Socialized Health Care in the USA

[kandrathe]

This is not even close to true.

Ok, show me the consensus of climatologists that are predicting global ecological apocalypse.

The mainstream of climate science is pretty much unanimous on the idea that carbon emissions are warming the planet.

And, I did not dispute that.

The earth is almost certainly going to warm by about 0.5 degrees Celsius, if we just stop producing carbon right this instant, to 4-6.5 degrees, if we continue increasing our emissions without any check whatsoever. Even the middle range, 2 or 3 degrees, would have a *severe* impact on many aspects of global climate, from water level to rainfall to the viability of agricultural land. The 4 to 6 range would, as I said, completely collapse our current economic patterns. Billions would be displaced. Borders would have to be redrawn. Every major coastal city would be wading in 5 feet of water.

This is unsubstantiated, and what is happening is an uncontrolled experiment with our environment, but predicting the results is extremely dubious.

The 'radical fringe' are the climate change denialists, and they are notable in that very few of them are actually climatologists.

To deny that CO2 has no influence on the environment is ludicrous, but I think we have also reached near the saturation point where additional CO2 condenses from the atmosphere more rapidly. Water vapor seems to have a larger impact overall on increasing global temperature.

Those who are in the field may be optimistic or pessimistic about the degree and impact anthropogenic climate change, but almost none who will tell you it isn't happening. Those who do are almost inevitably on the payroll of polluting industries.

Agreed. And, many on the "chicken little" side are reaping large grants as well.

That study tells you precisely the *opposite* of what you're claiming. It's saying that whatever we pollute now will stick around until our children's children's children's children's children are a distant historical memory! Business as usual isn't just stupid for *us*, it's stupid for our entire *species* for a millennium to come!

No. It say exactly what I'm saying. We cannot turn this bus around on a dime, so let's *all* get together to apply the brakes (in a safe manner that doesn't get anyone killed). Having the US stop would be great, as long as the CO2 production isn't displaced to Asia. THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN. World consumption is like a big gas bag, so a prod in one place creates a bulge somewhere else.

Forest sequestration is a generally poor mechanism. Forests burn, thereby tossing more carbon back up into the atmosphere. The more forest, the more this happens. They are a part of the carbon cycle, not outside it. They are also very, very slow: using them to sequester carbon wouldn't take hundreds of years, it would take millions. But yes, reversing the damage caused by carbon emissions is going to be long, and it's going to be hard.

So, then there are no forests in your ideal world? I like trees, and I've lived in forests my entire life. They only burn when people don't take care of them by either lighting them on fire themselves, or by not clearing enough of the debris from storm damage.

You don't advocate doing nothing, just not doing anything that costs money. Or takes effort. Or in any way violates peoples' right to live where they want, how they want, doing whatever they want, regardless of consequences.

Thank you for putting words into my mouth. No, this can all be done in a way that achieves the same result without causing people to suffer.

You got a better plan than cap and trade? One that avoids the problems you find so critical, but also solves the environmental problem at hand? I'd love to hear it.

I think Maria Cantwell has some good ideas on "Cap and Dividend". It would make sense to have CO2 emitters pay into an ecological fund according to their output. Since it is a new thing, I would start with a small amount to see how it affects the economy, then increase the rate at a rate that achieves the ultimate goal. But, it gives you the ability to move it up or down as needed to keep the screaming to a minimum. That fund could be used as an incentive to consumers to reduce consumption, provide grants for new technology, or other GDP enhancing uses.

A current crisis would be a trivial price to pay to prevent a future one, if the current crisis is merely economic, but the future one is environmental.

An economic crisis will become environmental if it is bad enough.

We must all do what it takes to get our carbon emissions down. If we don't, the results will be anywhere from painful to catastrophic, for generation after generation to come. You can laugh about the sky falling and foxy loxy*, but there are plenty of other fables that apply here, and quite a few of them end with us freezing to death, or getting eaten by wolves.

Is there a fable about a fake crisis? The problem we have is converting from using fossil fuels to other cleaner energy sources, which only needs some time and incentive. Driving the economy to ruin is one way to bring about change, but I think there is a nicer way to do it.

We'll ask the coal industry very, very nicely if they wouldn't mind not burning coal anymore. And if they say no, we'll ask them again, but this time we'll wag our finger at them. This sounds less like a plan, and more like a parody of the United Nations.

Did I say that?

Cap and trade is as non-punitive as it gets. You buy carbon credits. It uses the market to allocate scarce resources. It's as libertarian as an environmental program is going to be. How else are you going to get people to stop doing what they're doing? It's either an incentive or a ban, and between the two, I know which looks less authoritarian.

Incentives, right? Here is an idea; lets get a coalition of scientists and auto engineers to declare "THE" replacement for the internal combustion engine, then obsolete gasoline and diesel engine over the next 20 years. Then, lets have a program where home owners and landlords can assess the energy efficiency of every residence, and create a means to develop a plan to convert homes to higher efficiency. Let's create an incentive that rewards people who consume the least amount.

As carbon prices go (slowly) up, rational agents will see this, and begin consuming less of it. This applies at all parts of the chain. Power plants will be built to produce less, or zero, carbon emissions. Transportation will shift either to lower carbon options like rail, or to more carbon-efficient cars and trucks. Supply networks will shrink slightly, as transportation costs go up, then expand again as more efficient transport becomes available.

That is not always possible. The result is less product at higher costs. <blockquote>"Half the vegetables and 95 per cent of the fruit eaten in the UK comes from beyond our shores. Increasingly, it arrives by plane - and air travel gives off more CO2 than any other form of transport. Agriculture and food account for nearly 30 per cent of goods trucked around Britain's roads and, according to a Government report in 2005, the resulting road congestion, accidents and pollution cost the country £9bn a year."</blockquote>

The net result will be a reduction in GDP, and a more carbon-efficient economy. I'm not some crazy ecotopian who believes that there are super-efficient technologies being held down by the man that will save our economy as soon as the evil oil companies are out of the way. Nor do I believe in retreating to the backwoods and abandoning our civilization. But there are sacrifices that have to be made here, and if that means being slightly poorer, then that's just the reality.

Do you think this was the *change* that people wanted from Obama? To be poorer?

They grow fresh vegetables in Southern Ontario. That's not that far away. Plus, if you just got rid of the absurd amount of protectionism on your agricultural products, you could just ship vegetables to New York from Africa, at a relatively low carbon cost.

I'm not a "food miles" adherent, but there is benefit in measuring the total carbon foot prints for growing food, whether they be from Ontario or Africa.

People will have to change. This is not going to be painless. If there was a painless solution, we would have done it by now. If we act soon, we may be able to use less painful methods, like cap and trade, to wean ourselves off of the carbon economy. If we leave it, we'll be stuck with the results for a thousand years, and will require much more draconian measures in the future.

As the NOAA study indicates, we are stuck with the existing and near term environmental damage for the next thousand years. The question is how quickly can we turn around the entire world's behavior. I'd say using honey, rather than vinegar will work better.