Board index ‹ The Environment

[jimwalton]

THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT. This video sounds interesting to me, but I hardly know enough to be able to evaluate it. Any climatologists out there who can help?

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/paris-climate-agreement-wont-change-climate

[Brownie]

Not an expert here, but something that jumped out at me was the use of "combined temperature reduction." I'd be interested in how the extremes are affected, as currently climate change is disproportionately affecting particular areas.

Fracking brings in another set of environmental concerns, as well, but there are of course other forms of green innovation. In the end, I favored a both/and approach with the Paris (and hopefully better future agreements), while also looking for ways to spur on green innovation.

A video like this suggests to me, "Let's do more!" rather than bail on what's in place.

[jimwalton]

Brownie, I had always heard that fracking was creating environmental problems, not that the methods were improving and it was now a partially-desirable strategy.

As far as your last sentence, I got the idea he was saying, "Let's do better—the Paris agreement is not the best solution."

[Tee Lee]

There are so many gaps in this video that I don't know where to start.

1) It is acknowledged that the reduction commitment set forth by each country after the Paris Agreement was signed are a drop in the bucket. The main accomplishment of Paris was that, for the first time, we actually got a global agreement for countries to start doing something. The agreement calls for commitments to be updated every 5 years, so his discounting of further reductions is a bad assumption. In many cases, jurisdictions who have set forth climate related policies (particularly renewable energy goals) have achieved them faster and and much lower cost than expected, and many of them go on to make them more stringent.

2) Yes, implementing carbon reductions will incur costs. However, these costs are small compared to the costs of inaction. He doesn't mention anything about costs that will be incurred to deal with severe weather events, relocating communities from costal and low-lying areas, and the potential for resource conflicts related to droughts and population migration.

3) Simply investing in R&D isn't enough. Companies make investments based on market signals. These signals come from policy. Climate change is currently an economic externality - its costs are not accounted for in the cost of goods and services. So, there needs to be a way to create that signal, and that starts with setting a goal to reduce carbon emissions.

4) R&D alone doesn't solve the problem. It takes a lot of work and money to get a technology concept from a lab (where you only need to do something once, whatever the cost) to a commercially viable product (doing it millions of times at low cost.) Policies are needed to help support and accelerate the adoption of these technologies. Without it, all you have is a bunch of prototypes and research papers.

[Jan Palmer]

Perhaps we are already doing these things voluntarily, and the countries who are in need of pressure to do so will do so.

[jimwalton]

Tee Lee, it's understandable that there are "so many gaps [you] don't know where to start." He can't possibly digest and divest a large subject in a mere few minutes. As we know, completeness and attention span are often mutually exclusive.

And thank you for all the input. I know a few things: (1) there is no question that the world is getting warmer; (2) there is HUGE debate as to how much of global warming is because of human behavior, or if the planet is in a warming part of its cycle. When all of humanity's combined efforts at the cost of trazillions of dollars can make only minuscule alterations, one wonders if the trazillions could be better spent feeding the world. One wonders. Which is not to say one ignores the environment and our effect upon it, but I wonder if the Paris agreement is the wisest route to benefit. These are things that are beyond my pay grade (and, of course, my eduction, which is in a completely different field).

[Sweeney]

Sometime is this century, a company will come along and create a product that will have more of an impact than government regulations will. That $100 trillion can be better spent elsewhere.

Horse flop pollution was a huge problem for cities until the automobile came along and solved that problem in a short period of time.

https://fee.org/.../the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894/

[Tee Lee]

Jim, there is actually very little debate within the scientific community that human activity is the main driver of global warming. Most of the debate is occurring in the political sphere and the media, drummed up by the fossil fuel industry.

You raise a valid question as to whether resources are better spent reducing carbon vs. feeding the world. However, consider the fact that the parts of the world likely to be most negatively affected by climate change are also the poorest, so feeding the world without addressing carbon is like treating a symptom without curing the disease. (My point being that we need to do both.)

Sweeney, most technology products come about because of government. Almost every scientific or technological advance since WWII can be traced to government policy or funding. I'm not saying the people wouldn't have figured them out eventually, but policy made them happen faster.

In the case of climate, carbon is largely an economic externality, so there is no direct cost driving people to respond. Policy is needed in order to bring the cost of carbon in to account so that market forces can act.

We can't wait for "sometime this century". Carbon lingers in the atmosphere for decades, so any changes we make now will take a long time for the benefits to arrive. We need to start now in order to avoid the most severe problems.

[jimwalton]

Tee Lee, thanks for the clarification and comments. I read an article back in 2014 about man's involvement in global warming. It seemed carefully researched and well articulated. It asserted several facts: (1) global warming is real; (2) there is no scholarly consensus. "There are many knowledgeable meteorologists, climatologists, and other scientists who disagree that man is chiefly responsible for global warming. For instance, Dr. Arthur Robinson's petition project (http://www.petitionproject.org) has about 31,500 signatures, including 9,000 signers with PhDs, who say there is no convincing scientific evidence that human influence is causing global warming; (3) Greenhouse Gases, including CO2, have increased; (4) there are natural cycles of climate change (measurable, confirmable, corroborated); (5) There is a strong bias toward the harms of global warming (some even alarmist). In reality, there are pros and cons, the most significant of which is that warming will enable most people to suffer less and live longer; (6) Computer models are selective in their analyses, extrapolated (rather than confirmed) in their projections, and exaggerated in their conclusions; (7) Claims of increasing weather disasters are uncertain. The statistics do not lead us to as certain a future as is contended. His conclusion: we need more honest scientific analyses including both sides of the argument, and not just a bias towards harm from human influence while shutting out evidence to the contrary.

[De Tool Man]

Here's the best resource I've found: http://www.climatedepot.com/

We cannot control climate change. The climate has always changed, is currently changing, and will continue to change long after we are all gone. Our planet goes through cycles of 100,000 years of glaciation followed by 10,000 years of warming. We are entering a warming phase at the moment. Life on earth has always been better when warmer. The real problem is with India and China, far and away the worst polluters of the planet. Yet they are exempt from any actions.

How afraid should we be of all the dire predictions of catastrophic climate change? Let’s look at just 10 past predictions:

1. Biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted in the 1970s that: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” and that “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

2. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

3. In January 2006 Al Gore predicted that we had ten years left before the planet turned into a “total frying pan.”

4. In 2008, a segment aired on ABC News predicted that NYC would be under water by June 2015.

5. In 1970, ecologist Kenneth E.F. Watt predicted that “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000, This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”

6. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap would be completely melted within 5-7 years.

7. On May 13th 2014 France’s foreign minister said that we only have 500 days to stop “climate chaos.” The recent Paris climate summit met 565 days after his remark.

8. In 2009, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center head James Wassen warned that Obama only had four years left to save the earth.

9. On the first Earth Day its sponsor warned that “in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

10. And another Earth Day prediction from Kenneth Watt: “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

We can’t predict the local weather 3 days in advance. This is all a money/power-grabbing scam. We want a clean planet, so get China and India to clean up their act. But let’s not fear-monger about ridiculous doomsday scenarios.

By the way, my first indication that this was a scam is when they started calling carbon dioxide pollution instead of what it really is, plant food. When CO2 increases plants grow. When plants grow they produce more oxygen. The more plants the better.

Incidentally, when I took astronomy in the mid-80’s we were given the following assignment: Determine how these three events are related:

1. The polar caps on earth are melting.

2. The polar caps on mars are melting.

3. The planet Neptune is shining brighter.

Well, the common element is the sun going through an active phase (which it does on a regular, predictable basis.) When the sun is hotter the polar caps on earth and mars are reduced (No, it isn’t from evil humans driving SUV’s). And Neptune, which has a very reflective cloud cover, reflects more light when the sun is more active.

Much of what drives the earth’s climate cycle is the sun, our planet’s axis tilt, and our planet’s elliptical orbit. If the government wants to control the climate it needs to control those things.