6]. Kalkstein[17] has determined that key meteorologic variables contribute to heat stroke incidence, the most significant being "oppressive" nighttime temperatures; the greenhouse effect specifically would create these conditions[18]. A greater than 6-fold increase in heat-related deaths could result in the U.S. from the expected temperature change of doubling atmospheric CO2 (though acclimatization may dampen the impact)[13,19]."

Episiarch|9.11.07 @ 10:19AM|#

It's a good thing joe is here to preach his new religion to us, and decry the heretic Lomborg. Heresy must be silenced! There is only the one true Gaia, and the Goreacle is her prophet!

|9.11.07 @ 10:20AM|#

Ron,I'm impressed with much of what Lomborg writes yet his flaw,as is yours,is a tax.Relying on giving more money to self interested congressmen is a recipe for more abuse of the public coffers.I've heard the argument we can write a bill to ally those fears yet no one can name an example of this ever being done.Look how the income tax has been perverted into a social and favors larded system.The private sector will have to solve this problem.People acting in their own interest have and will make better choices.

|9.11.07 @ 10:27AM|#

The private sector will have to solve this problem.People acting in their own interest have and will make better choices.

Any time now.

To say that global warming isn't an economic priority is patently absurd. The US is spending billions of dollars (a day?) on a useless war. Gobs and gobs of money are wasted on much less important things every day. Saying that working on our climate problem will be too costly is unbelievably short-sighted.

|9.11.07 @ 10:32AM|#

Michael Pack: Perish the thought that I like coming out in favor of a tax. Briefly the issue is that global warming is an environmental commons problem. There are two ways to handle environmental commons problems--privatize or regulate. I strongly believe that the evidence shows that privatization is generally the far better solution to commons problems--see my earlier reporting on fisheries, rainforests, water supplies, etc.

However, it is my judgment (subject to change in the face of new evidence) that the transactions costs for privatizing the atmospheric commons are way too high for that solution to work in this case. For example, I came out in favor of an international ban on CFCs to protect the ozone layer in my book Eco-Scam back in 1993.

After seeing how cap-and-trade has failed and is thoroughly riddled with corruption in Europe, I concluded that a carbon tax is the least bad alternative to solving this particular commons problem. See my reasons for that here.

Russ 2000|9.11.07 @ 10:33AM|#

|9.11.07 @ 10:40AM|#

Dan T,so how fast do you want things done.One year,two?You won't see any big press releases on improvements and changing attitudes .Change takes time and some of the most important changes are ignored for years.Just as we moved from the horse,to the train,to the car to the jet it will happen slowly.All advances usually do.'Do something now' attitudes are never worth the cost.

|9.11.07 @ 10:44AM|#

"New York has been covered with asphalt and concrete, creating an "urban heat island" that's estimated to have raised nighttime temperatures by 7 degrees Fahrenheit."

I can't help thinking that this heat sink effect is underappreciated.

I, too, expect carbon tax revenues will be used in idiotic and counterproductive ways, resulting in more harm than good, overall.

Query me this Ron... so, you are gonna' tax every barrel of oil that comes out of the ground here, or that is imported into the US.

What'cha gonna' do with the money? (You being the US government.)

Now that all of "our" (the US citizens') energy costs have gone up, paying for this "carbon tax", our goods will be more expensive. That's fair. We've got to pay for the "commons".

But what about a country that chooses not to tax their oil imports or oil production? Their prices are lower, their goods are cheaper on the world market.

Are you planning on implementing a tax on ALL oil, everywhere on Earth? Good luck. What One World Government will collect THAT tax? And if not, then you've got ME paying taxes to protect a "commons" that other "commons users" aren't paying.

More taxes is clearly not the answer.

CB

Jacob|9.11.07 @ 10:45AM|#

" a carbon tax is the least bad alternative to solving this particular commons problem."

Maybe it's the least bad of all proposed "solutions" but it won't solve anything, i.e. - will result in negligible reductions of CO2.
Truth is the "cap and trade" Kyoto scheme isn't reducing emissions either.

There are no "solutions", but people are determined to shoot themselves in the foot, as an outlet for their climate anguish.

|9.11.07 @ 10:46AM|#

Michael, in my opinion environmental concerns are not likely to be solved by people acting in their own interest. That's exactly how the problems came to be in the first place. Pollution is an externality - it would never be in my personal best interest to volunteer to pay for an external cost that my activity generates, especially if nobody else is doing so.

fyodor|9.11.07 @ 10:48AM|#

Can someone explain to me how Kyoto does too little yet costs too much?

If a carbon-emmission tax is the best answer (and that's what I lean towards), why not write that into Kyoto?

Jacob|9.11.07 @ 10:49AM|#

"What'cha gonna' do with the money? (You being the US government.)"

Why not give it back to the people? I.e. offset the carbon tax by reducing income tax ?

I could live with that. (Though it will not reduce CO2 much).

Fat chance of this offset being implemented....

|9.11.07 @ 10:53AM|#

Hmmm. Interesting logic here....response to global warming - more AC. More AC = greater demand for electricity. Greater demand for electricity means burning more fossil fuel (unless there's a massive and immediate push for the comemrcial-scale adoption of alternative electrical generation technologies - which there isn't.) Buring more fossil fuel means more greenhouse gasses. More greenhous gasses means more global warming. Which means more AC...which means.........

Jacob|9.11.07 @ 10:55AM|#

"Can someone explain to me how Kyoto does too little yet costs too much?"

Kyoto explicitly mandates a "cap and trade" scheme, where the "cap" part is the key. No additional carbon emissions, no new power plants, no new plants of any kind that use energy.

How is it that Kyoto does too little? Easy - as implemented in the EU it does exactely nothing, just a lot of empty talk, and a lot of paperwork by a horde of bureaucrats. The typical government "solution". A useless "make work" scheme.

|9.11.07 @ 10:56AM|#

Ron,as I have said before,it sounds good in principle but might not work in the real world.Handing congress a new revenue stream is never a solution to a problem.If congressmen had the honesty you have on this subject I would have no fears.Yet the world we live in shows otherwise.People act in their own self interest and a congressman's interest is re-election and bringing home the bacon.Telling the average American ,who can't understand their tax return now,a new tax will solve the problem seems to be a bold face lie.

|9.11.07 @ 10:58AM|#

Oh lordy lordy, we're not all gonna die, whatevah am I gonna doo.

I still say the effects of global warming will be what none of us expects.

|9.11.07 @ 10:59AM|#

Stop global warming! Build breeder reactors. Next problem, please.

Doctor Duck|9.11.07 @ 11:01AM|#

OK, say Kyoto is a bust. So is there some secret plan that will make places like Bangladesh and sub-Saharan Africa as rich as NYC within 100 years?

Jacob|9.11.07 @ 11:02AM|#

Actually the Kyoto idea is a lot worse than useless. It's more akin to a Soviet 5 years plan. A gigantic exercise in social engineering, that will result, if implemented, in a drastic reduction in living standards, just like the Soviet plan did.

To date it hasn't yet caused too much harm, because it hasn't really been implemented as the greens demand. What has been done, so far, is just talk, talk, talk; nothing serious yet, and it doesn't look like it's going anywhere, for now, thank God.

|9.11.07 @ 11:03AM|#

Doctor Duck - just ask joe. (Actually, his plan would make NYC as poor as Bangladesh or ssA, but the effect is the same).

CB

Nephilium|9.11.07 @ 11:03AM|#

Lost_in_Translation:

Nah... we'll all die... haven't found the way to change that (yet)...

Besides... I await the new study that will show that AC causes cancer.

Nephilium

|9.11.07 @ 11:10AM|#

Since record-keeping began in the 19th century, the sea level in New York has been rising about a foot per century, which happens to be about the same increase estimated to occur over the next century by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Another complaint: assuming that this fact is true regarding NYC, a little googling reveals that sea levels rise/fall at different rates depending on the location. In general, the baseline for sea levels rising is significantly less than one foot per year. So the projections are the across the board sea levels will rise much higher than usual.

And of course, if sea levels have risen faster in the NYC area, that very well could mean that they'll go up more than a foot in the next century. Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't appear that Lomborg has put much thought into this.

Or, he's just trying to make a name for himself as an "outlaw environmentalist".

fyodor|9.11.07 @ 11:20AM|#

Jacob,

Thanks for addressing my questions. Though to be honest, and no offense, but you don't seem like the best candidate to answer my question as you seem to think all efforst are doomed to failure. Not that I discount that position, you may be right, I'm open to what you say, but I'm looking for the reason the Kyoto, as opposed to other potential approaches, inherently and uniquely presents this paradox.

As to what you say:

Kyoto explicitly mandates a "cap and trade" scheme, where the "cap" part is the key. No additional carbon emissions, no new power plants, no new plants of any kind that use energy.

First, can't Kyoto be changed? Or is the process locked into "cap and trade" so tightly that the only way to do something different is to start over? Next, while I agree with Ron and Bjorn that carbon emmission taxation (to be balanced by decreases in other taxes) is the best route to address this problem, I have issues with what you say about "cap and trade". First, can't two new efficient power plants replace one inefficient one to stay under the cap? Next, some sort of "cap" or at least goal has to be targetted or else there's no point to any of this. Which may be your point, but if global warming has real potential impact on people's rights to property and self, as it likely does, then addressing this by means of shooting for some goal of reduction only makes sense. Assuming it can work, which leads us to:

How is it that Kyoto does too little? Easy - as implemented in the EU it does exactely nothing, just a lot of empty talk, and a lot of paperwork by a horde of bureaucrats.

My understanding is that this is because it has not really been implemented at this point, or only for practice, not for real. Obviously any such program will have to have enforcement teeth. I can see obstacles to managing such a program internationally, but just because the Western European wimps haven't made any real effort in this regard to date doesn't mean it's impossible. Anyway, if Bjorn is saying that Kyoto does too little because it's essentially ineffective, then the only reason it "costs too much" is that it's ineffective (since you never want to pay for nothing) and it would be nonsensical to add that is costs too much as well. Under your explanation the only cost is to pay bureaucrats to do nothing. Which sucks, of course, but I doubt that doesn't seem like the kind of cost I would think Bjorn is talking about.

Anyway, while I thank you for your answer, I still don't see why Kyoto inherently leads to this paradox as stated.

|9.11.07 @ 11:23AM|#

"Although Dr. Lomborg believes its dangers have been hyped, he agrees that global warming is real and will do more harm than good. He advocates a carbon tax and a treaty forcing nations to budget hefty increases for research into low-carbon energy technologies."

It is a measure of the fanatism of the current environmental movement that someone like Lomborg who essentially agrees with the majority of their points could be painted as the great Satan. The only thing Lomborg seems to take issue with them about is the environmental value and viability of the capitalist system, the destruction of which seems to be much more important to the environmentalists than actually protecting the environment.

Tim Lambert|9.11.07 @ 11:24AM|#

Lomborg is his usual cherry-picking self. The IPCC 4AR reports:

Projected trends in climate-change-related exposures of importance to human health will:
• increase malnutrition and consequent disorders, including those relating to child growth and development (high confidence) [8.2.3, 8.4.1];
• increase the number of people suffering from death, disease and injury from heatwaves, floods, storms, fires and droughts (high confidence) [8.2.2, 8.4.1];
• continue to change the range of some infectious disease vectors (high confidence) [8.2, 8.4];
• have mixed effects on malaria; in some places the geographical range will contract, elsewhere the geographical range will expand and the transmission season may be
changed (very high confidence) [8.4.1.2];
• increase the burden of diarrhoeal diseases (medium confidence) [8.2, 8.4];
• increase cardio-respiratory morbidity and mortality associated with ground-level ozone (high confidence) [8.2.6, 8.4.1.4];
• increase the number of people at risk of dengue (low confidence) [8.2.8, 8.4.1];
• bring some benefits to health, including fewer deaths from cold, although it is expected that these will be outweighed by the negative effects of rising temperatures worldwide, especially in developing countries (high confidence) [8.2.1, 8.4.1].

From that list Lomborg has cherry picked the benefits.

|9.11.07 @ 11:25AM|#

OK, let me rephrase:

Has anyone heard people concerned about global warming identify heat stroke, or "heat-related deaths," as the major issue of concern from global warming?

Episiarch,

The faith is all on your side of the table. The facts on are mine, True Believer.

ed|9.11.07 @ 11:25AM|#

This and other environmental topics long ago passed from science to religion. True Believers will always believe, regardless of objective reality.

|9.11.07 @ 11:27AM|#

John,

"the capitalist system, the destruction of which seems to be much more important to the environmentalists than actually protecting the environment."

You forgot the kitten-stomping.

I think it's pretty clear who's calling peole Satans here.

|9.11.07 @ 11:28AM|#

Now, ed.

A lot former denialists have acclimated themselves to the facts.

|9.11.07 @ 11:30AM|#

Doctor Duck: As I explained here extrapolations of economic growth suggest that Bangladeshis could become much wealthier over the course of this century:

And because people like Stern, who are worried about climate change, are constantly mentioning their concern about the poor in Bangladesh, let's look at how a 1 percent cut in that country's growth rate would affect their future prospects. In recent years, Bangladesh's economy has been growing at about 6 percent per year. Let's assume the new carbon taxes cut Bangladesh's economic growth rate by 1 percent to 5 percent per year. Bangladesh's current GDP is $55 billion. So if Bangladesh's economy grew at 5 percent compounded for 50 years, it would increase to $630 billion and in 100 years it would exceed $7.2 trillion. However, Bangladesh's economy grew at 6 percent for 50 years, it would top over $1 trillion and in 100 years it would be $18.5 trillion. A 1 percent reduction in economic growth makes a big difference over the generations. Now the main concern about Bangladesh is how a warming world will cause rising sea levels to flood much of that country. It's interesting to note that the Dutch manage to keep the sea from flooding their low lying country with a GDP of just $500 billion.

|9.11.07 @ 11:32AM|#

If the environment is such a 'crisis', why not abolish the IRS and _replace_ the income tax w/ a carbon tax? Think the leftist environmentalists will be willing to give up that much power to 'save' the Earth?

Episiarch|9.11.07 @ 11:36AM|#

The faith is all on your side of the table.

That's right, joe, no one disagrees with you. Well, except a lot of people, including Lomborg, who you instantly tear down.

Seeing as Lomborg actually believes in global warming, why are you so frantic to paint him as a demented heretic?

You can try and throw the faith thing back at me all you like, but your behavior is religious, and all your denials and "consensus" doesn't change that.

Science doesn't work on consensus. Religions do, however, as well as fads.

|9.11.07 @ 11:38AM|#

"Think the leftist environmentalists will be willing to give up that much power to 'save' the Earth?"

Now according to Joe, all the environmentalists are just wonderful people here to help. There is nothing unreasonable about anything they say or any apocalyptic prediction they make or any demands they make for power. To question otherwise is to engage in global warming denial and to call them Satans. Some day when all is right with the world, Joe and his ilk will have to power reeducate people with dangerous political consciousnesses like you and I.

|9.11.07 @ 11:41AM|#

Lumburg believes in global warming and wants to have higher taxes and pretty significant government action to combat it. Yet, he is still in Joe's eyes a dangerous extremist demagogue. But, it is everyone else, not Joe who is the fanatic here.

Sure there are responsible people who disagree with me, Episiarch.

There is all sorts of disagreement among the majority of people who no longer stick their heads in the sand.

But keep bashing those independent scientists who keep coming to the same conclusions. They must be wrong, because, well, it would look good for liberals if they were right, and we can't have that.

You take Inhofe, and I'll stick with the scientists on the IPCC, thanks.

The Dutch coastline isn't struck by hurricaine-force storms several times a year.

50inSeptember|9.11.07 @ 11:44AM|#

"Temperate and polar regions are expected to warm disproportionately more than tropical and subtropical zones[6]."

Is there no one else who is looking forward to this warming? I'm only half joking. It's freezing today!

|9.11.07 @ 11:44AM|#

Yes, John, even though Lomborg agrees with me on some policy issues, I still find hole after hole in his analysis of the problem.

This is because I'm so terribly biased that I can only think clearly about the ideas of people who agree with me about policy.

Brilliant logic. Just brilliant.

Any time you'd care to take a whack at the actual objections I raised, instead of saying I must be wrong because of my politics, go right ahead.

But I'm not going to hold my breath.

|9.11.07 @ 11:48AM|#

It is a measure of the fanatism of the current environmental movement that someone like Lomborg who essentially agrees with the majority of their points could be painted as the great Satan.

It is a measure of John's hackery that he considers it a point AGAINST global warming realists that they could object to the writings of someone who agrees with them on many policy issues.

Episiarch|9.11.07 @ 11:48AM|#

who no longer stick their heads in the sand

Right, because anyone who disagrees with you is an idio...excuse me, an ostrich.

Funny how you sound exactly like the folks who claim people are sticking their heads in the sand about the coming Muslim takeover of the West. You even use precisely the same expression.

|9.11.07 @ 11:53AM|#

Maybe if you spent more, check that, some time thinking about the facts and data, and less worrying about who disagrees with whom, you'd be able to align your beliefs with the science.

Not everything is a partisan slap-fight, Episiarch. Worry about the facts for a change.

carrick|9.11.07 @ 11:54AM|#

The Dutch coastline isn't struck by hurricaine-force storms several times a year.

Where were you when we were arguing about New Orleans last week?

I was trying to point out that successfully protecting the Dutch coastline was not proof that New Orleans could be protected by similar measures.

|9.11.07 @ 11:56AM|#

I've made that point, too, carrick.

|9.11.07 @ 11:57AM|#

And along those lines: take a look at the location of the poorer countries of the world, and the coasts they face.

More like Louisiana, less like New York and the Netherlands, no?

carrick|9.11.07 @ 11:58AM|#

I've made that point, too, carrick.

I missed that. Oops.

|9.11.07 @ 11:59AM|#

Not in that thread, though. Before that.

|9.11.07 @ 12:00PM|#

"take a look at the location of the poorer countries of the world"

MOVE!!! WE HAVE DESERTS IN OUR COUNTRY! WE DON'T FUCKING LIVE THERE!"

Sam Kinison

carrick|9.11.07 @ 12:02PM|#

I thought Lomborg's point was you need to compare the costs of mitigating the damage from Global Warming versus the costs of preventing damage by limiting Global Warming.

I've yet to see a neutral cost/benefit analysis of ingoring the problem versus letting it happen and mitigating the damages versus agressively trying to halt the problem.

Episiarch|9.11.07 @ 12:10PM|#

Not everything is a partisan slap-fight, Episiarch. Worry about the facts for a change.

Actually joe, I don't do partisan slap fights. What I worry about are religious fanatics, which is what you remind me of. You are so fucking convinced of the certainty of your beliefs that no action is out of bounds in your pursuit of salvation.

Your absolute, smug assurance of AGW and what to do about it is telling.

fyodor|9.11.07 @ 12:21PM|#

I've yet to see a neutral cost/benefit analysis of ingoring the problem versus letting it happen and mitigating the damages versus agressively trying to halt the problem.

Well, neutrality is difficult and often in the eye of the beholder, but it's what we've got to strive for. The beauty of a tax is that it's based on how much harm a given amount of carbon emmission is doing to the rights of others. And actually, I take back what I said earlier about caps being necessary. If we were to tax carbon emmissions to the full extent called for based on their harm to others, and use of carbon didn't change much, that would in and of itself demonstrate that the harm being done to others was inconsequential compared to the utility derived by the use of carbon.

Y'know, about whether liberals would be willing to cut income taxes and this showing what they're all about, there are undoubtedly liberals saying the same thing in reverse about YOU and how YOU wouldn't be willing to give up the IRS for carbon taxing because you DON'T REALLY WANT to protect the environment, and that's why it's not worth even bringing up the subject!!

I say let's push for carbon taxation WITH THE REQUIREMENT that it's coupled with equal reductions in other taxes. Hell, many of us want to shift to sales taxes anyway, right?

|9.11.07 @ 12:35PM|#

I remind you of a religious fanatic, Episiarch, because your biases prevent you from admitting that sometimes liberals are right and conservatives wrong.

No, you don't do partisan slapfights. You just assume you're watching one, regardless of what's actually going on.

|9.11.07 @ 12:36PM|#

Al Gore has proposed using carbon taxes to replace payroll taxes.

Episiarch|9.11.07 @ 12:44PM|#

I remind you of a religious fanatic, Episiarch, because your biases prevent you from admitting that sometimes liberals are right and conservatives wrong.

This doesn't even make sense. Here you are telling me that my biases are preventing me from seeing something, except for the fact that what I'm seeing is your bias. So my biases prevent me from not not seeing your biases?

Can I have some mustard with that pretzel you just made, joe?

No, you don't do partisan slapfights. You just assume you're watching one, regardless of what's actually going on.

Except they are always partisan slapfights, joe. What did you just say above?

sometimes liberals are right and conservatives wrong

You don't care about any science--your side is right NYAH NYAH NYAH GO TEAM BLUE.

fyodor|9.11.07 @ 12:48PM|#

Al Gore has proposed using carbon taxes to replace payroll taxes.

And of his nine (or so?) point plan, this is the one I said made sense.

|9.11.07 @ 1:03PM|#

I still don't see why Kyoto inherently leads to this paradox as stated.

fyodor,

Kyoto costs too much because it requires too great a cut in CO2 too quickly. The costs to economies making those cuts today are far greater than the meager benefits down the road. This is the case even if the cuts were actually being made -- which as others have noted they aren't.

As joe notes, Kyoto was to be the first treaty of many, so using the cost-benefit analysis of Kyoto alone is not necessarily appropriate.

Nonetheless, the journey of a thousand miles should not begin with a step off a cliff. If one must impose costs on economies to reduce CO2 emission, far better to follow a strategy such as Nordhaus's and tax the carbon at its marginal environmental cost, which is rather low in 2007 and rises only through the decades.

|9.11.07 @ 1:09PM|#

Episiarch,

So my biases prevent me from not not seeing your biases?

Your bias prevent you from noticing that it is not biased to say that global warming denialists are wrong; it is accurate and objective.

Except they are always partisan slapfights, joe. And there we have it. You don't have to use reason, logic, or facts. You JUST KNOW that neither side is right, all the time, details be damned.

That's bias, Episiarch. All you're doing is showing off how baised you are, and how little self-awareness you have.

Episiarch|9.11.07 @ 1:22PM|#

That's bias, Episiarch. All you're doing is showing off how baised you are, and how little self-awareness you have.

"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

That's projection, joe.

dhex|9.11.07 @ 1:29PM|#

You just assume you're watching one, regardless of what's actually going on.

can you blame him?

well, ok, i know *you* can, but were you not you, i mean. you'd be surprised how predictable these things get.

fyodor|9.11.07 @ 1:33PM|#

Episiarch and joe,

I'll solve this. You're both biased. And both of your biases prevent you from seeing each other's biases. And from seeing that arguing about each other's bias is a waste of time and bandwidth.

MikeP,

You're likely right about the costs of Kyoto. As I acknowledged in a subsequent post, I'd forgotten why arbitrary caps are such a problem and why punitive taxation sidesteps it. Actually, if we imposed an appropriate tax on carbon emmission production, we would find out if the Kyoto caps are too low -- or not low enough! That said, one may be justified in suspecting that they're too low.

That said, if these costly caps were indeed imposed and enforced, then I don't see why they would simultaneously accomplish too little, unless one were claiming that such overly low caps would get ignored, which doesn't seem to be the point.

Hang onto your wallet|9.11.07 @ 1:43PM|#

If you tax carbon, only government will waste carbon. Or something like that.

|9.11.07 @ 1:46PM|#

Since record-keeping began in the 19th century, the sea level in New York has been rising about a foot per century

WTF?!?! Is there a big two foot sea swell permanently centered on New York? Is there an undiscovered unseen moon above New York that causes a localized tide? Why would the sea level rise only in New York? Maybe, just maybe, Manhattan Island is sinking?

|9.11.07 @ 2:15PM|#

I declare the first part of fyodor's last thread my offical Hero of the Day.

|9.11.07 @ 2:37PM|#

joe, Would you support the construction of a nuclear power plant within 1, 5, 25, miles of your home? Remember, there are no wrong answers.

|9.11.07 @ 2:48PM|#

Big picture, folks. The earth has been undergoing catastrophic climate change for several million years now. Specificially, we've had 100,000 year long glacial episodes, interrupted by 12,000 year long interglacial periods. Humanity has prospered only during the most recent interglacial, which has lasted about 12,000 years, and is thus on the verge of ending.

The prudent thing to do to prevent another catastrophic ice age would be to pump a lot of carbon stored in the ground into the atmosphere, thus counteracting the otherwise inevitable cooling period.

Oh, wait, we're doing that, and the PC crowd wants to vastly expand government to prevent us from doing the prudent, sensible thing, and lower our standard of living to boot.

(sarcasm)

Good plan, guys.

(/sarcasm)

K.|9.11.07 @ 3:20PM|#

The problem is, global warming is most likely a non-linear process. Buying air conditioning might work for a while, but when it starts getting worse very rapidly, it won't be that simple.

I'm all for a carbon tax that would replace income taxes, so that people could decide by themselves if they want to spend the money on keeping the SUV or on better, more efficient tech and keep the left over cash.

K.|9.11.07 @ 3:22PM|#

Big picture, folks. The earth has been undergoing catastrophic climate change for several million years now.

Yeah, over 100,000s of years, not 100s. The speed of the change matters, even if ecosystems are robust to start with.

|9.11.07 @ 3:52PM|#

One of the larger, and often unmentioned, problems with Kyoto is that it ignores manufacturing pollution in emerging countries.

Many manufacturers have already moved from OECD nations, and Kyoto is a huge incentive for others to follow. They may move to countries where they can pollute to a greater extent than they would in their homelands.

Kyoto could well wind up causing more pollution than would otherwise exist.

fyodor|9.11.07 @ 4:03PM|#

BakedPenguin,

I think a carbon tax should be negotiated across the globe. Poorer nations would pay less just cause they're poorer, but they shouldn't be exempt.

Rotsa ruck, I suppose, but it's a goal. If some countries don't cooperate, you could hit them with tariffs on the products of carbon emmitting manufacture.

Also, if we reduce other taxes, there's less incentive to move.

|9.11.07 @ 4:03PM|#

K.

Take a look at the chart here:

http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm

The current temperature is below the peak of the last interglacial. Oh, and temperature changes in geological time appear to have sometimes occured quite swiftly. Life adapts.

|9.11.07 @ 4:16PM|#

J sub D,

I've got a nuke plant within 25 miles of my home - I'm pretty sure I'm that close to Seabrook.

There are still some kinks to be worked out with the waste, but we need to take serious action to forestall global warming-related damage, and that's tipped the balance for me somewhat. As far as the China Syndrome fears - they don't build nuke plants like they used to, and that's a good thing.

|9.11.07 @ 4:18PM|#

"Life adapts"

Yes, often with mass extinctions.

|9.11.07 @ 4:33PM|#

Prolefeed wrote:
"Humanity has prospered only during the most recent interglacial, which has lasted about 12,000 years, and is thus on the verge of ending."

perhaps you missed my response in the other thread. We are not due for another major glacial period for 50,000 years. Some minor cooling could occur, but there will be no iceage in the near future.

|9.11.07 @ 4:58PM|#

There are still some kinks to be worked out with the waste, but we need to take serious action to forestall global warming-related damage, and that's tipped the balance for me somewhat. As far as the China Syndrome fears - they don't build nuke plants like they used to, and that's a good thing.

Yup!
I've agreed with both joe and Dan T. on the same day. The fundies must be right. The end times are near.;-)

robc|9.11.07 @ 5:12PM|#

Yes, often with mass extinctions.

So it goes.

SIV|9.11.07 @ 5:55PM|#

Al Gore has proposed using carbon taxes to replace payroll taxes.

When a crazy fat unemployed guy starts proposing things I recommend speeding up your pace and not making eye contact. Any verbal interaction should be limited to "good morning" or "have a nice day"

|9.11.07 @ 6:15PM|#

Yeah, over 100,000s of years, not 100s.

Yeah, what he say! The last ice age, 12000 years ago, took over 100000 years to end!

|9.11.07 @ 7:22PM|#

Sam-Hec

Perhaps you could reiterate that argument, since, among others, this article:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050330_earth_tilt.html

would strongly suggest that the major driver of climate in the long term is regular, cyclical changes in the sunlight received by earth due to changes in the way the earth orbits.

If you're arguing that we're in for a cooling period, but don't care to call it an ice age -- sweeping it under the rug using terminology -- still makes sense to counterbalance that cooling / ice age with some warming and thus keeping the current conditions favorable to our species in roughly the same range as they have been during the current interglacial.

DannyK|9.11.07 @ 8:37PM|#

Man, that article was wacky -- two urban intellectuals strolling around Manhattan, talking about how "weather matters a lot less than how people respond to it."

Don't worry about the farmers, 'cause we've got a nice bodega round the corner with sandwiches and drinks, and that's where our food comes from. Don't worry about sea level rise, because the Netherlands are getting bigger all the time.

(In reality, meanwhile, the Dutch government is getting ready to give big patches of land back to the water in order to save the most important areas. Odd, how a wealthy country could be affected by the natural world...)

Also nice how Tierney neglects to mention how Lomborg's last best-seller was condemned in the scientific press for quote-mining and selective citations... maybe Lomborg's a brave dissident, or maybe he's a hack in green clothing, but shouldn't the readers know about the controversy?

|9.12.07 @ 4:37AM|#

Prolefeed,

Your article seems to contradict itself. First it says that ice ages happen when the earth is at maximum tilt...but that we are getting less tilty. Then it says an ice age is immenant? Maybe I am reading it wrong, I am tired.

my source for 50,000 year mostly warm period:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5585/1287

|9.12.07 @ 4:45AM|#

also 'cooling periods' are not the same as 'ice ages'. I am not trying ot abuse terminology. actively balancing natural cooling forcings with CO2 is an intersing idea...but we are not now as a global civilization doing this wiht much responsibility; rather we are haphazardly adding more CO2 into the atmosphere than has been seen in a very looong time, without a clear idea when the next real Ice Age is coming. If all it was that's coming in the short term is a just another minor cooling period like that of the 1600s, we have added waaaay too much CO2. Uncontrolled cliamte experiments are not smart, let's end this experiment before it gets out of control and threaten our civilization.

|9.12.07 @ 4:46AM|#

er..."without much responsibility"

ugh.zzzz

|9.12.07 @ 5:01AM|#

lastly, wikilink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
at the bottom shows a graph with expected forcings. Two of the orbital forcings will promote a cooling through the next 25,000 years, but the more important one affecting insolation at 65degrees North lattitude will promate warming; so no large Ice Age should be happening over the next millenia much less the next several 10s of thousands of years. ...unless someone builds an Sun Shade or sucks up too much CO2 from the atmosphere.O r the sun decides to go through a major cooling period at an awkward cyclical moment.

However, dumping CO2 in the atmosphere as we are doing now has a response time of a couple decades. If we were aiming for countering an Ice Age...we are WAAAAAY off.

|9.12.07 @ 10:32AM|#

Why is prolefeed talking about "counterbalancing" a theoretical cooling effect and "maintaining" current temperatures to avoid drastic change, when the data very strongly show that our greenhouse emissions are causing a dramatic warming effect?

Edward|9.12.07 @ 6:30PM|#

But what if global warming is worst [sic] than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects?

Is worst?

|9.12.07 @ 11:55PM|#

Edward,
IIRC correctly it has already been shown that the IPCC reports are too conservative. Even after they stated they left out rapid ice melt. It's gonna suck.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements