Eugene Robinson applauds the incipient carbon emissions agreement between China and the United States:
This week’s stunning announcement of a long-range agreement between the Obama administration and the Chinese government over carbon emissions is the best environmental news in years. Not to sound grandiose, it means the world still has a chance to save itself from unmitigated disaster.
The significance of the accord, which was doggedly pursued by Secretary of State John Kerry, is not just that the world’s two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases have agreed to take action. China’s ambitious target of generating 20 percent of its energy from sources other than fossil fuels by 2030 promises massive investment and innovation — a huge boost for clean-energy technologies, with impact worldwide.
I think I must be confused. My understanding was that the planet was threatened by the amount of carbon being spewed into the atmosphere, not by the rate of increase of the spewing. Can someone produce some evidence that’s the case?
If, on the other hand, my understanding is correct, the standard by which the agreement should be judged is by whether it reduces the amount of carbon emissions. If it does, I’d like to see the numbers. So far the entire discussion has been very short on numbers. Let’s do a little back-of-the-envelope calculation. If China’s emissions increase by just 1% a year, we’d need to reduce our emissions by 15% a year to compensate for it. Can anybody see any realistic prospect of that happening? Over the period of 15 years?
To my mind Tom Maguire sums the agreement up pretty accurately:
This seems like a good opportunity to introduce my new diet plan. YOU will cut out sugar, sweets, treats, carbs, and beer and limit your alcohol to one drink per day or less. I won’t change a thing. But together, and on average, I believe we will lose a lot of weight – let’s go!
I also think that, contrary to the administration’s predictions and those of its rooting section, the agreement sets a very bad precedent. India, Brazil, Russia, and other major emitters will need to do nothing for the foreseeable future because China, the largest emitter, didn’t.
The agreement is largely putting new drapes on a condemned house. It might make a difference of a couple degrees warming sometime in the 22nd Century.
Reading the whole Robinson piece it seems clear he thinks the agreement is great not for it’s effect on carbon emissions, but as a catalyst for future, unspecified, action. In other words its a political success that will, in his view, lead to more successes that will, at some point, save the planet.
its, not it’s
That’s my point. It’s a terrible precedent. The Europeans have already picked the low-hanging fruit on carbon emissions. They’re not likely to move from where they are. The agreement enshrines the idea that high emitters with small per capita emissions don’t need to do anything.
Although the agreement is a political non-starter here, it’s also a mathematical impossibility which for me is the more important problem. Even under the agreement China’s emissions are expected to grow by 30% over the period. We’d need to cut ours in half to offset that and that doesn’t even consider India, Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.
Everything that has not happened regarding climate change has set the bad precedent. Maybe this will lead to more deals (the type that should have been worked out in the 90s); maybe it won”t. Governments are going to want the pretense of having tried to stop carbon emissions from growing. In hindsight, the climate-deniers will be scrubbed from the record. No one, in 2050, will admit to having been convinced that there were reasons not to take in immediate action in 1998.
Everything that has not happened regarding climate change has set the bad precedent. Maybe this will lead to more deals (the type that should have been worked out in the 90s); maybe it won”t. Governments are going to want the pretense of having tried to stop carbon emissions from growing. In hindsight, the climate-deniers will be scrubbed from the record. No one, in 2050, will admit to having been convinced that there were reasons not to take in immediate action in 1998.
According to one of the government agencies we were supposed to have reached or were about to reach the point of no return.
Eugene Robinson knows about as much about science as my dogs. Their knowledge is limited to gravity, but they think food falls to the ground. I have tried to explain that all matter is attracted to other matter according to an equation, and since the earth has a much larger mass, the food moves towards it at an increasing rate of speed.
I was about to start explaining the equations, but they kept turning their heads sideways. Somehow, I suspect Eugene Robinson would do the same.
“In hindsight, the climate-deniers will be scrubbed from the record. No one, in 2050, will admit to having been convinced that there were reasons not to take in immediate action in 1998.”
What is a “climate denier?” That definition has expanded to include anyone who doesn’t agree with a specific set of policies. Also, what does “take action” mean exactly?
Andy,
What I meant was that in 2050 climate-change will be appear totally clear cut. The science was in, the prognosis was given, and then what? Nothing happened. There’s not going to be any sympathy for people who just sat around and squabbled about policy. So no one will admit that they were these people.
Here’s the thing about this agreement. Step back from the political infighting. Think of it only as policy. Is it good policy? Why?
I don’t think it is because it does not accomplish what it sets out to accomplish from a policy standpoint. It will not reduce emissions. As Ben Wolf notes above it might reduce emissions from what they otherwise might have been but only in Washington is that considered a major breakthrough.
It isn’t even a first step because of the very bad precedent it enshrines, described above. So it’s bad policy and I don’t see how anyone could defend it from that standpoint.
The agreement is largely putting new drapes on a condemned house.
Pretty sure you’re overselling the agreement here, Ben. I mean that seriously. Does this agreement seem like anyone took the time to buy new drapes and hang them?
Everything that has not happened regarding climate change has set the bad precedent.
You mean like the pause in warming in the last 15 years?
(Hey, Drew’s not up yet or busy, so I’m just pulling his load for him.)
So don’t say I never did anything for you, Drew.
Dave,
Well, politically, it is a major breakthrough, and that’s why people are lauding it.
You can either be cynical about it and say that no reductions will come and/or it is already too late, both of which are probably true.
Or you can be hopeful and somehow believe that there will be reductions on emissions hashed out in the near future and that the worst-case scenarios of warming will not happen.
People are hopeful because they would like to believe a relatively-simple problem (cutting a specific substance emitted into the atmosphere) can be approached reasonably, and they are, in their fantasies, at least, prepared to make sacrifices in order to achieve this goal.
You never did anything for me……..
Seriously, I haven’t commented because the whole effort is absurd. Why is Gene Robinson even employed?
Modulo STILL doesn’t get Dave’s point. No, it’s NOT a major political breakthrough. It’s basic architecture is worthless and sets bad precedent for the goals and behaviors of other countries in any future attempts. Perhaps implicit, it also fails in the achievable category.
My only substantive addition is that the metric should be emissions per output variable, say, GDP. Otherwise the heros of the world in this paradigm are going to be the bush people of Australia.
@Modulo Myself
… the worst-case scenarios of warming will not happen.
Global warming will continue to occur. How long is undetermined, but at some point, global cooling will begin. This will start the next ice age cycle.
This cooling and warming cycle will continue as long as the Earth’s axis wobbles causing the angle of the sun’s rays (infrared radiation) to change. This will be affected by the Earth’s orbital decay, and the sun’s decreased output.
I doubt mankind will be able to change the movement of Earth’s axis, but maybe, President Obama could convince the Chinese to all jump at the same time.
That really is where the wheel hits the road, isn’t it? The Chinese authorities know as well as I do that China’s emissions per dollar GDP are actually increasing. Anything serious will require the Chinese to change that and it’s something they just won’t do. At least not today. I welcome the argument that they will, of course, fifteen years from now. Some sort of religious conversion, presumably.
To change that they’ll need to get out of the low value-added business, something they’ve been trying to do for a decade. To that end I thought they’d buy GM to have a conduit for Chinese-made autos, components, and parts. That happened to some degree but not nearly what they’ll need.
People here are making a weird assumption about China–which is that they have the same short-term thinking as a day trader. I don’t believe that this is the case. It’s not out of charity that China will try to have their emissions peak by 2030–it’s because the effects of climate change outweigh the benefits of unlimited CO2 pumped into the atmosphere.
I think the Chinese authorities are familiar with the story of the Caliph, the Grand Vizier, and the Donkey.
This article contains a compelling discussion as to why the “science” behind the warmist’s AGW theories do not necessarily represent settled science, enlarging reasons why there is worthiness for greater (not less) debate between warmists and skeptics. Highlighted in this piece is the work of American atmospheric physicist, Murry Salby, arguing that the following is more likely the cause behind climate change, rather than a closed minded adherence to what the flawed IPCC studies have portended it to be.
Such continual observation, expansion of ideas, and collection of data is changing the dialogue of global warming, to those who want to entertain updated, relevant science. For instance there is the University of Washingon study, recently published indicating “natural factors,” such as winds, more responsible for west coast warming than green house gases.
Consequently, to deny the contradictions cited by skeptics to those of the warmist is closing the door on all the credible information that’s readily available out there. Furthermore, to base a country’s economic policy on controversial and unreliable science is foolish, IMO.
@jan
Aside from the physics involved, most people cannot fathom the volume of the oceans, and this includes the mathematicians who created the computer models. The oceans not only cover the surface of the Earth, but they are deep.
Once you understand the sizes, it is like Al Gore trying to heat his mansion with a candle. If the house never changed and it was perfectly sealed and the candle lasted long enough and Al Gore did not freeze to death first, it would eventually heat the house, but it is a really dumb argument.
Jan
Shorter: what happens to the coke in an opened coke can when you let it warm up?
“Or you can be hopeful and somehow believe that there will be reductions on emissions hashed out in the near future and that the worst-case scenarios of warming will not happen.”
Hope is not a strategy. I doubt anyone will remember this non-agreement in 15 years considering the chances of it actually being implemented (like every other climate change agreement) is very low.
“What I meant was that in 2050 climate-change will be appear totally clear cut. The science was in, the prognosis was given, and then what?”
What science are you reading? According to the latest IPCC report, warming in 2050 could rise somewhere between 0.5C and 2.0C depending on what model you believe. What effect that would have (at either extreme) is still not well understood. I could be totally clear cut and then again it might not.
Dave
I wasn’t even aware that the carbon intensity of Chinese GDP was going up, which only makes the issue all the more intractable. I was simply noting that co2/person is a silly measure or goal unless we want to revert to cave men as our preferred model.
BTW – lost in the thread was the original observation that current vs changing concentrations of co2 are the issue. That’s correct. At one point we were told back in the 60s and 70s that the co2 levels then existent would doom us. One shudders to think how much additional co2 has been put out. I guess the settled science wasn’t settled.
Some months or maybe even a year or so ago I got into a give-and-take with Zachriel on this subject, Zachriel taking what is essentially the Chinese position that there is a right to emit on a per-person basis. My response was, essentially, that’s a ticket to nowheresville.
If you believe that carbon emissions are a deadly serious threat (I recognize that you don’t), then you’ve got to arrive at the conclusion that the entire world can’t rise to, say, Norwegian levels (about 12 t. per person-year) which means that China’s strategy is doomed and we’re not going to cut our emissions in half (which will get us about to Germany’s 9 t. per person-year).
We are not Germany. We’re bigger, more spread out, it gets colder here in the winter and warmer in the summer. Most of the U. S. would be unlivable at 9 t. per person-year.
I continue to be far more interested in Alex Knapp’s assertion that the oceans are becoming more concentrated in co2 (presumably through chemical potential rather than temperature solubility considerations) and the effects on coral reefs than I am about atmospheric global warming. Yet we here precious little about it. If I recall correctly Alex cited some real acidity data. Kinda makes you wonder about the veracity of the global warmers.
“At one point we were told back in the 60s and 70s that the co2 levels then existent would doom us.”
Quote please. I highly doubt this.
jan quotes Salby. A little background.
” In October 2006 the university produced its investigation memo, and suspended Salby’s privilege of submitting proposals from the university as well as restricting his access to university research facilities. In 2007, Salby was on sabbatical in Australia. Before the university made its final adjudication, Salby resigned from his faculty position. The National Science Foundation investigation report issued on 20 February 2009 found that Salby had overcharged his grants and violated financial conflict of interest policies, displaying “a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies” and a “consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit.” It debarred Salby from receiving federal assistance and benefits until 13 August 2012.”
Guy has lost multiple jobs four unethical behavior. Needs a new money making gig. He has found one.
Ocean pH and CO2 content.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm
@Drew
… Kinda makes you wonder about the veracity of the global warmers.
I think there are many different types of AGW people. There are the hucksters, the hustlers, the idiots, the misguided, and the honest. Politics and money have trumped the science.
Even the honest can become biased by a favored theory. I am partial to a multiverse, and I believe that our understanding of time is wrong. I can find evidence of these everywhere, but it does not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
I think a lot of the AGW folks may be in this same category. The difference is that nobody gives me any money. Instead, they grab the kids and back away slowly.
Drew,
On Ocean acidification, here’s a summary of beginging on page 15:
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap30_FGDall.pdf
“Quote please. I highly doubt this.”
We’ve been through this, Steve, when you didn’t recall that the mantra used to be a coming ice age. Your head is stuck in the sand. Don’t waste my time.
You probably also don’t recall telling us how Putin had cooked his own goose with the invasion, and ObamaCare was popular and working as advertised. Of course, now there are two versions of how Obamacare will work, so that kinda improves the odds.
The ocean CO2 and pH data are model based, and again, they do not include all variables. The models do not account for the volume of the oceans, and they will also fall apart. Like peak oil, the housing bubble, AGW models, and the good Syrian rebels, I will have to wait to be proven right, and of course, there will be no apologies forthcoming.
(Sen. Rand Paul has not even sent a thank you card for cribbing my “Disneyland for terrorists” quip.)
The Malaysian airplane search should begin to give everybody an idea of the size of the surface and the depth of the oceans. Even though the North Pole looks like Antarctica, it is not a land mass. It is an ice cap floating on the ocean. This is even more water than you may have thought existed.
By the way, plankton and algae need that wonderful life giving gas to thrive. CO2 makes the world go round. The little fish eat the plankton, and the big fish eat the little. Seals eat the big fish, and the baby seals get clubbed to death. Rich white guy gets killed for his seal skin wallet. Increase the CO2, and you increase the circle of life.
On @steve’s link, they are claiming that the satellite temperature data is wrong. When the medieval scientist’s theories and models were proven wrong, they blamed Galileo and his telescope, and then, they went whining to the most powerful entity of the day.
There is nothing magical about computer models or computers. Computers are adding machines, and computer models are mathematical models. Mathematical models are as good as the mathematician and data used to create them.
The best mathematicians with the best data were on Wall Street modeling the housing market. We all know how well that went. There may be a few people who will pass up a Wall Street salaries for an academic one, but there are not many.
Let me ruin your day: That computer game you are playing is nothing more than a series of If-Then and For-Next statements. The objects and your character is nothing more than an matrix of variable stored as an array. The screen is a bunch of lights that turn on and off really fast, and your mouse converts your mechanical movements into electrical impulses interpreted as grid coordinates.
The character that seems so alive is nothing more than a reaction to your actions. The more complex games have saved your past actions, and they may use statistical methods to regulate the responses of the character to make them seem more life-like. It is an illusion.
Creating a computer model does not make it more real or more accurate than reality.
This is really for the less scientifically oriented arguing against the less scientifically oriented. Over the holidays, your snot nosed sons, daughters, nieces, and nephews will be returning from college after being indoctrinated by the Social Studies professor about AGW. The professor will be some type of “scientist”, but of course, he/she will have absolutely no knowledge of real science.
The snotwad will begin spouting crap, and they will have a set of canned responses. They will not have a response to the simple statement that “the AGW CO2-temperature models are not responding as predicted.” The wording is vital. Use an index card if necessary.
After this, point out that AGW is based upon this model being correct, and if the model is wrong, the theory falls apart. The model has not responded correctly for at least ten years.
AGW built a car that they claimed could run on water. They would not listen to anybody who said that this was wrong. Those who claimed otherwise were proclaimed to be car haters or pollution lovers or know nothings or worse. They have been pouring water into the gas tank and trying to start it for at least ten years, but the damn thing will not start.
Your snotwads will not understand this, but they will try to change tactics from models to any number of aspects. Do not change. It is a sideshow. If the car does not run, it does not matter about lead in water, or how many children are killed in hot cars. Stay focused.
With the election results, they are going to be really pissed. If they get to be a pain in the ass, use my computer game lesson. It does not totally ruin it, but sometimes, you realize that it is just an illusion. It is like at the end of the Matrix where everything becomes zero’s and one’s. Suddenly, your opponent is an array, and you are battling linear algebra.
Quite to the contrary it’s practically guaranteed to be less real and less accurate than reality. Reality is always perfectly accurate. It’s the measurements that are problematic.
Speaking as someone who probably developed his first computer model before most of the rest of the readers here were born, models need to be considered critically. Because of the way they’re constructed they don’t give you much that you didn’t put into them to begin with.
That doesn’t mean that they’re not useful, particularly for visualization. We can’t actually step inside atoms to see what’s going on inside them so we use models instead. Looking inside a nuclear explosion to see what’s going on is inconvenient to say the least. We develop models for the purpose.
The models must be routinely recalibrated using empirical data. I think that’s probably the barrier we’re running into with AGW. There are so many variables that gathering the necessary data is expensive and, sadly, politicized.
Guarneri: At one point we were told back in the 60s and 70s that the co2 levels then existent would doom us.
There was never a consensus on global cooling. What was known is that there are countervailing influences; particulates cooling the planet, greenhouse gases warming the planet. It soon became apparent that greenhouse gases would predominate over the long term.
TastyBits: Global warming will continue to occur. How long is undetermined, but at some point, global cooling will begin. This will start the next ice age cycle.
The next ice age is due in about 1500 years. However, anthropogenic warming will overwhelm that signal. See Tzedakis et al., Determining the natural length of the current interglacial, Nature Geoscience 2012.
Dave Schuler: Zachriel taking what is essentially the Chinese position that there is a right to emit on a per-person basis.
It’s politically untenable and morally wrong to take the position that the West can continue to emit at high levels, but not the developing world. People in China have as just as much a right to the benefits of modernity as people in the West.
Dave Schuler: If you believe that carbon emissions are a deadly serious threat (I recognize that you don’t), then you’ve got to arrive at the conclusion that the entire world can’t rise to, say, Norwegian levels (about 12 t. per person-year)
That’s correct. Norwegian levels have to decrease, along with everyone else’s. The global economy has to largely be revamped to be net zero carbon.
Guarneri: Yet we here precious little about it.
People tend to worry most about people, not corals. In any case, it’s a serious issue for ocean scientists, and they are actively monitoring ocean acidity and its effects.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
TastyBits: Computers are adding machines, and computer models are mathematical models.
Sure. In science, models are hypotheses. In the case of global warming, they are designed to help us understand how the excess heat is distributed through the chaotic climate system; however, the excess heat is due to rather simple thermodynamic principles.
Dave Schuler: My understanding was that the planet was threatened by the amount of carbon being spewed into the atmosphere, not by the rate of increase of the spewing.
Actually, because carbon stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, the threat is total atmospheric carbon content; so it’s not emissions per day, but total emissions over time.
In any case, the agreement is far less than what is needed, but you have to start somewhere. Progress will be by fits-and-starts. However, the pressure to reduce emissions will lead to new and improved technologies, which is really the key.
The difference is that physics developed the hypothesis, the mathematics to support the hypothesis, and an objective testing method to verify the hypothesis. When the hypothesis was verified, the computer modeling was able to use known physics and interpolation where necessary.
String theory is still being worked out, and it may end up on the garbage heap. Science fiction may be able to create models that eventually prove accurate, but at this time they are fiction.
The place to begin studying the climate is the oceans. Every time somebody sends a submersible vessel down to the bottom of the ocean, there is some new discovery that shatters our previous understanding.
I don’t think the moral case for a right to emit is quite as clear-cut as you do, Zachriel, for a number of reasons.
First, doesn’t it assume that there’s a straightline connection between how much carbon dioxide you emit and well-being? I think that’s a hard case to make.
Second, per capita emissions is fundamentally meaningless. I think the true generality is that emissions tend to increase geometrically with wealth. That’s as true within countries as between countries or, in other words, a Chinese billionaire probably emits more carbon dioxide than a poor American does. The strategies for reducing American emissions are overwhelmingly regressive in nature or, said another way, doomed to failure.
Third, necessity must factor in somehow. A man who’s freezing to death has a right to light a fire which a man who isn’t freezing to death doesn’t. The first man’s emissions will be higher.
Where we agree is that new and improved technologies are the key to solving whatever problem carbon dioxide emissions pose. I think this agreement is an advertising ploy rather than a meaningful step and sets a bad precedent. A misstep rather than a first step.
@Zachriel
Between the last time we debated this and now, the models upon which AGW are based have still not responded correctly to rising CO2. There really is no further debate on this point. Until the models work or the theory is modified, AGW is meaningless.
You do not get to have your meaningless theory as a placeholder while you rework it. When and if the theory can be validated, AGW can be brought into the scientific arena, but until then, AGW must sit on the shelf or be reworked in the lab. Appealing to authority to enforce your theory is not science.
A gas is going to counteract the physics of the wobble of the Earth’s axis. Honestly, the medieval epicycles were understandable given their mathematics and instruments. I would go with the plan for all the Chinese jumping at the same time.
When those models start working, you can post all the links where I was wrong. Until then, the debate is over, and you lost. You have company with the Peak Oilers.
TastyBits: The difference is that physics developed the hypothesis, the mathematics to support the hypothesis, and an objective testing method to verify the hypothesis.
Yes, and observation indicates that there is excess energy that is warming the Earth’s surface.
Dave Schuler: First, doesn’t it assume that there’s a straightline connection between how much carbon dioxide you emit and well-being?
Sure, but there is certainly a relationship, especially in developing countries.
Dave Schuler: Second, per capita emissions is fundamentally meaningless.
It’s not meaningless, but certainly doesn’t tell the whole story.
Dave Schuler: a Chinese billionaire probably emits more carbon dioxide than a poor American does.
Sure.
Dave Schuler: Third, necessity must factor in somehow. A man who’s freezing to death has a right to light a fire which a man who isn’t freezing to death doesn’t.
That supports our position, not yours.
TastyBits: Between the last time we debated this and now, the models upon which AGW are based have still not responded correctly to rising CO2.
And, as we pointed out previously, ocean heat content continues to rise, while surface temperatures are on a high plateau. The data supports continued warming. What is still intractable is how that excess heat is distributed through the climate system.
TastyBits: A gas is going to counteract the physics of the wobble of the Earth’s axis.
We cited the research. Did you have an actual argument?
Quite to the contrary. Your position is that what country you live in is what matters not what your own circumstances are. Here’s what you wrote:
My view is that individual circumstances matter. Your asserted “right to emit” contradicts that.
This
is handwaving. Today’s developing countries don’t need to develop along the same path as ours did. However, they will follow the path of least resistance (as we did) unless they are required to change. Again, Zachriel, do the math. How can a “right to emit” be reconciled with a need to reduce emissions? What level would we need to reduce our carbon emissions to to accomplish that?
Dave Schuler: Your position is that what country you live in is what matters not what your own circumstances are.
There are about a billion people without access to clean drinking water, the vast majority in the developing world. Per capita emissions of carbon in the developing world are low is because they are generally poor. Saying that there is no generally valid distinction between the people in the U.S. and the people in India or China is not a sustainable argument. International agreements are set at the national level, so obviously these differences are important to setting policy.
Dave Schuler: Today’s developing countries don’t need to develop along the same path as ours did.
That is very true. However, you can’t make a valid case that China is emitting too much when they emit less than the U.S. per capita. If the West reduces its own emissions per capita, then the argument will have more weight. Only by accounting for these differences is any sustainable pathway to be found.
Dave Schuler: How can a “right to emit†be reconciled with a need to reduce emissions?
They have a right to development. They will have to restrain their carbon emissions, but it will take time and technology to find the best path forward.
@Zachriel
The wobble of the axis drives the ice age cycles. The heat content in the oceans drive climate. Theoretically, CO2 could have a miniscule effect on the climate, but in reality, this is impossible.
Research does not trump physics.
We can have this debate in a year, and if the AGW models are responding correctly to the rising CO2, you can begin discussing how the ocean’s heat content affects the climate. Otherwise, it is not an AGW debate.
Those following at home should note. This is how the game is played. The previous paragraph is the only one that is relevant to AGW. I can be totally wrong about everything else, but if I am correct about the previous paragraph, AGW falls apart. This is the trick. If I lose focus, I will lose the debate.
You and I have a very different view of what can actually accomplish notional goals, Zachriel. China has very low per capita emissions of carbon dioxide because a) they have so many people and b) so many of them are still subsistence farmers who produce relatively little carbon dioxide. Making more Chinese urban dwellers rather than rural subsistence farmers won’t accomplish the goal because China’s per capita carbon emissions for urban dwellers is so high, see here.
I think that we should do the following:
– Build more nuclear power plants, preferably small scale mass-produced thorium reactors. This should be a priority.
– Stop subsidizing transport. We should especially stop subsidizing interstate highway construction.
– Stop subsidizing agriculture. The way we practice agriculture produces increased carbon emissions.
– I’ve supported a carbon tax for decades (for geopolitical reasons if for no other) but my support for that is starting to wane. It’s too regressive and may not accomplish as much as I thought because such a large proportion of our transport emissions are due to the highest earning individuals who aren’t sensitive to a tax.
– Reduce the size of our military. War is very energy intensive, especially the way we do it.
That should be unpopular enough to get me strung up.
How do you think we can cut our per capita emissions in half (which is what you’re proposing)? I don’t think we can which is why I lean more towards remediation.
@home audience
Computer models, mathematical models, mathematical equations, etc. are used by physics and other sciences. They take known inputs and generate outputs. From high school science, many people learned that force = mass x acceleration (f=ma).
(These are all the dumbed down versions. They get more complicated, and they use more complicated math.)
There is another one: pressure x volume = temperature PV=T. If you increase the temperature in a soda can, the pressure should rise. If the pressure does not rise, there is a problem, and if the temperature continues to rise without the corresponding rising pressure, there is a really big problem.
They have been warning that the can is going to explode, but the damn pressure refuses to rise. They are throwing everything at the wall. The paint on the can is made of lead. The soda has artificial sweeteners. Too many sodas will lead to diabetes.
It is all a distraction. The model does not work, and therefore, the theory is garbage.
TastyBits: The wobble of the axis drives the ice age cycles.
The wobble is very slow compared to human timescales.
TastyBits: The heat content in the oceans drive climate.
Good point. The oceans are very important components of the climate cycle. The oceans are warming.
TastyBits: Theoretically, CO2 could have a miniscule effect on the climate, but in reality, this is impossible.
That is incorrect. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s surface would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is.â€
Dave Schuler: Making more Chinese urban dwellers rather than rural subsistence farmers won’t accomplish the goal because China’s per capita carbon emissions for urban dwellers is so high, see here.
Urban China emissions per capita 9½. U.S. emissions per capita, rural and urban, 19.
Dave Schuler: How do you think we can cut our per capita emissions in half (which is what you’re proposing)?
By imposing limits or through taxes so the markets will work towards solutions.
TastyBits: There is another one: pressure x volume = temperature PV=T. If you increase the temperature in a soda can, the pressure should rise.
Yes, thermal expansion causes ocean rise.
How high a tax would need to be imposed? Keep in mind that those who emit the most carbon are least sensitive to taxes. What employment effects would the tax you’re proposing produce?
As to limits under what legal authority would that be done?
Dave Schuler: Keep in mind that those who emit the most carbon are least sensitive to taxes.
It would be best to adjust the levels over time.
Dave Schuler: What employment effects would the tax you’re proposing produce?
Employment effects could be minimized by making it revenue neutral, and by slow implementation.
Dave Schuler: As to limits under what legal authority would that be done?
The same as any tax. Not sure your question.
Where are your numbers? You don’t have a plan. You have platitudes.
While Congress has the power to tax, it does not have the power to limit.
Dave Schuler: While Congress has the power to tax, it does not have the power to limit.
Yes, Congress can and has limited pollutants.
Dave Schuler: Where are your numbers?
Most proposals are for around $30 per tonne, though phased in over time.