TalkClimateChange

What if the climate does not respond to the CO2 reduction in the way that the green team seems to think it will? There is no evidence that reducing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will have the desired effect of reversing that 0.7C increase in global mean temperature. I can also guarantee it will NOT stop sea-level rise, storms, flooding, drought, extinctions famine and disease. They have been around as long as we have, not going anywhere.

Perhaps it won’t decrease the current temperature, or the other problems, but it will likely stop the problems from becoming worse.

Phil, the problem is for the green team is that things are not getting worse, they are the same problems we have faced for our entire existence. Where are the inceases of occurances in any of these areas? Sea-Level rise is constant and unchanged from the 20th century. Storms are no more frequent or intense then in the past. Species extinctions are at the same rate as they were, so where is all the effects we are trying to save ourselves from?

ClimateHeretic is correct. The question I keep asking the AGW fans is simple: Name one environmental prediction of catastrophy that has come true! I can’t imagine living my life in such a state of fear that seems to grip the envirochondriacs. So come on guys, show us one disaster prediction that has actually happened. No fair using terms such as, might, could, it is possible that, may, etc., etc

The United States once again demonstrates that they are for the world only when it is to their benefit.

Surely this would be an appropriate time to talk about economic and political sanctions from the UN to stem the damage done to the rest of the world in the form of CO2 pollution and political sabotage…

This is hardly surprising I suppose. The special interest control of the US poltical system doesn’t resemble the democracy and liberty the americans try to impose on others. But it is very sad. Without the US here can be no agreement from China. Without China there’s no India. Without them all we’re all in a lot of trouble…

Once again, please god save us from George W. Bush…

Craig (Brisbane, Australia).

Look at the numbers based on a 25% reduction from 1990 levels.

1990 estimates…emissions (from fossil fuel) of about 21 billion tons, population of about 5.3 billion, or about or about 4 tons per person.

2005…emissions of 28 billion tons, population of about 6.5 billion, or about 4.3 tons per person.

With a 25% reduction from 1990 levels… emissions of about 16 billion tons, population of 6.5 billion, or about 2.5 tons per person, or a 42% reduction per person. And that is on a world average basis, with the developed countries having a greater drop.

What that does that do to the world economy and the USA economy? How great is the reduction in standard of living?

And any policy is not in a vacuum. What happens to tax revenues? What happens to the size of government?What happens to tax rates? If tax rates are raised to offset the revenue loss, the economy gets another hit.

IMHO, the elected politicians are aware of this and will not pass any meaningful reductions. The appointed politicians are another story, they will continue to beat the drum on AGW because to them it is risk-less.

Robert,

It doesn’t have to do any damage to our economy, in fact it has the potential to boost the economy if we make the reductions through smart technology. There are other options apart from switching everything off.

This could be a big opportunity for developed nations like the US to lead the world in green technology instead of becoming increasingly isolated on green policy.

And your argument also forgets the huge cost that changing climate will bring as we re-engineer the worlds infrastructure to cope with different demands.

Phil,

>>in fact it has the potential to boost the economy if we make the reductions through smart technology<>There are other options apart from switching everything off.<<

And yet, the democrats just pushed a bill through which would effectively do just that. The cost of all energy is estimated to go up 35 - 45% within 4 - 7 years. As ClimateHeretic says, show me one dire prediction that has come true, and hasn’t been cooked up by the alarmests, and I’ll get in line. As I’ve said before, I’ve made all the lifestyle changes I’m willing to make without some real proof.

Don’t count on “smart technology” helping with anything. Scientists and engineers are not held in very high respect these days, and many of them are out on the streets looking for jobs. Basic science research needs a constant flow of money to keep working. No money, no research.

Everyone should be hoping two things: 1) Hope that the climate really is warming, and 2) Hope that it doesn’t stop warming. Warm climates are good for people and agriculture and animals. If the world starts cooling, then we are really going to need the scientists and engineers, just to stay alive.

Phil,

The forced reduction of co2 will both decrease overall production and increase costs. Non-fossil fuel energy sources are not economically viable…. if they were government mandates and subsidies would not be required.

My main points in my post were the 1) the size of the proposed deceases in co2 , and 2) that policies have both unintended and unforeseen effects.

You wrote “And your argument forgets … the cost …” I did not make that argument one way or another. Please keep your criticism of what I wrote to what I wrote.

Your statement that “…it [green energy] has the potential to boost the economy…” is incorrect. Assets moved to ‘green’ energy would have been used to satisfy other human wants and needs, so there is no net boost. Do you think that a natural disaster, and the diversion of assets it causes, ‘boosts’ an economy?
In your first post, you said that a reduction in co2 emissions may not reduce the current temperature. What is the ideal temperature of the earth? For that matter, what is the current temperature?

>>You wrote “And your argument forgets … the cost …” I did not make that argument one way or another. Please keep your criticism of what I wrote to what I wrote.

The cost of adaptation to a warming climate is central to any argument on climate economics, so I stand by my criticism.

And, since the Western world’s economic growth is currently based heavily on innovation and not on manufacturing then green technologies, is a source of economic growth since we are running out of things that we can do better than the rest of the world…

Phil,

Here is a story on the Bali conference

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c

If the link doesn’t work, there are two stories on Drudge.

Phil,

Isn’t investment in “green technology” exactly what Bush has been pushing for? Unfortunately, his first proposal, biofuels, won’t help with anything except maybe a bunch of votes from farmers.