"Global warming and hot air"

pssst...Mirza. What article?

 

He's right. What's sad is how short term economic policy overshadows everything. In the end there won't be ANY economy. Of course, a disruptive technology would change all of these projections fairly quickly so there's always a reason for hope. Progressive taxes on fossil fuels would easily help us along. People need to realize that we're going to have to compromise (at least in the short/midterm) to have any chance of solving this issue.

 

As much as I hate to read stuff like that, I am still inclined to agree.

So much of our economy is based on completely unrealistic goals and worse yet, the vast majority of people do not realize it or simply do not care. As long as they live a comfortable life they are happy.

Mush like our completely wacked out food system, where corn and soy are the superstars, our fossil fuel system is not likely to change and global warming will continue. Nearly everyone is aware of the obesity epidemic we suffer in the United States yet nothing is truely being done about it. Though we spend 90 billion in health services in obesity related cases, nothing is being done about that. We recently created a new kind of corn starch that imparts no calories and allows people to consume more just so companies can sell you more food. Do you think a society driven by such greed and corporatism and government subsidation in the name of economic growth is really going to do anything for the good of its people? No, we cannot rely on them, them being the corporations and government systems. They have long since stopped caring about the people of the nation. The ones we have to rely on are the same ones the abolitionists turned to in the 19th century. Eachother. By strengthening our communities and making people care about people again should be our first goal. Like Paul Hawkins said, "Maybe it's time for the green movement to hop on the social justice bus". There is so much creativity being lost in our poor neihborhoods. People in those neihborhoods and people of color especially are not empowered or shown how to tap their potential for caring. It is my opinion that they are our allies in the fight against global corporatization. I'll argue that they are not a handicap on our system but instead they are an untapped resource and an ethical priority in much the same way global warming is a moral priority.

Our love of economics and lavish lifestyles will likely be our undoing. Much the same as it was for the majority of the other "great" civilizations. As dismal as that sounds, I will continue to work every day of my life to help us turn the nose of this great ship around and find a better way. Maybe I should say, educate people on the better paths that w already know about but have either forgotten or are too scared to travel.

For those of you who make efforts to change, no matter what your official opinion is, I thank you and you are an inspiration to us all. Whether you call it the precautionary principle or the "Duh Principle", it just makes a lot of sense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Feb 14 2007, 05:23 PM) [snapback]390593[/snapback]</div>

It won't surprise you to hear that I agree strongly with the article. In fact I almost posted it last week. You are brave to post it though Mizra as it does call into question a lot of what is widely believed about global warming.

As I've argued on this forum the Kyoto style cap and trade programs really aren't going to work at reducing anthropogenic climate change at any economically acceptable level of CO2 reduction.

Though I like the idea of using market forces, a huge flaw of cap and trade (besides the fact that it will have very minimal impact) is who sets the cap and at what levels, and for whom. As the article notes, this quickly degenerates into a gigantic lobbying game -- which largely explains Corporate America's sudden interest in the subject.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Feb 15 2007, 01:24 AM) [snapback]390749[/snapback]</div>

As I've always said, Kyoto style initiatives (and cap and trade) will never work because cheating is too easy. It's a lot like cartels in this respect. The only way to fix the problem is with tax and tariff approaches. If china (or the us, or anyone else for that matter) wants to continue producing tonnes of CO2, fine, but if everyone taxes the hell out of their products it'll kill their economy. A sort of economic version of MAD is the most effective approach. This is a global issue and everyone needs to understand what's at stake and that everyone is responsible... particularly the developed nations and China and India (they count too simply because they have so many damn people).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Feb 14 2007, 08:23 PM) [snapback]390593[/snapback]</div>

Never take a professional economist's advice on what's technologically feasible and not, and never take Robert J. Samuelson's advice on anything. He's pretty much a stopped clock on most subjects, that is, he may sometimes be right, but he never conveys information. Note "democrats" in the first paragraph, cutesypoo "inconvenient truth" in the last, and you can pretty much figure out where he's coming from.

Noteworthy for an economist: There is pretty good agreement that the US cap-and-trade system for SO2 and NOx have quite successful in reducing those emissions while minimizing the cost of reductions. Fully understanding that C02 is a whole different ballgame, it's curious that one of the few successes from application of classic economic theory in this area would go unmentioned by an economist, in a discussion of the applicability of cap-and-trade to C02. Must not have fit in with the message he was trying to convey.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Feb 15 2007, 04:12 PM) [snapback]391171[/snapback]</div>

How are those enforced (NOx and SOx caps that is)? Kyoto is pretty much a bust. The Canucks are WAY over their Kyoto obligation largely because there's just too much money to be made with the tar sands. Europe isn't really doing a lot better.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Feb 15 2007, 06:18 PM) [snapback]391174[/snapback]</div>

It's a US program run by the EPA, with point sources of pollution, mostly power plants. The EPA's overview is here:
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-trade/index.html

A summary of progress is here:
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/arp05.html

A key quote:
"A 2005 study (PDF) (15pp., 532 K) estimates that in 2010, the Acid Rain Program's annual benefits will be approximately $122 billion (2000$), at an annual cost of about $3 billion - a 40-to-1 benefit-to-cost ratio. "

 

Brilliant mate. Thanks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Feb 15 2007, 03:12 PM) [snapback]391171[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps it's because Kyoto has pretty much been a failure.
First, a political instrument - for example where Europe withheld WTO backing for Russia.
Second, has mis-directed vast sums to a few AC Factories in China.
Third, Europe will largely miss it's Kyoto targets.
Fourth, it is "highly inefficient and inequitable".
Fifth, even if fully implemented it would only delay the onset of GW by six years.

Should I go on?