Is trying to alter the climate a waste of money?

[Clock]

Good news on humans dealing with climate change:
http://business.financialpost.com/20...nadian-policy/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. climate change report may shape Canadian policy

The U.S. National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee has released a Draft Climate Assessment Report.
The document, over 1,000 pages long, has 240 authors.
“It is expected that this report will shape the policy discourse for years to come, both in the US and Canada,” write Daniel Kirby, Jack Coop, Jennifer Fairfax and Patrick Welsh in a recent Osler Update. ”For Canadian businesses, the report may provide insight not only into future government policy but also the potential challenges and opportunities that may arise in the context of a changing climate.”


The report concludes that some degree of climate change is inevitable, but subject to mitigation in accordance with a comprehensive strategy.
“The draft report focuses on the economic and health challenges that climate change will pose, and stresses that changes will need to be made in order to cope with extreme weather and climate events,” the Osler authors write. “The draft report also notes that climate change can present new economic opportunities for those who are able to recognize and overcome the challenges posed by climate change. Finally, the draft report acknowledges that the international context must be considered in any comprehensive climate change plan.”
Given the Canadian government’s statements that it is leaning to a continental approach to climate change, the report’s impact is likely to be felt here.
“It is critical to note that the policy issues raised by the draft Report are not limited to ‘the environment’, but identify municipal (roads, bridges, storm drains), health (the spread of disease), leisure (lakes and rivers), and farming issues,” the Osler authors write.

[Clock]

Obama addresses climate change as on the issues he will be tacling during his 2nd term:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle7572821/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama inauguration speech stresses freedom, poverty, climate change

....Before diving into the afternoon celebrations, Mr. Obama previewed an ambitious second-term agenda, devoting several sentences in his address to the threat of global climate change and saying that failure to confront it “would betray our children and future generations.” Mr. Obama's focus on climate change was notable given that he barely dealt with the issue in his first term...

[Joe]

Obama addresses climate change as on the issues he will be tacling during his 2nd term:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle7572821/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama inauguration speech stresses freedom, poverty, climate change

....Before diving into the afternoon celebrations, Mr. Obama previewed an ambitious second-term agenda, devoting several sentences in his address to the threat of global climate change and saying that failure to confront it “would betray our children and future generations.” Mr. Obama's focus on climate change was notable given that he barely dealt with the issue in his first term...

As he spends us into oblivian . Climate change always happens nothing new its been changing since time began . Freedom without a second admendment isn possible . Trickle Up Poverty is his Motto . him and Queen Moochelle http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[Jazzy]

As he spends us into oblivian .

Oblivion.

Climate change always happens nothing new its been changing since time began .

Completely new.

This is the first time in Earth's history that two hundred million years' worth of previously-fossilized carbon has been swiftly reintroduced back into the atmosphere where it came from.

Earth's present predicament is similar ONLY to when it was "Snowball Earth", covered with ice from poles to the Equator, with its atmosphere continuously being enriched by carbon dioxide gas, from volcanoes, which couldn't be absorbed by the oceans. The "snowball" melted and the land roasted for many millions of years before land plants evolved and fixed the excess atmospheric carbon.

If you allow that carbon back it's merely going to do its job, and roast you all over again.

Freedom without a second admendment isn possible . Trickle Up Poverty is his Motto . him and Queen Moochelle http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I can't see the connection, except that you ain't seen poor yet. Wait till the oceans rise, why don't you?

[Mattnik]

As he spends us into oblivian . Climate change always happens nothing new its been changing since time began . Freedom without a second admendment isn possible . Trickle Up Poverty is his Motto . him and Queen Moochelle http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is real - the summary of the IPCC 2007 report covers the main points.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

[Joe]

Oblivion.


Completely new.

This is the first time in Earth's history that two hundred million years' worth of previously-fossilized carbon has been swiftly reintroduced back into the atmosphere where it came from.

Earth's present predicament is similar ONLY to when it was "Snowball Earth", covered with ice from poles to the Equator, with its atmosphere continuously being enriched by carbon dioxide gas, from volcanoes, which couldn't be absorbed by the oceans. The "snowball" melted and the land roasted for many millions of years before land plants evolved and fixed the excess atmospheric carbon.

If you allow that carbon back it's merely going to do its job, and roast you all over again.


I can't see the connection, except that you ain't seen poor yet. Wait till the oceans rise, why don't you?

Grammar police ? Coming from someone who lives on a Island and a volcanic one at that I would expect that to be the least of your worries . Sea level will not rise and if it does we move further inland . or in your case closer to the Volcano . When our economy collapses we will all be poor .

[Joe]

The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is real - the summary of the IPCC 2007 report covers the main points.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

Thank you but I think the IPCC has no creditably . Like the recent story on airline travel and the carbon footprint yet those who seem so concerned fly all the time . Hypocrites all of them . Whatsupwiththat has exposed them all .

[Mattnik]

Thank you but I think the IPCC has no creditably . Like the recent story on airline travel and the carbon footprint yet those who seem so concerned fly all the time . Hypocrites all of them . Whatsupwiththat has exposed them all .

I think that's a bit of a sweeping statement. What's wrong with the data?

[scombrid]

Whatsupwiththat

His surface station crusade didn't pan out. He set out to prove that warming wasn't occurring and that all the evidence for warming was based on surface station bias. That idea was a bust. The warming signal is still there with the "bad" stations removed. If you have some data that he has collected that proves otherwise I'm sure people would like to discuss the data.

[scombrid]

I think that's a bit of a sweeping statement. What's wrong with the data?

Apparently people that are concerned about pollution should cease all activity that uses energy or else they are hypocrits. I guess they are supposed to live in tents and get their message out by banging on hollow trees.

I know that seems to be the mindset I encounter here in Florida. If I argue that we need to improve average fuel economy for vehical travel I'm accused of being a hypocrit if I use any sort of combustion driven travel, even if my car gets 3X the fleet average economy or even if I've managed to cut my annual mileage in 1/2. If you use any fuel at all for anything you are not allowed to comment on fuel economy or else you are being a hypocrit.

[Joe]

Apparently people that are concerned about pollution should cease all activity that uses energy or else they are hypocrits. I guess they are supposed to live in tents and get their message out by banging on hollow trees.

I know that seems to be the mindset I encounter here in Florida. If I argue that we need to improve average fuel economy for vehical travel I'm accused of being a hypocrit if I use any sort of combustion driven travel, even if my car gets 3X the fleet average economy or even if I've managed to cut my annual mileage in 1/2. If you use any fuel at all for anything you are not allowed to comment on fuel economy or else you are being a hypocrit.

What Does the EPA DO ? increase ethanol in gasoline which lessens fuel mileage? Banging on hollow trees stopped after Al Gore invented the internet . Fly to Copenhagen FAIL Fly to RIO Fail . Fly to Davos Fail . Its called lead by example something not practiced .

[plane852]

I'd like to see an answer to Mattnik's question - what is wrong with the data?

[plane852]

Freedom discussion moved to:

http://metabunk.org/threads/1117-Deb...cond-Amendment

[Joe]

I'd like to see an answer to Mattnik's question - what is wrong with the data?

IPCC ? thats whats wrong . Is not even the least bit interesting or worth looking at . They have as much creditability as The United Nations which is ZERO Nada . We dont trust them therefor will not listen to anything they have to say period . They can blame themselves for making it all about Money taxes and politics . Agenda driven trash that most Americans wont stand for . Thats why their Cap And Trade bill was shotdown . http://climateerinvest.blogspot.com/...sidential.html

[Mattnik]

IPCC ? thats whats wrong . Is not even the least bit interesting or worth looking at . They have as much creditability as The United Nations which is ZERO Nada . We dont trust them therefor will not listen to anything they have to say period . They can blame themselves for making it all about Money taxes and politics . Agenda driven trash that most Americans wont stand for . Thats why their Cap And Trade bill was shotdown . http://climateerinvest.blogspot.com/...sidential.html

I'll take it you can't refute the data, then. You can put your head in the sand and ignore it, you may distrust the UN, but the facts still stand.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...ctions-of.html

[Jazzy]

Grammar police?

Charity begins at home. Get it right, and it leads to clarity.

Coming from someone who lives on a Island and a volcanic one at that I would expect that to be the least of your worries. Sea level will not rise and if it does we move further inland.

Except that most of humanity lives at the shoreline.

or in your case closer to the Volcano.

There are eighty-four of them.

When our economy collapses we will all be poor.

The majority of us will die. "Death" isn't "poverty".

[Joe]

Charity begins at home. Get it right, and it leads to clarity.


Except that most of humanity lives at the shoreline.


There are eighty-four of them.


The majority of us will die. "Death" isn't "poverty".

Charity begins at home. Get it right, and it leads to clarity.? Nope thats liberal failure to point out grammer . If that were true youd be correcting many on this site . We were born with feet and legs so we can move when in danger .

[Mattnik]

Can you explain why you think sea levels are not rising?

[Jazzy]

Nope thats liberal failure to point out grammer.

I don't understand you. You haven't made yourself CLEAR.

If that were true youd be correcting many on this site.

Grammar. A full stop immediately follows the last word in a sentence. There is no space. Abbreviations require an apostrophe. Yes I should correct more.

We were born with feet and legs so we can move when in danger.

And everything will be OK once you move? I never thought of that...

[Joe]

I don't understand you. You haven't made yourself CLEAR.


Grammar. A full stop immediately follows the last word in a sentence. There is no space. Abbreviations require an apostrophe. Yes I should correct more.


And everything will be OK once you move? I never thought of that...

When the Liberals when they are losing a debate they always correct grammar as a distraction . At 53 years I really dont care about my grammar . Its is important of course but it is irrelevant to me on the web .

[Jazzy]

When the Liberals when they are losing a debate they always correct grammar as a distraction . At 53 years I really dont care about my grammar . Its is important of course but it is irrelevant to me on the web .

I am not a liberal. And what are you, that you concentrate on my grammar corrections and not the other points?

The human race is altering the climate already. That's what the science says. The role of atmospheric CO2 was understood in the middle of the nineteenth century. There is no evidence for present-day attempts at geo-engineering. Persistent contrails and patents aren't evidence. The "chemtrail" myth is an evil meme fraudulently perpetrated.

Trying NOT to alter the climate any further by NOT combusting fossil fuels, is a darn sight cheaper than attempting to geo-engineer in the reverse direction.

And the sooner the better...

[Mattnik]

When the Liberals when they are losing a debate they always correct grammar as a distraction . At 53 years I really dont care about my grammar . Its is important of course but it is irrelevant to me on the web .

I'll ask once more and if you ignore it again I will assume that you're denying climate change for your own reasons; in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

What's wrong with the data? Why are sea levels not going to rise?

[Joe]

Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warming
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/...ole-in-global/

[Mattnik]

Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warming
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/...ole-in-global/

Rawls perfectly entitled to make his claims but it goes against the weight of evidence to the contrary. The consensus is he's wrong, see below for some general comments.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...d-8418195.html


Anyway, how does his claim invalidate the data presented in the IPCC report?

[Lunnaris2012]

Drifting into new thread territory. But the claims on that site HAVE been debunked. I'd recommend you pick your personal favorite SINGLE anti-AGW argument, and look it up here, and read the rebuttal:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

If you are not convinced, then start a new thread, and we can drill down to see the source of the disagreement.

Hello!!.At first sight,my impression about carbon tax to "fight" against climate change is,authorities(at least the most important ones)are pulling our legs to make us more poor and that is all.If those authorities,were really worried about the planet...¿Would not they eliminate the planned obsolescence?.

[Biggerdave]

Hello!!.At first sight,my impression about carbon tax to "fight" against climate change is,authorities(at least the most important ones)are pulling our legs to make us more poor and that is all.If those authorities,were really worried about the planet...¿Would not they eliminate the planned obsolescence?.

There is an entire field that covers this called Environmental Economics. I did a masters in the subject and essentially it is about putting an intrinsic fiscal value in our environment. Why? Because money talks and people will not change their behaviour unless there is something in it for them.

[Lunnaris2012]

What behaviour?Poor people´s behaviour?Companies´s behaviour?Bankers´s behaviour?.It is the eternal story about our sins&taxes.What about a economy based on recourses instead the enslaver banking con?

[hemi]

There is an entire field that covers this called Environmental Economics. I did a masters in the subject and essentially it is about putting an intrinsic fiscal value in our environment. Why? Because money talks and people will not change their behaviour unless there is something in it for them.

Indeed. One of the science podcasts I listen to (Guardian Science Weekly) covered this topic in one of their latest shows. Well worth a listen...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/au...er-food-energy

[hemi]

What behaviour?Poor people´s behaviour?Companies´s behaviour?Bankers´s behaviour?.

Mostly business/corporate behaviour. A lot of environmental resources that get used (water, air, soil) don't have a money value applied to that usage, so by giving them monetary value, you force corporates (or whoever) to make the most efficient use of them, as opposed to just using as much as they want because it's 'free'.

It is the eternal story about our sins&taxes.What about a economy based on recourses instead the enslaver banking con?

That's kind of the idea - to give *all* resources their true value, and to have that value included when weighing up corporate costs and expenses.

[Lunnaris2012]

Mostly business/corporate behaviour. A lot of environmental resources that get used (water, air, soil) don't have a money value applied to that usage, so by giving them monetary value, you force corporates (or whoever) to make the most efficient use of them, as opposed to just using as much as they want because it's 'free'.



That's kind of the idea - to give *all* resources their true value, and to have that value included when weighing up corporate costs and expenses.

I continue thinking,"giving monetary value" to every thing,is only capitalism to treat favorably the elite.What about eliminating bilt-in obsolescence,using solar energy,helium,hydrogen...things like that?

[Cairenn]

Because none of those are ready for 'prime time. Also there are environmental costs to them as well. Take solar, it requires materials to make, they have to be mined. Helium as an energy source? I had not heard about using it.

At this time, hydrogen shows some promise, but it is not economically viable. That is one to points of including the 'hidden costs' into the costs of fossil fuel energy.

An example. I make jewelry. There are the costs of materials and the cost of my time and of 'overhead'. If I spend $10 on materials and then spend an hour making a necklace, I then need to figure my ENTIRE cost. One thing that folks often forget to include is the hidden 'time'. I had to drive to a show, or surf the net, and find and select the beads, cost of gasoline, door fee, internet. I had store them (hmm, storage items and space--a hidden cost), then I had to select the beads and plan the design. I may have taken a class on the technique I use--more time and money. I Make it, then I have to do something to sell it. If I decide to use the web, I will need to take good pictures of it (need a good camera, and a light tent) , edit them (heed a program like photoshop). Then there are fees, either for a web site, or for sites like Ebay and Etsy. Some likes it and orders it, now it must be packaged and mailed. (since I need to be able to mail them, I will have to buy packaging ahead of time and it needs to be stored--another cost of money and time. If I take them to a show/festival, there is the cost of the booth, and often of jury fees. Time is spent loading the car, setting up the booth, working the booth, tearing it down, and unpacking it at home. The equipment needs a place to store it. I have to travel to the show, there is food bought at the show (a hamburger that one might pay $4.00 for a Micky Ds, will often be $10 or more. Sometimes there are motel fees.

Often at shows, one will see and 'Holly Homemaker' with a booth selling jewelry. She wants to get the cost of her materials back, so she spends $10 on beads and then asks $15 for it and she 'thinks' she is making a 50% profit. Nancy Newcomer, has heard that you should markup you jewelry, 3 times the cost, so she prices it at $30. Polly the pro, understands all those hidden costs, so she charges $45 for the necklace.

Right now, fossil fuels are more like Holly and Nancy, while alternative energy is pricing like Polly.

[Lunnaris2012]

Yes Cairenn,but the subject is one more tax(or two or three...) to pay because of the "climate change".Both ideas are different.

A friend who is very erudite,told me about helium as an energy source instead nuclear which is becoming a serious option,at least in France.

[hemi]

I continue thinking,"giving monetary value" to every thing,is only capitalism to treat favorably the elite.

But the opposite is true. As pointed out, many corporates and businesses don't pay *anything* for many of the resources they use. How is enforcing some sort of monetary value on the water/air/biomass that they use, where they currently get it for free, treating *them* favourably?

[Jazzy]

Right now, fossil fuels are more like Holly and Nancy, while alternative energy is pricing like Polly.

Do you ever get the feeling you're being totally ignored? LOL.

[Lunnaris2012]

Hemi,but this current situation is the lesser of two evils¿Is not it?.Bankers&politicians make already a looot of money and they are not from the REAL ECONOMY,they are parasites.

[hemi]

Hemi,but this current situation is the lesser of two evils¿Is not it?.Bankers&politicians make already a looot of money and they are not from the REAL ECONOMY,they are parasites.

I'm not sure about Spain, but politicians here in New Zealand don't make a lot of money. There are certainly some rich bankers.

But I'm not sure what your point is. The 'current' situation is that corporates and businesses can use air/water and many other natural resources without any need to account or pay for that usage. How is this the lesser of two evils?

The (general) theory behind placing a monetary value on environmental features is, as stated above, to encourage more efficient use of them. This is obviously a good thing.

What is your concern, exactly?

[Lunnaris2012]

My concern is I do not believe that story.
In Spain bankers&politicians rob people too much money as in USA.Politicians "work" only seven years or less and retire with a very good monthly sum,for example.

[hemi]

In what way does putting a price on environmental resources benefit bankers and politicians?

(Even assuming it does, it's still a good thing for the environment. If making a few people richer is the price we as a society pay for making our economies more sustainable -- whilst simultaneously protecting the environment -- then, again, how is that necessarily a bad thing?)

[Jazzy]

Yes Cairenn, but the subject is one more tax (or two or three...) to pay because of the "climate change". Both ideas are different.

The "tax" generates "income" to be spent on research and development. If this R & D is not carried out, we shall be in much worse trouble than merely being "short of money".

A friend who is very erudite, told me about helium as an energy source instead nuclear which is becoming a serious option, at least in France.

They must be mining it on the Moon, then. When did they get there?

The obsolescence planned into mass-produced goods reflects a vision of a better future. It isn't possible to design any "perfect" thing, because change is demanded by both fashion and innovation. This applies to most things.

Everything either goes out of fashion, and/or is superseded by superior product. All manufacturers attempt to balance the longevity of their product to its natural sales lifetime. It's more profitable that way.

"Only stainless steel cutlery lasts forever." - Jazzy. Except when in the hands of Uri Geller, of course...

[Cairenn]

Yep I do.