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
Starving Indians Not Impressed by Global Warming Plan
How do you say "screw
you" in Hindi?
The plan's authors, the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change, said India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth to cut gases.
"It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of wellbeing to its people."
The plan's only real promise was in fact a threat: "India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries."
More global warming fun here.
Naga Sadow|7.9.08 @ 7:03PM|#
I had better elaborate. Link for what the Indian Council on Climate Change stated is what I meant.
|7.9.08 @ 7:06PM|#
"It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of wellbeing to its people."
Energy use increases with economic growth. Many of the green
coalition trying to reduce global CO2 emissions, just completely
ignore this uncomfortable fact. We are not going to conserve our
way out of this mess without condemning half of the planet's
population to continued poverty.
If India, China, sub-Saharan Africa don't play the developed world
isn't going to either. That's another ignored fact.
Fission, folks. Fission and research/developement of other non
emitting energy sources are the way to go. Conservation alone will
not do it.
Naga Sadow|7.9.08 @ 7:06PM|#
I believe "screw you" in Hindi is "teri aisi ki taisi". Sorry for the typo above.
Naga Sadow|7.9.08 @ 7:09PM|#
J sub D,
For a second there I thought you had written FUSION, not fission. I
was worried you might be one of those perpetual energy freaks I've
run across.
|7.9.08 @ 7:11PM|#
Here's a "sort of" link - mentions the same India response, as
the above, and more:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=230269081162
...best I can do for now - over to you KMW for the real link!
KD|7.9.08 @ 7:13PM|#
OOPS! Wrong link to eBay laptop - d'oh!
Can't seem to get the correct URL for to article I want! Gimme a
minute....
KD|7.9.08 @ 7:16PM|#
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun
Title: Doomed to a fatal delusion over climate change. Or look for
Andrew Bolt under columnists/bloggers if y'all are still with me on
this...
Cool Cal|7.9.08 @ 7:17PM|#
George Will said it best when he told that avuncular bore Sam Donaldson, developing nations would have no patience for this "drama of the rich" in regards to the global, global warming initiatives.
|7.9.08 @ 7:17PM|#
For a second there I thought you had written FUSION, not
fission. I was worried you might be one of those perpetual energy
freaks I've run across.
Nah. I'm sane, even somewhat conservative about technology. Other
subjects? Perhaps a little less conservative in my views.
|7.9.08 @ 7:18PM|#
So Ward's argument against restricting global warming pollutin
is "it's for the Indian children." OK.
J sub D,
Energy use increases with economic growth. Once upon a
time, cultivated land increased with economic growth. Right up
until it didn't.
Once upon a time, whale mortality increased with energy production.
Right up until it didn't.
KD|7.9.08 @ 7:18PM|#
Naga Sadow | July 9, 2008, 7:16pm | #
I saw that ebay link and thought you were making a joke. LOL
I'm not that subtle/clever...
lol
|7.9.08 @ 7:31PM|#
Yeah, joe. India, China and the rest of the underdeveloped world
is going to climb out of poverty without massive increases in
energy use. Go tell it to somebody stupid enough to swallow
it.
Reality, it sucks sometimes but it is all we have to work with.
Neu Mejican|7.9.08 @ 7:32PM|#
Energy use increases with economic growth.
If true, then you want to help the emerging economies to be as
efficient with their energy consumption as possible to reduce the
emissions associated with their economic growth.
Perhaps cleaner, more sustainable options adopted more widely in
India will allow them to increase their energy consumption without
exceeding CO2 emissions targets.
India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas
emissions will at no point exceed that of developed
countries.
This is exactly the right plan. And developed countries should
target emissions reductions over time to factor in the global c02
load. This will result in a global per capita calculation to create
the emissions target with developing countries approaching that
target from below and developed countries approaching it from
above.
Naga Sadow|7.9.08 @ 7:33PM|#
Whoa! Did anyone else go to that link KD provided? The comments were great.
|7.9.08 @ 7:35PM|#
Joe, it isn't Kathy saying "it's for the Indian children", it's India saying it's for the Indian children! This is a nation crawling out of destitution and and they're saying "no" to the white man's paternalistic racism. They've got a real chance of leaving poverty behind, just like Europe and North America have, but only if they ignore the advice of intellectual moralists in Europe and North America.
zoltan|7.9.08 @ 7:43PM|#
Isn't there some kind of treaty that cuts aid to developing countries if they do want to start a clean energy program, i.e. nuclear power?
Neu Mejican|7.9.08 @ 7:45PM|#
More efficient options are available with current
technology.
For instance, I hear the most affordable car in India averages 50
mpg for only $2500.
How is the US doing compared to this?
How many affordable 50 mpg cars do we have on the market here?
|7.9.08 @ 7:52PM|#
Neu Mejican,
The Japanese are world leaders in energy stinginess and have
technology to sell that increases energy efficiency in almost all
phases of modern technological society. Only a fool would argue
against wisely using your resources. My point upthread is that if
the poorest on the planet are going to climb out of poverty, energy
use is going to go up, not down.
With the present energy mix, that means CO2 emissions would also be
going up, not down. We aren't going to conserve ourselves out of
this. We have to innovate. Treaties and goals don't do a goddam
thing towards developing non-emitting energy sources and I am
firmly convinced that is where the answer lies.
Today we have fission, crappy solar, unreliable wind, hydroelectric
(dam some more rivers anyone?) and a small but growing geothermal
industry that are "climate change friendly".
As I said above, reality sucks, but we still have to deal with
it.
Chloe|7.9.08 @ 7:58PM|#
Get some damn birth control and stop multiplying!
Everybody...not just the Indians.
SIV|7.9.08 @ 8:00PM|#
How many affordable 50 mpg cars do we have on the market
here?
Safety regs + consumer preference= none.
|7.9.08 @ 8:01PM|#
For instance, I hear the most affordable car in India
averages 50 mpg for only $2500.
How is the US doing compared to this?
The US is keeping their children safe and their retired unions fat
and happy by building far safer cars at 5 times the cost.
Or do you want the street littered with dead children and the
Medicaid rolls packed with Detroit retirees?
Fluffy|7.9.08 @ 8:01PM|#
Two possible global warming effects - the failure of the Indian
Ocean monsoon season, and the melting of the Himalayan glaciers -
would doom that same Indian population to death by thirst.
So if the global warming people are right, their choice is either
to be hungry or thirsty.
Tough choice.
Naga Sadow|7.9.08 @ 8:03PM|#
New Mexican,
I gotta agree with J sub D. Strong argument that follows the creed
of economics. Resources are going to be used to pull their people
out of poverty. Also, I'm gonna need a link to "Crazy Damodar's
Used Cars" or some similiar link regarding the cars.
|7.9.08 @ 8:05PM|#
For instance, I hear the most affordable car in India
averages 50 mpg for only $2500.
It would be illegal to sell in the USA, thank you Ralph Nader. Also
the average American does not want to settle for a crappy econobox.
He wants, and can afford, a decent sized, comfortable car.
Get me started on this and I can rail all night about
scintifically, technologically, economically foolish
policies.
If we had moved forward with nuke plants starting in the seventies
40% of our CO2 emissions would not exist. I thank the irrational
wing of the environmental movement for that. Injuries at Three Mile
Islanfd = 0. Injuries mining coal in the U.S. this year ≅ one
shitload.
Fluffy|7.9.08 @ 8:07PM|#
Today we have fission, crappy solar, unreliable wind,
hydroelectric (dam some more rivers anyone?) and a small but
growing geothermal industry that are "climate change
friendly".
Part of the problem is that we in the US and the west have adopted
a utility-based centralized generation model for electricity that
doesn't really lend itself well to the renewable sources.
People are asking, "How can we replace a coal fired plant with a
renewable plant that generates the same amount of electricity?" The
answer usually at current technological levels is that you
can't.
But we shouldn't be looking to replace those plants one-for-one, in
order to keep the whole centralized utility system running.
Solar and wind have to be deployed at the level of the energy
consumer, whether residential or business, if they're going to
work. Solar panels and windmills have to be as common as TV
antennas used to be, and the centralized system has to be a backup
/ continuous power supply system.
Naga Sadow|7.9.08 @ 8:08PM|#
Chloe,
Why do I have to stop creating little ones? I'm trying to keep my
tribe alive and kicking!
|7.9.08 @ 8:09PM|#
BTW, for those wondering what a $2,500 car looks like,
link here.
Top speed...65 mph. It's a real rocket!
My Sentra could crush that car. Sheesh.
Naga Sadow|7.9.08 @ 8:11PM|#
Thanks MP. New Mexican, am I really expected to give up my Z28 for . . . that?
|7.9.08 @ 8:15PM|#
Perhaps, J sub, you should save that line for somebody who wrote
something roughly similar.
I guess Once upon a time, whale mortality increased with energy
production. Right up until it didn't. was a more complicated
statement than I imagined. Here, let me dumb it down a shade.
Once upon a time, the production of energy carried with it much
greater external costs than it does today, but the advance of
technology has lessened them. Right now, increasing energy
consumption among Indians would require greater greenhouse
pollution, but that isn't necessarily how it has to be. All of the
proposals to address the greenhouse gas emissions problem involve
the development of clean energy sources.
If we had moved forward with nuke plants starting in the
seventies 40% of our CO2 emissions would not exist. I thank the
irrational wing of the environmental movement for that. How
about if we had moved forward with it in the 90s? I thank the
entirety of the global warming denial wing for that. Look at how
the politics and public opinion surrounding nuclear energy has
changed, now that 70% of the public realizes we have a
carbon/energy issue to solve. Too bad somebody decided they could
make a buck delaying that day of recognition.
|7.9.08 @ 8:17PM|#
BTW, for those wondering what a $2,500 car looks like, link
here.
Almost any American would buy a used car with their $2500 rather
than that thing, even if it were street legal in the U.S.
That's not to say that the market in India doesn't want the things.
Tata is betting a fortune that it fills a need. They are probably
right.
Chloe|7.9.08 @ 8:19PM|#
Don't have to stop, Naga. Don't have to do anything. But if someone is going to have 20 kids, then they should either be able to support them, or they shouldn't complain to the government and the world if the family is living in poverty and filth and struggling for food and medical care.
Naga Sadow|7.9.08 @ 8:24PM|#
Errrr . . . okay. Chloe . . . are you a . . . republican by any chance?
|7.9.08 @ 8:26PM|#
joe said:
All of the proposals to address the greenhouse gas emissions problem involve the development of clean energy sources.
They are explicitly saying that they don't want to pay for those
proposals. So I guess you're going to force me to subsidize their
energy industry, right?
|7.9.08 @ 8:31PM|#
Yup, so that you will stop forcing me to stop subsidizing your
externalized carbon emissions.
I win, because my force doesn't kill anybody, and yours (all of
ours, actually) does.
Chloe|7.9.08 @ 8:31PM|#
Oh, good god.
No, Naga. I don't want the government telling me anything to
do...not taxes, not being religious, not anything. Not even taking
my money and giving it to someone else who won't take
responsibility for their own.
|7.9.08 @ 8:31PM|#
How about if we had moved forward with it in the 90s? I
thank the entirety of the global warming denial wing for
that.
Huh? You will face protests, lawsuits and criminal activity the day
ground is broken on a new fission plant in the US.
This will not be coming fron the coal or oil industries.
Look at how the politics and public opinion surrounding nuclear
energy has changed, now that 70% of the public realizes we have a
carbon/energy issue to solve. Too bad somebody decided they could
make a buck delaying that day of recognition.
Well now that the green and responsible Nancy and Harry show is
running Capitol Hill, we can expect rapid movement on that front,
right?
|7.9.08 @ 8:33PM|#
Yup. There's already been movement, and the next President of
the United States has incorporated nuclear energy expansion into
his platform.
I'm not sure why, exactly, you decided Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi
are relevant to this conversation, beyond the odd habit you've
developed of invoking references to figures in the Democratic Party
whenever you're conversing with me.
|7.9.08 @ 8:34PM|#
joe said:
I win, because my force doesn't kill anybody, and yours (all of ours, actually) does.
Nice try...
Deaths by Poverty
---
Now: lots and lots and lots.
Future: lots and lots and lots.
Deaths by GW
---
Now: Unknown
Future: Unknown
|7.9.08 @ 8:40PM|#
I'm not sure why, exactly, you decided Harry Reid and Nancy
Pelosi are relevant to this conversation, beyond the odd habit
you've developed of invoking references to figures in the
Democratic Party whenever you're conversing with me.
Because you are a Democratic Party fanboy, a toadie, a partisan
hack. You'll note I often reference republican fuckwads when
pissing on Guy Montag's neocon parade. Same reasons, he just has a
different slavish party affiliation.
|7.9.08 @ 8:44PM|#
Poverty! Poverty! Death by poverty!
If we tax carbon emissions and spend tax dollars on alternative
energy, people with suffer "death by poverty!" I'd write "nice
try," but that's not a nice try. It's really, really lame and
hysterical. I think I found one of those Chicken Littles I'm always
hearing about.
|7.9.08 @ 8:46PM|#
Because you are... yeah, that's what I thought; you're
one of those people who simply cannot discuss an issue with
partisanship getting in the way.
Where can a liberal environmentalist find an intelligent
conversation about global warming without getting bombarded by
chicken little hysteria and partisanship from his
interlocutors?
|7.9.08 @ 8:47PM|#
Here's a head's up, J sub: if you're opinion about global warming requires you to use the word "Democrat" or "Republican," you're a hack.
|7.9.08 @ 8:58PM|#
joe said:
If we tax carbon emissions and spend tax dollars on alternative energy
I was referring to Indian poverty.
I think I found one of those Chicken Littles I'm always hearing about.
And you were the one to introduce the "It's my policy, or DEATH"
banal rhetoric to this discussion, which, BTW, is completely
unsupportable.
|7.9.08 @ 9:03PM|#
I was referring to Indian poverty.
Really? I'm curious, how DOES an American system of taxing carbon
and subsidizing alternative energy sources increase poverty in
India?
Given that their efforts to expand their economy are running up
against $130/barrel oil, a source of energy that is only going to
get scarcer and/or more expensive at the same time that a couple
billion Indians and Chinese are ready to start advancing
economically, I'd have to say that American spending on alternative
energy research would serve to alleviate Indian poverty.
And you were the one to introduce the "It's my policy, or
DEATH" banal rhetoric to this discussion Oh, MP, I've been
called a lot of things, but "Kathryn Mangu-Ward" has not, till now,
been among them.
Funny how Starving Indians Not Impressed by Global Warming
Plan slipped right by you.
|7.9.08 @ 9:12PM|#
joe said:
Really? I'm curious, how DOES an American system of taxing carbon and subsidizing alternative energy sources increase poverty in India?
It doesn't. Western pressures to adopt more expensive fuel sources,
pressures which would accompany the carrots you are proposing
delivering to them at our expense, would put speedbumps on their
road to economic expansion, thus helping to maintain the poverty
status quo in that country.
And yeah, when 35% of the whole country is already "food
insecure", going hungry is not an issue you can simply shrug
off from your ivory tower.
|7.9.08 @ 9:24PM|#
joe, American subsidization of alternative sources of energy doesn't affect India directly, but as anyone who has looked into what it would take to cut global emissions could tell you, American subsidization won't make a nickel's worth of difference if half of the world's population (India and China) are still burning carbon-based fuel.
|7.9.08 @ 9:57PM|#
Really? I'm curious, how DOES an American system of taxing
carbon and subsidizing alternative energy sources increase poverty
in India?
Well, for starters it would somewhat fuck up the U.S. economy,
which currently is providing lots of jobs in India, thus hurting
job creation there.
The net effect over time might be less poverty in India, though,
since if our economy takes a protracted beating the folks in India
and China would likely take over some of the jobs being shed by us
-- causing their energy useage to go up, and increasing overall CO2
emissions.
The bottom line is, you have to be fairly wealthy to give a fuck
about the possibility that sometime in the future the climate might
get a bit warmer, if a speculative scientific theory pans out. If
you're hungry and have no food in the house, assuming you are lucky
enough to even have a roof over your head, this is WAY far down
your list of worries, and you will do whatever it takes to
alleviate that hunger.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 10:01PM|#
AR has it right, we could all stop using carbon emissions
tomorrow in the USA (or the developed world for that matter) and it
wouldn't change a damn thing because the developing world would
continue burning coal.
We don't have a global government (unless you want to advocate one)
and no country is going to follow some idealist treaty that
violates its national economic/security interests. So, in the end,
theres shit all we an do about global carbon emissions, assuming
its a problem at all.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 10:06PM|#
As for nuclear, do you really want places like Iran, Saudi
Arabia, and Egypt to have access to enriched uranium that could
possibly be used in the production of nukes?
No? Neither do I.
De-plete|7.9.08 @ 10:23PM|#
So India wants to make the same mistakes the Western world has
made: lavish the punjis with consumer goods, give them token
political power and demand feckless growth to satiate the machine.
This is, in the first place, an impossible prospect given the
unique circumstances that led to its occurrence in the United
States and Europe. What is truly horrifying is that nobody seems to
care how destructive this has the potential to be -- by hook or
crook their birth rates will decrease, but giving them toys to play
with in the meantime is criminal disregard for even the immediate
future. Everyone always forgets the demand side of these things, it
seems.
Let's keep letting the slaves define our direction forward, shall
we?
|7.9.08 @ 10:44PM|#
De-plete,
If you were poor and hungry, you wouldn't have the energy to be
such a douchebag.
|7.9.08 @ 11:04PM|#
Joe,
Why do you hate the environment so much?
The subsides for alternative energy sources you love so much are
actually increasing carbon emissions.
"Simply said, ethanol production today using U.S. corn
contributes to the conversion of grasslands and rainforest to
agriculture, causing very large GHG emissions,"
Current wisdom in California says gasoline produces about 92 grams of carbon dioxide for every megajoule of energy produced; ethanol is reckoned to be slightly cleaner at 75.9 grams. But the land-use penalty alone from growing more biofuel crops could add as much as 140 grams/MJ-a "really enormous" number, professors Farrell and O'Hare wrote.
Once again government action taken to fix a problem
actually makes the problem worse.
|7.9.08 @ 11:20PM|#
You know, you gotta believe that our CO2 actually hurts anything
in the first place before you panic and condemn millions to
starvation, not to mention having us developed lands go back to
teepees and campfires (as if that were still allowed!)
As Rush Limbaugh said, if our C02 can warm the world, why doesn't
it do it in the winter time, when it would do some good?
Face it, folks, our C02 is not much in the face of volcanoes and
state-sized wild fires in California.
Global warmening is a hoax.
zoltan|7.9.08 @ 11:27PM|#
Global warmening? Yeah, that's a hoax, definitely. I mean, I've never even heard of it.
Chad|7.9.08 @ 11:46PM|#
TJIT | July 9, 2008, 11:04pm | #
The subsides for alternative energy sources you love so much are
actually increasing carbon emissions.
Environmentalists have been skeptical of corn-to-ethanol schemes
for quite some time. It was the farm lobby that pushed this, not
environmentalists.
|7.9.08 @ 11:46PM|#
India also is one of the few nations honest enough not to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Most other would-be powers sign it and then break it.
|7.9.08 @ 11:57PM|#
The enviros are the scum of the earth. They are rich bastards who don't care about average people. Few people on the planet are doing as much damage and downright evil as the hard-core enviros. Preventing average people from accessing affordable energy is deeply immoral.
|7.10.08 @ 12:06AM|#
"Environmentalists have been skeptical of corn-to-ethanol
schemes for quite some time. It was the farm lobby that pushed
this, not environmentalists."
Ummm so Al Gore isn't an environmentalist?
Global Warming yep, I remember when I was a school child and the
big FEAR was Global Cooling. If I remember correctly the ice age
should hit any minute. Let me take out the metric thermometer they
claimed we'd all be using when the US went all metric to check the
temperature.
|7.10.08 @ 12:19AM|#
Interestingly enough, the Prime Minister of India has stated
that
hat a gradual shift towards renewable energy, in particular solar
power, would enable India to "make [its] economic development
energy efficient."
Also, China is already a huge player in the solar photovoltaic and
nuclear fields.
While these developing nations have huge hurdles to overcome with
regard to attaining first-world status, they do have one
advantage.
They aren't being held back by a massive legacy energy
infrastructure.
With planning and forethought, these nations should be able to
erect methods of delivering energy using alternative methods
(solar, wind, nuke, etc.) No need to try to retro-fit an already
aging and decrepit system for the 21st century.
I wouldn't be surprised to see some pretty interesting developments
on the energy front coming out of these countries.
|7.10.08 @ 12:27AM|#
"Right now, increasing energy consumption among Indians would
require greater greenhouse pollution, but that isn't necessarily
how it has to be. All of the proposals to address the greenhouse
gas emissions problem involve the development of clean energy
sources."
And isn't necessarily that development of clean energy sources has
to succeed. We shouldn't confront actual energy situation with
ideal energy situation(an energy source with no harm effect) but
rather appoint how to make things better. Unless we begin to talk
about actual policies, simply saying that we should develop clean
energy sources is to state a goal that should be pursued, but with
no actual indication of how to achieve it.
"Given that their efforts to expand their economy are running up
against $130/barrel oil, a source of energy that is only going to
get scarcer and/or more expensive at the same time that a couple
billion Indians and Chinese are ready to start advancing
economically"
It's not clear that oil is going to get scarcer or more expensive
in the future.
About scarcity:
(1) - We don't know all the natural oil reserves that actually
existed
(2) - Oil can be artifcially produced, too. It just too expensive
NOW.
About prices:
(3) - A lot of oil reserves will be economically relevant with
elevated prices. Some people question about why we don't have much
more oil production as a response of rising prices. Well, the
problem is that the extra oil production 'need' more elevated
prices. When we get there, prices will stabilize for while.
"I'd have to say that American spending on alternative energy
research would serve to alleviate Indian poverty."
Again, it's not clear. First of all, spending more on alternative
energy isn't the same that producing more(or elevate the
possibility to produce)alternative energy sources on a efficient
way, when we're talking about research subsidies. Yes, we'll have
more researches, but isn't the same to say that we'll have more
results.
Second, some of the money that will be used to finance these
researches would be used to buy Indian products(or labor). So these
subsidies will affect the demand for Indian products and labor.
This is how American subsidies could hurt poor Indians.
|7.10.08 @ 1:08AM|#
TJIT wrote:
"The subsides for alternative energy sources you love so much
are actually increasing carbon emissions. "
as mentioned, grain/bean based biofuels are not well like by many
environmentalists. Algal based biodiesel has been seen by
environmentally minded biofuel enthusiasts as the future for over
four years now. Most of the push for corn ethanol is a corn lobby's
wet dream come true.
Similar issue with nuke vs coal. The coal lobby funded opposition
to nuke power...now the ball is bouncing the other way.
Not too long ago I did a google search comparing generic subsidies
for both the fossil fuel industries and for renewable energies.
Fossil fuels in the U.S. get perhaps as much as $20 billion per
year in goodies of various natures. Renewable energies got about $2
billion worth in similar subsidies and market protections.
These figures are even worse for renewables in many other nations
like China, Iran, and India.
If you want to complain about which sides' are generating more CO2
waste as a result of subsidies and market protections, look at the
fossil fuels...'cause they are getting the relative bulk of the
goodies.
Kunal|7.10.08 @ 1:09AM|#
>>Also if I believe screw you in Hindi is "teri aisi ki
taisi".
Only in an excessively bowdlerized context. "Gaand marao"
would convey the sentiment better, IMO.
TallDave|7.10.08 @ 2:12AM|#
I can't understand why a billion Indians don't want to starve
now so the planet can be half a degree cooler in 100 years.
Damned selfish of them, if you ask me.
|7.10.08 @ 2:13AM|#
"Almost any American would buy a used car with their $2500
rather than that thing, even if it were street legal in the
U.S."
In fact, that's exactly what I did pay for the car I'm currently
driving. It's a 1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse that I bought in 2005, and
I wouldn't trade it for half a dozen of those crappy little Tata
toaster-on-wheels deathtraps.
TallDave|7.10.08 @ 2:16AM|#
For a second there I thought you had written FUSION, not
fission. I was worried you might be one of those perpetual energy
freaks I've run across.
Well, the Blacklight guys are certainly nuts, and the cold fusion
people often aren't a lot better. But ITER/DEMO is mainstream
science (if much too expensive to be a serious power source) and
CBFRs and Polywells are being taken pretty seriously. (Paul Allen's
VC firm is funding a CBFR fusion team to the tune of $45M, and the
U.S. Navy is funding Polywells).
We actually get 99% of our power from fusion energy in the Sun (it
formed all the oil and grows all our crops).
|7.10.08 @ 2:18AM|#
"Oil can be artifcially produced, too. It just too expensive
NOW."
Oh, absolutely. If you have enough energy you can synthesize just
about anything. We could completely replace gasoline with synthetic
liquid fuels, but we'd have to build a hundred new nuclear plants
first to generate the energy to drive those chemical plants. (We'll
also have to build them if we switch to electric cars. All that
electricity has to come from somewhere.)
The obstacle, as always, is our politicians. They've been blocking
the construction of new nuclear plants for three decades now. If
you ask me, the solution is to convert the politicians into
biodiesel and then start building those nukes.
Naga Sadow|7.10.08 @ 2:25AM|#
Congrats Kunal. I rarely have to look up the defintions of words but "bowdlerized" was one of those words. Also, inflection would more or less carry the meaning but I believe you are more correct than I am on this point.
Kolohe|7.10.08 @ 2:46AM|#
We actually get 99% of our power from fusion energy in the
Sun
I'll bite, what's the other 1%? Are you counting that the potential
energy in uranium comes from not the sun but the progenitor of the
sun? (in that case it's a little more than 1%)
e4d5.com|7.10.08 @ 4:46AM|#
Random thoughts:
1] Ask someone who has to walk several miles to haul drinking water
on her head - how is global warming or solar energy relevant - at
that micro-level to her? And if it is not, how can we expect or
even demand that she radically change her existing mode of
existence for a concept that is at best abstract? Can a government
or governments or just random people arbitrarily dictate policy
that will affect millions?
If the rate of inflation in your country is a few thousand percent,
and a bottle of beer cost a few million dollars in your currency,
you would probably be too preoccupied to worry about the energy
crisis, no matter how real, of a few generations in the
future.
If your wife and children go hungry for days, you probably want to
burn down the earth and the sun, not look for renewable
energy.
2] There are countries that wage war, spending billions of dollars
and wasting human lives. Just imagine, if all that energy were to
be expended on looking for a sustainable source of energy?
3] Read 'Fear' by Michael Crichton. Sure, there is a energy crisis.
Sure, its easier to debate, than say poverty. Or women being raped.
Or people going hungry.
Technomist|7.10.08 @ 6:05AM|#
Of course energy consumption per capita will rise as people get richer. What the world needs for this to be sustainable is for there to be fewer of us. Telling people to go screw themselves is the last thing we should be saying.
|7.10.08 @ 6:40AM|#
It's a lot like the westerners' ban on DDT - after they had the benefits, but before Africa did. These guys are good at choking off the quantity & quality of life.
Guy Montag|7.10.08 @ 6:47AM|#
Wow, so those seemingly insane, ranting, raving, humanities
department nuts from the Students Center in college were onto
something about India (and others) posessing a 'superior
society'!
I wonder who gets to break the news to the latest crop that
'superior' looks a lot different than what they had imagined :)
Dave W.|7.10.08 @ 8:14AM|#
so we give everybody on Earth an equal amount of personal carbon
credits and then people like me and joe and kmw
can buy them, for money, from those people on the bike.
Two birds, etc.
|7.10.08 @ 8:22AM|#
*general hand waving to follow*
None of this will matter anyway when the indians can't afford
coal/oil/natural gas. Simply put, unless they switch to renewables,
the party is going to be over and they'll once again sink into
third worldness.
|7.10.08 @ 8:35AM|#
Kolohe,
Actually, since uranium (and all elements beyond iron on the
periodical table) are only created during supernovas, all of our
energy is solar/fusion.
|7.10.08 @ 8:45AM|#
I'll bite, what's the other 1%? Are you counting that the
potential energy in uranium comes from not the sun but the
progenitor of the sun? (in that case it's a little more than
1%)
Just to quibble, fission energy is derived from heavy elements
produced by fusion in stars that long a go exploded. It
all goes back to fusion. I refuse to speculate on the energy source
that fueled the big bang.
NAL|7.10.08 @ 8:50AM|#
The only problem with fission is you can't put it in your
car!
You can if your car is electric (e.g. the 2010 Chevy Volt) and your
local electricity provider is a nuke plant.
Guy Montag|7.10.08 @ 9:11AM|#
NAL,
And you can if you have a big car too.
I am thinking Polara or most of the Desotos could support a pebble
bed reactor for a resurgance of steam power.
Nigel Watt|7.10.08 @ 9:17AM|#
You know what, joe? Fuck you. I know I'll almost certainly be OK with the skills I'm developing, so you can go ahead and vote for economic disaster and it won't be any skin off my teeth.
robc|7.10.08 @ 9:18AM|#
joe,
Once upon a time, cultivated land increased with economic
growth. Right up until it didn't.
Wrong metric. I think you meant "per capita caloric consumption
increases with economic growth, still". The only reason cultivated
land use didnt continue increasing is productivity.
energy == calories in this case (and fairly literally)
Oil production may drop. Coal production may drop. CO2 emissions
may drop. But energy use will continue to increase with increased
economoic growth. Hopefully from a non-polluting source, but
regardless, it will continue to increase.
|7.10.08 @ 9:30AM|#
"It's really, really lame and hysterical"
unlike 'we're all going to die if we don't do something now'.
God|7.10.08 @ 9:31AM|#
I refuse to speculate on the energy source that fueled the
big bang
That would be me.
|7.10.08 @ 9:44AM|#
Hopefully this development is the beginning of the end for the Great Government Energy Grab of the 21st century. The powers that would demand Asia stay poor to supposedly spare a degree or two of global warming are simply evil. Don't think that they wouldn't preferr we all be poor and energyless and most importantly, controllable. AGW is just an excuse.
short, fat bastard|7.10.08 @ 9:51AM|#
The far side of the earth is way beyond my monkeysphere. My
guess is that the longer we keep those little brown and yellow
people mired in poverty, the better it will be for my
grand-children and great grand-children.
Any action taken to mitigate AWG by the US is just going to hurt my
family to help a bunch of other people that I don't care about.
Kolohe|7.10.08 @ 9:53AM|#
Sugarfree, J sub D-
that was my point but poorly worded. All potential energy on earth
is from our *particular* sun, except uranium-235, which is from
(some particular) sun that is no longer with us (actually, it is
us)
|7.10.08 @ 9:57AM|#
Joe,
Well this thread is probably dead but;
In your use of force criteria, where your use of force is ok
because people generally don't resist your use of force and don't
get killed.
Does this mean that all one has to do is violently resist all any
of the scenarios where you advocate force, for your force to become
immoral?
So, if enough people violently resist the income tax would that
make you advocate an end to it?
I wonder if that is the answer? It probably is.
How many would it take for you and your fellow liberals to quit
advocating the use of force in these instances do you think?
Guy Montag|7.10.08 @ 10:04AM|#
so is tidal.
Hold on. Much of that, not all, is Lunar not Solar.
The planets did not get ejected from Sol, at least not in any
current theory.
Guy Montag|7.10.08 @ 10:06AM|#
So, it is settled.
We can drill in ANWR, SD and along our continental shelf to save
India from poverty.
|7.10.08 @ 10:23AM|#
I think the point that the Indians and Chinese grasp, but many
Westerners do not, is that their economic well-being and expansion
is tied to use of the cheapest available energy source, which right
now, and into the medium term future, is carbon-based.
Sure, you can substitute more expensive/non-carbon based energy
sources, but doing so puts a drag on their economies, condemning
millions/billions to decades more at a subsistence level.
And I don't see how you get around the ineffectiveness of only
wealthy Western nations reducing carbon output as a remedy for
global warming. Its a global problem, and having the West reduce
carbon output while the developing world increases carbon output,
means that the Western global warming initiatives are
pointless.
Guy Montag|7.10.08 @ 10:26AM|#
RCD,
Perhaps someone will come along and revive that nonsense of mixing
dung with coal dust, by hand, for fuel in India. That was one of
the big ones from the 1970s that was to propell India into the
modern world.
Yes, it is still carbon based, but at least it is domestic
carbon.
|7.10.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Its a global problem, and having the West reduce carbon
output while the developing world increases carbon output, means
that the Western global warming initiatives are
pointless.
Carbon caps in North America? Pack up that steel mill boys, we're
moving to Asia.
|7.10.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Carbon caps in North America? Pack up that steel mill boys,
we're moving to Asia.
Not imaginative enough... Carbon caps in North America can be
accompanied by "fair trade" practices to guarantee environmental
standards in developing nations -- i.e., carbon-based import
tariffs.
In other words, in a world where the developed world is overly
concerned with reduced CO2 emissions, our future is likely to be
filled by worldwide trade restrictions and outright trade wars
which will have devastating effects on the wealth of all
nations.
When I discuss the IPCC SRES
scenarios, I generally ignore A2 and B2 because those seem like
strawman futures that no one wants to see. Well, under an
aggressive "make the world pay for the carbon it uses" regime, they
will be exactly what we will get. And they are far, far poorer in
the future than A1 and B1.
|7.10.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Actually, NM, my comment was inspired by mediageek.
Saying that eventually China and India will rely more and more on
non-carbon fuel is not inconsistent with the fact that foregoing
the cheapest available energy source in the meantime will stall
their development.
Neu Mejican|7.10.08 @ 11:22AM|#
C02 per capita out-put by india is 1/20th of the US.
The US population is about 1/3rd that of India
That means we put out more than 6 times the C02 of India's 1
billion plus population.
When we talk of reducing the global C02 burden the US has a lot
more of the load to pull.
If the US is at 20 and India at 1 and the global target is, lets
say 5. Then each Indian can quadruple their emissions and still be
below the target. An American, on the other hand, needs to make
some significant changes to reach the target...to 1/4 of their
current emissions.
Thing is... this is an achievable goal for the American without a
significant change in quality of life.
More efficient buildings are the most important change. More
efficient transportation next. Decentralizing energy production
will be an important factor. All of these changes will be good for
the economy as we become more efficient users of energy resources
and stop throwing away money on inefficient energy use.
Neu Mejican|7.10.08 @ 11:43AM|#
How do you improve the quality of life for the average Indian
without building a coal-fired power plant?
Here's one tool in the tool box...
http://www.motorwavegroup.com/new/motorwind/houses.html
How many of these could be installed for the cost of that
coal-fired plant?
India and China will not, I would hope, replicate the American
model of energy infra-structure as they grow, but will come up with
21st century solutions to growing energy needs. Part of this will
be decentralization of energy production from diverse
sources.
No monolithic energy solution is likely to replace fossil
fuels...they will just become less and less central as they get
more expensive.
Neu Mejican|7.10.08 @ 11:49AM|#
RC Dean,
is not inconsistent with the fact that foregoing the cheapest
available energy source in the meantime will stall their
development.
Granted.
But when they think long-term, India sees the same prospect of
ever-rising oil prices and will likely make much different
infrastructure choices than the US made in the 19th/20th
century.
Neu Mejican|7.10.08 @ 12:17PM|#
So MikeP,
Between A1's three choices, what do you see as the most
desirable?
Between the best A1 and B1?
Just curious.
What policies/changes to policy would you advocate to get to your
preferred choice?
|7.10.08 @ 12:29PM|#
But when they think long-term, India sees the same prospect
of ever-rising oil prices and will likely make much different
infrastructure choices than the US made in the 19th/20th
century.
That may make sense, depending on their appetite for incurring
opportunity costs today by foregoing the cheapest available energy
source in order to have an arguably better energy infrastructure a
generation from now. That strikes me as an argument with no
slam-dunk winner, at the margins.
But, for India to say, for example, cut its current carbon
emissions by 50% in 42 years, or even hold its carbon emissions
level for 42 years, India would have to foreswear any additional
use, or even reduce, the use of the cheapest available energy
source right now, and there is no way that doesn't have a huge
impact on their economy.
Neu Mejican|7.10.08 @ 12:33PM|#
RC Dean,
Like I said above, any reasonable plan would allow India to
increase its per capita output.
The target is a global target and is likely much higher than
India's current per capita c02 output.
For the developing world the challenge is to avoid the pattern of
emission that the developed world is currently in.
In the developing world, the challenge is more difficult due to the
legacy of our choices made in the past before we understood the
potential downside of C02 emissions.
|7.10.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Between A1's three choices, what do you see as the most
desirable?
A1T. Technological advancement that provides carbon-free energy at
or below the price of fossil fuels is of course the best course
forward.
Between the best A1 and B1?
The best A1.
What policies/changes to policy would you advocate to get to
your preferred choice?
Elimination of all government subsidies and technological
favoritism.
Incidentally, I'd also like to see every nation in the world become
a liberal democracy. But I'm not going to advocate anything but a
laissez faire government policy to achieve that either.
jtuf|7.10.08 @ 1:04PM|#
I side with India on this case. Enough with the enviromentalist imperialism.
|7.10.08 @ 2:00PM|#
For the developing world the challenge is to avoid the
pattern of emission that the developed world is currently
in.
To the degree this happens in the medium term, it will be done by
foregoing the use of the cheapest available energy source by the
developing world, with the effect of dragging down their
economies.
In the developing [developed?] world, the challenge is more
difficult due to the legacy of our choices made in the past before
we understood the potential downside of C02 emissions.
I think this is another way of saying that, to the degree our
quality of life is dependent on carbon-based fuel, the pursuit of
global warming solutions via reduction of CO2 output will require a
reduction in our quality of life. Increased cost of energy =
reduction in quality of life, in my book. Increased costs of goods
and services due to carbon taxes or mandated conservation measures,
the same.
Now, if the line is that we can Save Teh Planet solely through
technological advances, I'm all for that.
But, I don't see how you can simultaneously maintain that
GlobalWarming is an ImminentCatastrophe and simultaneously deny
that it can be "solved" without massive worldwide economic
dislocation.
|7.10.08 @ 3:36PM|#
About que relationship between growth and pollution, we need to
observe two dimensions: pollution by GDP unit and global
pollution.
Even if India adopted less harmfull sources of energy(reducing
pollution by GDP unit), it's not clear that its global pollution
will reduce, because of its economic expansion(the growth of GDP
units).
Pollution by GDP per capita isn't a good measure, because if a
country is very poor, its GDP per capita will be very low and
pollution measured this way will be low too, even if pollution by
GDP unit is high.
And the discussion about cut CO2 emissions seems to focus on global
emissions rather than emission by GDP unit.
ed|7.10.08 @ 3:42PM|#
I'm thinking for the same money I spend on weekly gas I could buy that kid and his fancy tricycle and have him pull me around town for a year.
TallDave|7.10.08 @ 4:55PM|#
Thing is... this is an achievable goal for the American
without a significant change in quality of life.
It's even more achievable and reduces our living standards far less
if we don't do anything for the next 50 years, by which time there
will zero net economic consequences from increased CO2.
But, I don't see how you can simultaneously maintain that
GlobalWarming is an ImminentCatastrophe and simultaneously deny
that it can be "solved" without massive worldwide economic
dislocation.
Oh, don't say that, or they'll trot out their
broken-windows-fallacy-based argument that we can have
"economically-friendly green solutions that will create jobs!"
Neu Mejican|7.10.08 @ 5:53PM|#
RC DEAN
But, I don't see how you can simultaneously maintain that
GlobalWarming is an ImminentCatastrophe and simultaneously deny
that it can be "solved" without massive worldwide economic
dislocation.
TALL DAVE
Oh, don't say that, or they'll trot out their
broken-windows-fallacy-based argument that we can have
"economically-friendly green solutions that will create
jobs!"
You clearly have fallen into the trap of seeing the broken windows
fallacy where it does not exist.
Changes that reduce waste in our energy consumption are cost
reductions and are good for the economy. No broken window fallacy
involved.
As for RC Dean's statement, I find it more strawman than anything
else.
It is not an immediate catastrophe, but a longer term growing
problem than can be avoided with prudent action in the near term.
As for the quality of life issues, that is hard to quantify,
obviously, but many of the changes that people can make to reduce
carbon footprint have a positive impact on quality of life.
Subjectivity will rear its head on this question no matter what you
do, of course, but I don't see any logical necessity that a
solution will be a painful solution. Loss of quality in one area
can be more than made up with a gain in another. How they balance
out is hard to predict.
economist|7.10.08 @ 7:29PM|#
Neu Mejican,
"No broken windows fallacy here"
I think TallDave was referring to times when AGW alarmists are
faced with an unfavorable (to their proposals) cost-benefit
analysis in terms of damages from AGW versus damages from the
restrictions on the use of fossil fuels and fall back on the
argument that it will create a "green collar" sector of the
economy.
economist|7.10.08 @ 7:31PM|#
"many of the changes that people can make to reduce their carbon
footprint improve the quality of life".
Such as what? Examples, please.
economist|7.10.08 @ 7:34PM|#
I would be OK with a carbon tax, if it replaced the income tax
dollar for dollar. Would that be OK with joe and Neu Mejican.
Anyone want to place bets on their answers. Three choices:
1.No
2.No response
3.Sure
Neu Mejican|7.10.08 @ 8:23PM|#
economist,
I would be OK with a carbon tax, if it replaced the income tax
dollar for dollar. Would that be OK with joe and Neu Mejican.
Anyone want to place bets on their answers. Three choices:
1.No
2.No response
3.Sure
I don't support a carbon tax unless it is revenue neutral.
I think it is best coupled with a reduction in the tax on labor in
our current system.
Neu Mejican|7.10.08 @ 8:27PM|#
Al Gore's vote on economist's question
Here's the solution. We need a CO2 tax, revenue-neutral, to
replace taxation on employment, which was invented by Bismarck --
and some things have changed since the 19th Century.
More
http://www.carbontax.org/
Neu Mejican|7.10.08 @ 8:32PM|#
So how many wanna bet the economist thought s/he was putting out a "gotcha" post?
Neu Mejican|7.10.08 @ 8:38PM|#
Such as what? Examples, please.
I keep with my particular case.
Moving closer to work so that I could give up my car gives me more
time in my day, has improved my health since I walk more, and
reduced my transportation costs by so much that (even with
increased rent) I have been able to upgrade my drumset, guitar, and
recording set up.
Neu Mejican|7.10.08 @ 8:46PM|#
For a more general example.
In a community that has focused on reducing carbon for all
citizens, there will be changes in building patterns/ community
lay-out to emphasize walking distances rather than driving
distances. To emphasize pedestrian needs rather than parking. This
creates more livable/pleasant neighborhoods, reduces traffic,
reduces noise pollution, increases interaction with neighbors,
increases community cohesiveness, and increases overall health for
the community.
Why do you think people pay so much to live in the good
neighborhoods in Manhattan? It is the increased quality of life.
That lifestyle has a very low carbon footprint.
Guy Montag|7.10.08 @ 10:20PM|#
I would be OK with a carbon tax, if it replaced the income
tax dollar for dollar. Would that be OK with joe and Neu
Mejican.
4. BAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
Guy Montag|7.10.08 @ 10:26PM|#
economist,
"many of the changes that people can make to reduce their carbon
footprint improve the quality of life".
Such as what? Examples, please.
The only examples that they have make my home hotter than I want it
in the summer, colder in the winter than I want it and suck all of
the horsepower out of my hotrod.
Seriously, why do you bother engaging these people? All of their
jackbooted answers are known.
Neu Mejican|7.11.08 @ 12:39AM|#
Seriously, why do you bother engaging these people? All of
their jackbooted answers are known.
This from the most one-note participant on H&R.
[yawn]
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