TalkClimateChange

And then there’s the fact that significant climate change has occurred in the past, in very short periods of time, without the influence of man’s CO2 emissions.

This is an interesting article, “Green laws and regulation risk energy crisis, say Europe’s power companies”:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/07/energy.renewableenergy

Metyu,

(Start Pie in Sky Sermon)

but but but it is green! We can solve the world’s energy crisis with a 40,000 Sq Mile solar farm, We only need 20,000,000 wind turbines, do you not get it if we do not do this we are all going to die!

(Insert Conspiracy theory)

They are just greedy corporations trying to promote fossil fuel use! They are being paid by BIG OIL and BIG COAL to perpetuate the reliance on fossil fuels. By not developing new infrastructure they will increase demand and artifically inflate their profits! All they care about is money, not the planet!

(add in solution think)

We do not need more power we can all simply switch-off! If everyone saved 30% of their energy use and we do not grow economically and population wise we are fine!

(Reality Show)

What? companies are trying to protect themselves from heavy handed regulations and taxes and not spend billions of Euros on projects that may not even be profitable or meet future regulations, who would have thought that! ( Well… me for one! )

(End Sarcastic Rant)

Actually regarding the article…

I read some Paleo-Climate information last year from NOAA that I think was written in 2006.

One Statement at the end of the paper stuck with me since I read it.

“The best estimate is that about 50% of the observed global warming is due to greenhouse gas increases.”

PaleoClimate NOAA

Never made a ripple in the pond.

CH, I’m not sure if you’re expecting me to reply, or…?

Metyu,

Nope that rant was in direct response to the article you linked.

Sorry for the confuddlement.

CH

I am puzzled as to why reducing our carbon footprint is supposed to cost us “trillions of dollars”.

If I don’t fill up my car tank and ride my bike instead, how am I poorer? If I buy wind power and switch off appliances when not in use, have hot drinks and wear jumpers on cold days, cold drinks, turn off the AC and turn on the fan on hot days, hang the washing out to dry, in what way am I impoverished?

What a bizarre idea, that failing to consume and pollute will impoverish us. You have a strange idea of economics.

The point, Kiashu, is tipping.

In order to save us from the inevitable catastrophe, we have to reduce emissions from all sources by far more than is humanly possible. That will cost money, and inevitably be done badly if it is forced.

I’m actually with you on the whole - despite some of my ranting in recent comments. I believe we can and will deal with this problem naturally, through the dissemination of information and the natural evolution of humanity, including many of the measures you talking about becoming commonplace for many people.

It’s just that I get scared when people start putting pressure on governments - no good of it has come in the past, so why do we expect good to come from it in the future?

Post #6

And what does switching the national power supply to a wind generated source cost? Kittens and balloons?

How about if we all hug to stay warm.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were at least reasonable. I can see now you can join the rest of your lifestyle advocation group.

Here is your un-dyed wool sweater, knit hemp hat, bio-degradable recycled paper sign, go stand over there with the rest.

Whether our change can be fast enough to avoid some dreadful tipping point I don’t know, Metyu. And in fact no-one can give us a definite answer, since scientists are not agreed on exactly where these tipping points are. Many mechanisms are poorly understood. For example, few of the scenarios reviewed by the most recent IPCC report included diminished carbon uptake due to warming (eg warmer seas being able to absorb less carbon, warmer forests dying off, etc). It’s simply that the mechanisms are not well-understood enough to give us precise modelling down to a tenth of a degree centrigrade.

So all we can do is our best. If we manage to reduce only by 5% and it turns out to be enough, great! If we manage a 120% reduction and it’s not enough, then oh well, we gave it our best shot.

Will our best be enough? I don’t know. But our best will be better than what we’re doing now, and better than is commonly imagined. People do respond in a time of crisis - once they know what to do. I was briefly in a Red Cross Emergency Response Unit in NZ, and I was told that if there’s a car crash or collapsed building or whatever, most people will be standing around wondering what to do, panicking - and you should give everyone something useful to do, call the emergency number, direct passing traffic so that victims aren’t run over, fetch a blanket, whatever.

Many people are quite happy to do something, they just don’t know what to do. Will it be enough to avoid a tipping point? I don’t know. But we ought to give it a go.

Thanks for the article. I think it is important not to get evangelical about anything, but to approach issues with as much rationale and constructive thought as possible.

On the other hand, science does not deal in facts, per say, as much as probabilities… like saying “this is our best guess at what happened, is happening or will happen.

I’m of the party that believe the costs of inaction (in the face of the high probability that CO2, methane, etc. from human practices cause global warming) far exceed the costs of action.

I think the worst that could happen if we act is that we could find new energy industries to replace (peaking) oil and unhealthy coal and we could also continue to improve efficiency in many areas, from transportation to energy.

Investing in cleaner, more efficient technologies is a win-win situation.

The latest news about climate change is so alarming (the right wing would say alarmist) as to make many people want to plant their aching heads in the sand. Some scientists using advanced computer models now argue that if we want to stop the Earth from warming, the amount of carbon we should be emitting is … none. None? As in, zero? As in, shutting down the global industrial economy? After all, global energy demand is expected to accelerate until at least 2020. Yet attempts even to slow the rate of increase of carbon emissions have paralyzed world politics for more than a decade.