So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Lurch

I just don't get how anyone can make an argument against reducing GHG emissions in the current environment. The argument boils down to reducing emissions slows growth, hurts the economy and the negative impact is not 100% proven. So, if even if we accept all of these negative things, reducing emissions accomplishes at least the following:
1. Reduced use of fossil fuels (potential geopolitical benefits by reducing imports from OPEC, air quality benefits, extend life of a finite resource.)
2. Spur investment in alternative fuels
3. Helps developing countries advance in a clean(er) fashion to the extent that offset trading occurs
4. Put a price on pollution, something that clearly has negative impacts that are not reflected in the current economy.
5. Lower health care costs (seen various studies suggesting this is a large potential benefit)

All of these things occur with a price tag less than the Iraq war, even at the high end of estimates from what I've seen. Perhaps there is a net cost to the economy, perhaps not. It depends on your bias, I imagine. I personally suspect a short-lived adjustment (5 to 10 years) of lower economic growth, then back to business as usual as people, firms and governments adapt to the new reality.

Now, if you add to these benefits the risk adjusted possibility the global warming fearmongers are correct, it is not even a question of whether to act or whether to twiddle our thumbs and wait for THE PROOF. As a very simple example, suppose lowering GHG emissions reduces severe hurricanes by 1 hurricane per year (many have suggested severe weather will be amplified by global warming). Katrina caused $25b damage in the southern US alone. If there is a 10% likelihood that the severe weather theory is right and just one less severe hurricane per year is the only benefit, you are looking at a $2.5 billion risk adjusted benefit every year.

Obviously, above is a simplistic example. However, unless you believe there is basically a 0% chance that reducing GHG emissions can impact global warming and any/all of the associated damages, there is an expected net benefit to acting now. Even the downside has some benefits, and IMO arguing against action mathematically requires you to take an extreme position that there is 0% chance we are having an impact and/or there is nothing we can do about it anyway.

Nice post Lurch! I wanted to make sure this made it to the next full page, and not trapped at the bottom of a page rolled over, as there are some excellent points that should be discussed.

[Bingo]

I'm with you Lurch .... and in no way have I suggested that more environmental processes not be pursued. I'm not pro pollution as I stated.

I just like the incentive programs to foster innovation more than the industry curtailments that could cause other economical problems.

If you keep this whole thing at that point I wouldn't have a problem ... but when hysteria gets added to it you get the planet dropping almost every other problem and running to the one issue to the detriment of others.

I just don't think the "science is [completely] in" and because of that we should slow down and take some time to make sure fear mongering going in either direction doesn't rule the day.

And Lanny ... point taken on the nat gas thing ... I wasn't trying to suggest that as a researched fact. I trade natural gas which gives me a myopic view of the product.

Just looked it up though ... Canada is 59% hydro, but the bigger picture, the US is 71.1% reliant on fossil fuels to generate electricity. They're just not ready to make that move. It's still wildly ineffecient. (Hydro only 6.5%). All numbers 2004 so obviously the ratios have changed.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

^^^^ I was pretty surprised myself when I saw the stats. The US is really hooked on fossil fuels. It's going to require an intervention to get this addict off the junk. Fortunately this country has an incredible human spirit that can accomplish so much when it is challenged. I would say that most countries would be screwed in this situation, but I honestly believe that America COULD make a quick transition (5-10 years) to a new energy standrad if pushed. Canada is in a very enviable position IMO. Abundant resources, lots of hydro sites, lots of open spaces for nuke plants, and one of the best reactor systems in the world. All its going to take is a major challenge and I think things could change for the better all around.

[Lurch]

Thanks Lanny.

I honestly don't give a whit whether the GHG argument as it relates to global warming is right or wrong - I think carbon and all other pollutants are a clear market externality that is creating economic inefficiency. I think pricing these things will force the economy to adapt - we would become less energy intensive mostly b/c the waste built into the economy via artificially low energy prices will be driven out. IMO, burning fossil fuels has clear costs that are not recognized in a market due to the externality issue, i.e. public cost but no private party faces the cost. Clearly the size of the externality is unknown and that is where the global warming question enters the equation for me, but it seems clear to me it is certainly there via acid rain, smog, increased health issues, depletion of finite resources, etc.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm with you Lurch .... and in no way have I suggested that more environmental processes not be pursued. I'm not pro pollution as I stated.

I just like the incentive programs to foster innovation more than the industry curtailments that could cause other economical problems.

If you keep this whole thing at that point I wouldn't have a problem ... but when hysteria gets added to it you get the planet dropping almost every other problem and running to the one issue to the detriment of others.

I just don't think the "science is [completely] in" and because of that we should slow down and take some time to make sure fear mongering going in either direction doesn't rule the day.

And Lanny ... point taken on the nat gas thing ... I wasn't trying to suggest that as a researched fact. I trade natural gas which gives me a myopic view of the product.

Just looked it up though ... Canada is 59% hydro, but the bigger picture, the US is 71.1% reliant on fossil fuels to generate electricity. They're just not ready to make that move. It's still wildly ineffecient. (Hydro only 6.5%). All numbers 2004 so obviously the ratios have changed.

At this point it's almost philosophical. You use terms like hysteria and science not being in and don't want to see havoc wreaked . Fair enough point of view.
I on the other hand use terms like head in sand, denial and vested interest. I'd rather see some havoc wreaked in economies than what I fear is already happening to the planet.
I don't know what other subject on this earth seems to require doubters (not a judgment but an accurate term no?) to have 100% buy in by all science/parties. Wasn't like that in Iraq for example, and Bingo, aren't you the person that in war, believes that you need to stir the pot? I remember your stance on Iraq, how it wasn't handled right, didn't go in for the right reasons, but still something should be stirred. (Hope I got the gist of what I remember). I guess you aren't really saying "do nothing" anyway. And that's the philosophical part, you're prepared to sit back a bit and do a few things, I think it's more crucial to be a bit zealous about it.

[MarchHare]

I was pretty surprised myself when I saw the stats. The US is really hooked on fossil fuels. It's going to require an intervention to get this addict off the junk. Fortunately this country has an incredible human spirit that can accomplish so much when it is challenged. I would say that most countries would be screwed in this situation, but I honestly believe that America COULD make a quick transition (5-10 years) to a new energy standrad if pushed.

Bill Maher wrote in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, that George Bush should have made it a national priority to eliminate the dependance of United States on Middle-Eastern oil. In much the same way that Kennedy challenged America to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade (an endeavour in which, of course, the United States was successful), Bush should have done the same.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flame On

At this point it's almost philosophical. You use terms like hysteria and science not being in and don't want to see havoc wreaked . Fair enough point of view.
I on the other hand use terms like head in sand, denial and vested interest. I'd rather see some havoc wreaked in economies than what I fear is already happening to the planet.
I don't know what other subject on this earth seems to require doubters (not a judgment but an accurate term no?) to have 100% buy in by all science/parties. Wasn't like that in Iraq for example, and Bingo, aren't you the person that in war, believes that you need to stir the pot? I remember your stance on Iraq, how it wasn't handled right, didn't go in for the right reasons, but still something should be stirred. (Hope I got the gist of what I remember). I guess you aren't really saying "do nothing" anyway. And that's the philosophical part, you're prepared to sit back a bit and do a few things, I think it's more crucial to be a bit zealous about it.

Yikes ... Iraq again.

Not sure I wanted to stir the pot, but no I wasn't a "leave it be and hope the bad people just leave us alone guy"

If this was just philosophy I'd probably be a little less concerned. My worry is the mass amounts of capital and attention this issue is getting all the while shouting down anyone that disagrees when it is far from settled given the isses with modeling etc that are rampant in predicting weather for next week, let alone the next century.

But past that I'm not looking as pollution as my goal in life, in fact far from it. I'm not sure what a 100% green person is, but I'd have to be somewhere in the middle to high middle I'd hope, and not a guy just ignoring the pending issue for a second.

People (all of us) tend to gravitate from one world issue to another and it seems like this issue has lots of merit, but perhaps a bit of an over zealous take to it that I think should slow up a bit.

if the science is really in then we're all on board and lets fix it. But I'd hate to see some very damaging decisions made in the meantime that were before their time, or not the correct ones at all.

[Lurch]

Not all that important, but working in the power sector I'd like to know where you got the low efficiency # for hydro (6.5%). Since hydro is purely mechanical/potential energy in nature, it should be incredibly efficient. I've seen #'s like 50% to 90% of potential energy is converted into electricity, depending on the size and application. Just curious where you got your # from. Even solar power (commercial not cutting edge) is now over 10% efficient based on the stuff I've seen.

Just looked it up though ... Canada is 59% hydro, but the bigger picture, the US is 71.1% reliant on fossil fuels to generate electricity. They're just not ready to make that move. It's still wildly ineffecient. (Hydro only 6.5%). All numbers 2004 so obviously the ratios have changed.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Not all that important, but working in the power sector I'd like to know where you got the low efficiency # for hydro (6.5%). Since hydro is purely mechanical/potential energy in nature, it should be incredibly efficient. I've seen #'s like 50% to 90% of potential energy is converted into electricity, depending on the size and application. Just curious where you got your # from. Even solar power (commercial not cutting edge) is now over 10% efficient based on the stuff I've seen.

As well, gas must be burned to either heat a vessel to produce steam to drive the same turbine, or jetted to drive the turbine. Gravity drives the turbine in a hydro power plant, and gravity is free (for the time being anyways) so only infrastructure costs impact the cost of power generation. With natural gas, you must first find the gas (exploration cost), extract the gas (extraction costs), refine the gas (refinement costs), transport the gas (transportation costs), and then burn it in a plant (infrastructire costs). That has to be more expensive and way more inefficient than using gravity to drive that turbine. The infrastructire costs of hydro are probably massive in comparison for petroleum generation, but one is 100% clean and the other is a contributor to our problem. Cost-benefit...

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The infrastructire costs of hydro are probably massive in comparison for petroleum generation, but one is 100% clean and the other is a contributor to our problem. Cost-benefit...

First off, I want to say I do agree with the meat and potatoes of your post- just wanted to point a couple of things out.

As you say the biggest expense with Hydro is the building of the plant; which can take many years. One of the stumbling blocks is the environmental impact (maybe ecosystem impact is a better term) of turning plains into a lake. I know when I lived in Winnipeg we were always hearing about the "impact" that it was going to have on the ecosystem.

For example; how many of us would mind seeing Elbow Falls turned into a hydro electric plant. Obviously the Elbow rivier is too small to generate a significant amount of power, but the question remains of how the NIMBY crowd would feel about a Hydro project going on the Bow or the South Saskatchewan river.

To answer my own question, I think that we have to look at the lesser evil regarding the envirnment; and realize that using gravity to generate power has to be better than buring fossil fuels. And hopefully this is the type of message we need to give to envirnmentalists.

And this coming from a guy who is still in the "not entirely sure of the human impact on Global Warming."

[Lurch]

[quote=Lanny_MacDonald;895730]...With natural gas, you must first find the gas (exploration cost), extract the gas (extraction costs), refine the gas (refinement costs), transport the gas (transportation costs), and then burn it in a plant (infrastructire costs). That has to be more expensive and way more inefficient than using gravity to drive that turbine. quote]

You can't really count all those gas infrastructure costs as they are already reflected in the price of the natural gas. Basically, you should only look at gas price and gas power plant infrastructure.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

...The infrastructire costs of hydro are probably massive in comparison for petroleum generation, but one is 100% clean and the other is a contributor to our problem. Cost-benefit...

Do you not care at all about the ecosystems that are destroyed by damming up a river? How about all the carbon-eating trees that must be killed...and sometimes get left to decompose, releasing their stored carbon back into the air?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Good points on damn fellas, never considered that obvious environmental impact as being so great. Protecting ecosystems is of course the most important factor in what we humans should be doing at this time, so more hydro would have to be examined carefully.

[Cube Inmate]

Good (IMO) blog discussing alternative energy sources: Linky

His conclusion is that the only energy sources which are even remotely practical with current engineering and are scaleable enough to make a dent in the USA's fossil fuel usage are nuclear fission and (maybe) geothermal.

The author might have an agenda, but why not read his work anyhow? Raises some points about the "popular" alternatives (e.g. bio-fuels) and the flaws that get so easily glossed over (like scaleability).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Bill Maher wrote in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, that George Bush should have made it a national priority to eliminate the dependance of United States on Middle-Eastern oil. In much the same way that Kennedy challenged America to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade (an endeavour in which, of course, the United States was successful), Bush should have done the same.

Yep, I remember that too.

Thats why, IMO, Bush went from having a chance to be a great President, to possibly having a 'negative' effect, or no effect at all. Basically just serving his term.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yikes ... Iraq again.

I haven't raised Iraq in ages.

[Azure]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...B-DCCB00B51A12

Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

Just a few of them...
_________________________________

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles.

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta.

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists.

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada.

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw.

____________________________

Are all these guys bought and paid for by the oil industry too?

Like I said before, while the debate about global warming is over...what causes it, or what is the MOST Important factor...has still not been figured out yet.

So excuse me if I don't agree with implementing the Kyoto Protocol.

I like what Lurch said...very much.

1. Reduced use of fossil fuels (potential geopolitical benefits by reducing imports from OPEC, air quality benefits, extend life of a finite resource.)
2. Spur investment in alternative fuels
3. Helps developing countries advance in a clean(er) fashion to the extent that offset trading occurs
4. Put a price on pollution, something that clearly has negative impacts that are not reflected in the current economy.
5. Lower health care costs (seen various studies suggesting this is a large potential benefit)

Anyone can agree with those.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

That blog you posted from is not very accurate. It lists Patterson, Evans and Shaviv as having shifted their position, but the fact is that none of them have ever been on any side but the one where they presently reside. It would also be interesting to know what their position is, and what they disagree with. The information in the blog is vague at best. Maybe if they turned education back over to the states...

[ernie]

Along the global warming debate lines...

There is an interview in the new Discover magazine (the issue isn't online yet apparently) with a Danish scientist who studies cloud formation and and cosmic radiation.

His contention is that in the current global warming models cloud formation and cosmic radiation is not taken into account. He feels that this is most likely the biggest factor in global warming. I haven't read his science etc but what is interesting is how he has been shut out by the global warming "scientists" as trying to deny something is happening. He doesn't deny that CO2 levels are increasing and that this is contributing to global warming. His contention is that it is in all likelihood minor and there are other, bigger factors that are not accounted for in the models. And these factors are known to be factors but the models basically fail to take them into account as cloud formation, cosmic radiation etc are extremely difficult to model (something his work is addressing).

Anyways a bit of an interesting read.

And no he isn't funded by any oil companies. Most of his funding comes from a foundation set up by Carlsberg.

[Azure]

There are a lot of scientists who acknowledge the existence of AGW....but still think there are other causes of global warming...perhaps some more significant than what humans are doing.