Republicans, Democrats, and Global Warming

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Aug 3 2006, 09:36 AM) [snapback]296903[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you and your conclusion wholeheartedly, but I've heard many in the naysayer camp argue that your 'win' in the Do Something/No Climate Change s cenario is unfairly valued. Remember that there are still some people ---(I especially like those who read some articles pro and con, and feel like the truth 'likely lies somewhere in between, letting them argue against working on the problem now, AND makes them feel good about themselves for being 'aware of the facts')--- who have come to accept that the climate is changing, but disagree that our increased greenhouse production has anything to do with the change.

Some say that if it turns out that the climate isn't changing because of our doing, we'll have wasted some amount of time and money reducing emissions, and others even think (at least argue) that addressing climate change now would prevent us from addressing global warming effects caused by sources other than human activites. They argue that adressing global warming now would be a net loss, and wasteful. (Incidentally, I argue that this is crap in the next post - it'd be a win no matter what.) Even giving these concerns credence, though, the worst risks of taking action unneccesarily would be orders of magnitudes less (and at least have us paying attention to warming, were gobal warming to be determined to come from non-anthropogenic sources) than than the worst risks of ignoring the issue completely.

I haven't given them all appropriate weights, or run the decision trees out, but I'm sure someone has - with risks like we could be facing, sticking our head in the sand is just not a good decision. Being able to argue some possible detrimental possibilities where Tony's called it a win doesn't make the alternative any less dangerous.


What's stranger to me is that even coming at it from an economic angle, going ahead and addressing the environmental effects of using these particular finite resources at such rates by emphasizing efficiency and sustainability (making use of renewable resources, decreasing total energy costs, reducing waste, developing more efficient methods and fields) is *good* for profits and the economy. Oil companies could be (should be? are?) working on ways to streamline the refining process, just like companies like Toyota are producing hybrids (I think the technology is an AWESOME step - it'll increase efficiency no matter what kind of power generation it's tied to) and other companies are working on designing more efficient ways to capture solar and wind power. We could cut costs, emissions, and resource use by working on increasing efficiency of current technology alone, and developing fields offer new possibilities of profit and growth - wins no matter what the climate does. If global warming is a real threat, we'll be working towards mitigating the effects. If it's naturally occurring, we'll have a close eye on the situation. If it's all a bunch of hooey, plenty of people will still be making money, and we'll have made a step towards extending the use of our resources.


PS: I love that when I was looking for some numbers to double check something, I came across darelldd.com =) He didn't have a much better time finding a real answer either, I gathered, but I thought I'd ask here. What is the total energy cost of a gallon of gasoline?

 

Gee, imagine that! A website devoted to the removal of the current administration and Congress, finding something negative to say about a Republican....

Whhhooooodaaaaahhh thunk it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Aug 3 2006, 12:49 PM) [snapback]297028[/snapback]</div>

I've spent many a good night around a fire with a mug discussing things like this =)

I wasn't disagreeing by any stretch - just trying to address that particular common rebuttal. Even calling it an actual loss doesn't weigh up against the losses we could face in making the wrong call, and it's questionable that it'd result in a loss at all anyway. I really think that many of the actions that we can take to adress global warming can/will/are opening up avenues with enormous potential for growth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Aug 3 2006, 08:36 AM) [snapback]296903[/snapback]</div>

Tony,

You beat me to the post!!!

I've been saying that to all my Republican/no global warming 'associates'.

It's a win win in my mind if we take action TODAY. If global warming is false and we reduce CO2 emissions, then good! And....we don't die. If global warming is true and we don't do anything....we die.

Did anyone catch the 60 Minutes piece on James Hansen from NASA?

 

I think in cases such as these, instead of communicating on the matter between ourselves (if you believe that action must be taken), we should be e mailing these irresponsible leaders. A collective voice is probably the only way to ensure that this matter will be addressed. I can assure you that if several million letters arrived at the White House demanding that action be taken immediately, things would already be in motion regardless of what industry has to say about it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Aug 3 2006, 06:36 AM) [snapback]296903[/snapback]</div>

That's kind of a classic "Pascal's Wager", but there is more than just those choices. For instance, what if climate change is real, we do something, but it doesn't help either because we've reached the "tipping point" or the climate change is not wholly dependent on our actions? Then we have suffered the consequences of "doing something" all for naught.

The economic impact of over-reacting could be disasterous, with people starving and people dying. We have to balance the possibilities against the expected benefit. I think that's where the "people in the middle" who are decried in another post really stand. You can't, tomorrow, shut down every source of CO2, because we will literally starve.

Not only that, we won't be able to drive our Priuses!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Aug 3 2006, 08:37 PM) [snapback]297388[/snapback]</div>

Right conclusion, wrong reasons. You are flirting with with that idiot Pat Robertson's illogic here.

Distinguish weather from climate.

 

Weather is the minute to minute and day to day condition of the atmosphere. Climate is the means and extremes of the atmosphere over a 30-year period.

Whether you accept the concept of climate change or not, if you want to double your profit or cut your costs by one-half, double your efficiency. Seems like a no brainer, but many of us are reluctant to change for fear of failure or concern that the basis for change may be false.

On any scale, local or global, climate change is real and we are approaching a "tipping point" of no return. So why not become more efficient and error on the side of prudence and the "precautionary principle" - see www.takingprecaution.org/.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Aug 7 2006, 09:18 AM) [snapback]299016[/snapback]</div>

It's probably the result of short term thinking. If revenues aren't up because of capital expenses then the stock price will suffer and the share holders will be angry. I really hope it's not that pathetic but sometimes you have to wonder. Actually, I think of a lot of corporate America is doing just that... getting more efficient by getting green. There's a long list of very large corps that are greening up. From what I can tell it's not just lip service it's good bidness sense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 3 2006, 11:15 PM) [snapback]297503[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, but this is a kind of silly argument: We can't accurately predict the consequenses of doing nothing; we can predict that doing something may cost us a lot; therefore, we should do nothing.

Nobody's calling for a complete halt to CO2 emissions. You'd have to stop breathing if we did. But we shouldn't do "nothing" either.

Please give a specific example of something you think we are asking in order reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that would likely result in an economically disasterous condition with people starving and dying.

What about the economic impact of under-reacting?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Aug 3 2006, 10:05 AM) [snapback]297039[/snapback]</div>

LOL! :lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Aug 3 2006, 09:43 PM) [snapback]297512[/snapback]</div>

Such outrage! :lol: You have ZERO room to complain after accusing me of threatening someone on this site and then not having the class of character to respond to my post challenging that baseless accusation.

BTW why have you not responded to my question about you sig? Are you or are you not advocating the use of violence in response to verbal taunts?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Aug 3 2006, 09:43 PM) [snapback]297512[/snapback]</div>

Nope, it was Geologyrox's post where she said "(I especially like those who read some articles pro and con, and feel like the truth 'likely lies somewhere in between, letting them argue against working on the problem now, AND makes them feel good about themselves for being 'aware of the facts')" that I was referring to. I think its a cheap shot for the moderates out there that don't take a polarized stand on this one issue.

Feel free to be outraged by it if you want, though.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 9 2006, 06:47 PM) [snapback]300545[/snapback]</div>

"Silly"? I may have overstated my case with "starving and dying", but my descent into hyperbole wasn't meant to be "silly".

The Kyoto Protocol raised fears among conservatives that we would have had to establish some pretty draconian measures to meet the reduction requirements, while giving the developing world a pass while they develop economically.

Obviously, it doesn't matter to the environment if the CO2 is released in N. America or in Africa, so the real purpose of the protocol was simply to transfer our wealth to the third world. (Only the third world still believes there's an economic pie with limited money in it that we all have to divide up. In reality, modern economies make us all bakers, and we make our own pie.)

I'm all for reasonable measures that can be taken, without restricting individual rights, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.