Follow-up question to the global warming thread

#2
#2
To make industrious countries feel guilty for being so productive and to hopefully bring every country to third world status.
 
#3
#3
Granted, there are those who for some reason just like to point out the US among others for pollution.

But do you think everybody who says global warming is man-made does it just to point a finger? Highly unlikely, so I ask again. What is the point of finding out if global warming is man-made?
 
#4
#4
Proving that it's man-made gives the secularists another reason to doubt the existence of God.
 
#5
#5
My point is that I just kinda realized recently how asinine this whole debate is. Why shouldn't we be passing regulations to reduce pollution anyways?

To those who believe global warming is man-made, do you really need that argument to persuade that we need to control emissions?

To those who believe that global warming isn't man-made, does that mean you are against environmental regulations? There are plenty of technologies being developed that would curb emissions while allowing to maintain your current level of comfortable living.

I just don't see either side's point in the debate. Emissions such as excessive CO2 do have negative effects on some level (maybe they didn't put a hole in the o-zone), so why not try to lower them?

All the global warming debate is, is a giant worldwide pissing contest. Shake it off and zip it up.

Just a point of view I got in the last couple days that I haven't really seen before.
 
#6
#6
"Shake it off and zip it up."


My vote for greatest quote ever in the politics forum!!!
 
#8
#8
I think that unless you can show direct negative impacts of releasing CO2, or N2O, or SF6, or HFC-23, or any greenhouse gas of your choice, industries/countries will not stop emitting it. I don't know what the threshold is before CO2 would be damaging to humans (directly)..perhaps much higher than the current parts per million levels? I don't know. I think that the biggest problems is that there aren't really all that many technologies we can turn to that will reduce CO2 emissions at a reasonable cost that can be applied on a large scale. This problem is much different than the problem with acid rain and sulfur emissions. You could see/smell/taste that ... and because the time scale for acid rain is much faster than for global warming, you could see the effects almost immediately. Industries were pretty much willing to enter a system to regulate that because it was too damning (and the cost to fix it wasn't all that bad)...the same thing goes for CFCs ..it was a small industry and a cheap fix (although the problem didn't immedaitely impact people as much as acid rain). CO2 and greenhouse gases are a whole other ball game and the amount of arguing about whether or not man has caused some global warming (through CO2 and other GHGs) is directly proportional to the cost of fixing the problem.
 
#9
#9
True, but you also have to look at it from the consumer standpoint -- After all, this is capitalism, and consumers have the say so all the time (or at least they ought to). CO2 emissions and such are also directly proportional to fuel consumption. Most of us are aware that for one reason or another, gas prices aren't going down anytime soon. I know, my Pathfinder sucks at the pump (I'm also looking for another, more fuel efficient car to drive more often).

I was watching the show Futurecar on Discovery that got my wheels turning. At the end, they showed a car some dude built in France that runs entirely on compressed air, and requires only enough oil to lubricate the engine. He's trying to nail down a technology to where you won't even have to change the air tank on it anymore, it catches as it drives -- A car that can go forever without stopping for anything aside from lube.

Point is, producers of consumer products, etc. are also seeing the commercial viability in reducing fuel consumption (and thus emissions).

I also realize your post dealt more with industry, which is more of the problem than consumer products, but once the technology is in place...
 
#10
#10
milohimself said:
I also realize your post dealt more with industry, which is more of the problem than consumer products, but once the technology is in place...
Click to expand...

Concerning industry. They will ask you why they should build a factory in a regulated country when they can go to China or somewhere and build it without worrying about meeting some government imposed regulation, in respect to emissions.
 
#11
#11
Consumers may be willing to push this issue, but the cost will be huge - so a lot of people won't be interested in those higher prices. Actually, an interesting fact is that the transportation sector is resopnsible for only a small portion of greenhouse gas emissions. The two large sectors are power production and agriculture. The real kicker is that both of these industries cascade down into pretty much every product imaginable. So, tackling this problem will have large economic impacts on the countries and industries that take it on.

To me, the issue of attribution is the easy part....the scientists have pretty much convinced me that some global warming is occuring because of man's influences. However, the bigger problem, and one that I haven't made up my mind on, is how to address the issue - with consideration of the economic impacts. Something must be done...but what, and on what time table - I'm not sure.

I think that one reason the automobile sector gets a lot of attention is because it is an area where the consumer can have a direct impact on emissions....and that is good. Consicous consumers can do their part in that way to address the problem - but...the bigger problem is that is like peeing on a forest fire ... it helps, but not much.
 
#12
#12
allvol123 said:
Concerning industry. They will ask you why they should build a factory in a regulated country when they can go to China or somewhere and build it without worrying about meeting some government imposed regulation, in respect to emissions.
Click to expand...

If we come up with the right system for accounting for emissions, avoidances such as those won't work. I don't know if we will be able to impose such a system though. The big difference between sulfur emissions and CO2 is that sulfur/acid rain is a regional problem...a country doesn't really care if another country is crapping on itself to make your products...because it doesn't hurt you. But, GHG emissions and CO2 emissions are a global commons problem...and governments who care about the issue won't be able to allow their industry (or perhaps even industries that their industries trade with) to have large CO2 emissions anywhere in the world. It doesn't matter if it is in you back yard or theirs...it is everyone's problem.

But..I agree with your point. Until countries can curb that kind of action, they might expect that sort of response.
 
#15
#15
allvol123 said:
Concerning industry. They will ask you why they should build a factory in a regulated country when they can go to China or somewhere and build it without worrying about meeting some government imposed regulation, in respect to emissions.
Click to expand...

TennTradition said:
If we come up with the right system for accounting for emissions, avoidances such as those won't work. I don't know if we will be able to impose such a system though. The big difference between sulfur emissions and CO2 is that sulfur/acid rain is a regional problem...a country doesn't really care if another country is crapping on itself to make your products...because it doesn't hurt you. But, GHG emissions and CO2 emissions are a global commons problem...and governments who care about the issue won't be able to allow their industry (or perhaps even industries that their industries trade with) to have large CO2 emissions anywhere in the world. It doesn't matter if it is in you back yard or theirs...it is everyone's problem.

But..I agree with your point. Until countries can curb that kind of action, they might expect that sort of response.
Click to expand...
They will, China is signed onto the Kyoto treaty. They don't have to go by those standards yet, but they will in time. The only two countries who didn't sign it, the US and Australia, aren't quite as big a deal. Australia is sparsely populated, and major industry is still on the decline in the US.
 
#16
#16
milohimself said:
They will, China is signed onto the Kyoto treaty. They don't have to go by those standards yet, but they will in time. The only two countries who didn't sign it, the US and Australia, aren't quite as big a deal. Australia is sparsely populated, and major industry is still on the decline in the US.
Click to expand...

China signing it, and abiding to it are 2 different issues. In fact I would consider the environmental mess that China is creating a more worrisome problem than man made global warming(which I really do not believe in).
 
#18
#18
There is considerable debate whether or not abiding by the Kyoto Treaty (even if China/India, etc. did) would have any real impact.
 
#20
#20
milohimself said:
They will, China is signed onto the Kyoto treaty. They don't have to go by those standards yet, but they will in time. The only two countries who didn't sign it, the US and Australia, aren't quite as big a deal. Australia is sparsely populated, and major industry is still on the decline in the US.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so I guess 2012 is the threshold date where some restrictions will begin to come into place for Non-Annex I countries like China and India. But, I'm not sure what restrictions they'll have to live to. They won't have to return to 1990 emission levels, obviously. I've read through some stuff outlining Kyoto ... and it wasn't very clear about the duties of Non-Annex 1 countries (developing countries that have ratified Kyoto).

And..just to clear up the wording...the US signed Kyoto, but did not ratify it. They did ratify the frame convention for climate change (the precursor of kyoto)..but it just set up the administrative aspects of how the process would work..no commitments.
 
#21
#21
allvol123 said:
China signing it, and abiding to it are 2 different issues. In fact I would consider the environmental mess that China is creating a more worrisome problem than man made global warming(which I really do not believe in).
Click to expand...

I'm trying to get a feel for how people form their opinions on this issue....why do you not believe in attribution of global warming to man....as in what evidence are you basing your opinion on...if you don't mind me asking.
 
#22
#22
TennTradition said:
I'm trying to get a feel for how people form their opinions on this issue....why do you not believe in attribution of global warming to man....as in what evidence are you basing your opinion on...if you don't mind me asking.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is useful for me to throw numbers out showing why there is not man made climate warming. Just as it really is not useful for you to throw numbers out to me showing why there is man made climate warming. Scientists on both sides of the issue seem to be able to form fit data around their theories on the matter. We could each make numerous postings citing scientific data for our repective side. So I guess I view it from a cynical point of view. I think it is a way for scientists to keep money coming to their organizations. This is so prevalent in medical research. Pick a disease that does not have a cure and follow the research going on for this disease for a few years. You'll notice some very shoddy research going on. This goes on because the researchers want to get published and/or to keep the money coming.
 
#23
#23
allvol123 said:
I don't think it is useful for me to throw numbers out showing why there is not man made climate warming. Just as it really is not useful for you to throw numbers out to me showing why there is man made climate warming. Scientists on both sides of the issue seem to be able to form fit data around their theories on the matter. We could each make numerous postings citing scientific data for our repective side. So I guess I view it from a cynical point of view. I think it is a way for scientists to keep money coming to their organizations. This is so prevalent in medical research. Pick a disease that does not have a cure and follow the research going on for this disease for a few years. You'll notice some very shoddy research going on. This goes on because the researchers want to get published and/or to keep the money coming.
Click to expand...

OK..so you are basing your opinion on scientist's findings? I'm not familiar with those finding - but that was why/what I was asking. The money issue you talk about is obviously a concern in any discipline. However, I tend to be pretty convinced when pretty much every single leading climatologist in the world is on board with the fact that global warming is occuring (for some reason), that CO2 concentrations are at unprecedented levels, and that there is sufficient evidence to assign attribution to a high degree of confidence. I'm satisified by this because there is plenty of money to be offered to say this isn't the case by the oil industry, but these climatologists aren't finding that (I don't know who they are funded by...but my point is that the dollars are there for the non-attribution crowd...but the science isn't saying that). As far as I can tell (or have been told by a climatologist), the only climatologist that is recognized as a "leader" that is not willing to accept the case for attribution is Professor Lindzen...and I think that he is in the camp of "not enough evidence" ...but I'm not familiar with his research.
 
#24
#24
TennTradition said:
OK..so you are basing your opinion on scientist's findings? I'm not familiar with those finding - but that was why/what I was asking. quote]

You are saying you have not seen scientists that disagree with the fact that the climate is warming due to man?
Click to expand...
 
#25
#25
allvol123 said:
TennTradition said:
OK..so you are basing your opinion on scientist's findings? I'm not familiar with those finding - but that was why/what I was asking. quote]

You are saying you have not seen scientists that disagree with the fact that the climate is warming due to man?
Click to expand...

I should preface this by saying that I haven't read all of the literature out there, by any means. However, no, I have not seen any scientific papers from field leaders (or in the leading journals) that can discredit the IPCC's most recent report where they say global warming is very likely (>90% probability) attributable to man. Now, as recently as 10 years ago, that wasn't the case. Many world-leading climatologists were not willing to accept the issue of attribution as scientific fact. However, a one of the climatologists (Prof. Ron Prinn) has told me that he knows of only one leading climatologists who still refutes this, and that is Professor Lindzen. The reason for the change was more and better data as well as better models that were not plagued with many of the bad assumptions that the earlier models were plagued with. The models back in '95 era were too crappy to base any kind of decision-making on, apparently.

Edit: I just wanted to add that I am very interested in learning what the opinions on this issue are and where they come from. If you know of credible dissenting opinions, I would be very interested in reading them - I want to understand both sides of this issue...to see how much credit is due each side.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top