Global Warming and Hot Air

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, February 7, 2007; A17

You could be excused for thinking that we'll soon do something serious about global warming. Last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- an international group of scientists -- concluded that, to a 90 percent probability, human activity is warming the Earth. Earlier, Democratic congressional leaders made global warming legislation a top priority; and 10 big U.S. companies (including General Electric and DuPont) endorsed federal regulation. Strong action seems at hand.

Don't be fooled. The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which -- in all modern societies -- buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming.

Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to "do something" with skepticism, disbelief or contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming. Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets created by new environmental regulations. As for editorialists and pundits, there's no explanation except superficiality or herd behavior.

Anyone who honestly examines global energy trends must reach these harsh conclusions. In 2004, world emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, the main greenhouse gas) totaled 26 billion metric tons. Under plausible economic and population assumptions, CO2emissions will grow to 40 billion tons by 2030, projects the International Energy Agency. About three-quarters of the increase is forecast to come from developing countries, two-fifths from China alone. The IEA expects China to pass the United States as the largest source of carbon dioxide by 2009.

Poor countries won't sacrifice economic growth -- lowering poverty, fostering political stability -- to placate the rich world's global warming fears. Why should they? On a per-person basis, their carbon dioxide emissions are only about one-fifth the level of rich countries. In Africa, less than 40 percent of the population even has electricity.

Nor will existing technologies, aggressively deployed, rescue us. The IEA studied an "alternative scenario" that simulated the effect of 1,400 policies to reduce fossil fuel use. Fuel economy for new U.S. vehicles was assumed to increase 30 percent by 2030; the global share of energy from "renewables" (solar, wind, hydropower, biomass) would quadruple, to 8 percent. The result: by 2030, annual carbon dioxide emissions would rise 31 percent instead of 55 percent. The concentration levels of emissions in the atmosphere (which presumably cause warming) would rise.

Since 1850, global temperatures have increased almost 1 degree Celsius. Sea level has risen about seven inches, though the connection is unclear. So far, global warming has been a change, not a calamity. The IPCC projects wide ranges for the next century: temperature increases from 1.1 degrees Celsius to 6.4 degrees; sea level rises from seven inches to almost two feet. People might easily adapt; or there might be costly disruptions (say, frequent flooding of coastal cities resulting from melting polar ice caps).

I do not say we should do nothing, but we should not delude ourselves. In the United States, the favored remedy is "cap and trade." It's environmental grandstanding -- politicians pretending they're doing something.

Companies would receive or buy quotas ("caps") to emit carbon dioxide. To exceed the limits, they'd acquire some other company's unused quotas ("trade"). How simple. Just order companies to cut emissions. Businesses absorb all the costs.

But in practice, no plausible "cap and trade" program would significantly curb global warming. To do that, quotas would have to be set so low as to shut down the economy. Or the cost of scarce quotas would skyrocket and be passed along to consumers through much higher energy prices. Neither outcome seems likely. Quotas would be lax. The program would be a regulatory burden with little benefit. It would also be a bonanza for lobbyists, lawyers and consultants, as industries and localities besieged Washington for exceptions and special treatment. Hello, influence-peddling and sleaze.

What we really need is a more urgent program of research and development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of carbon dioxide. Naturally, there's no guarantee that socially acceptable and cost-competitive technologies will result. But without them, global warming is more or less on automatic pilot. Only new technologies would enable countries -- rich and poor -- to reconcile the immediate imperative of economic growth with the potential hazards of climate change.

Meanwhile, we could temper our energy appetite. I've argued before for a high oil tax to prod Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. The main aim would be to limit insecure oil imports, but it would also check CO2emissions. Similarly, we might be better off shifting some of the tax burden from wages and profits to a broader tax on energy or carbon. That would favor more fuel-efficient light bulbs, appliances and industrial processes.

It's a debate we ought to have -- but probably won't. Any realistic response would be costly, uncertain and no doubt unpopular. That's one truth too inconvenient for almost anyone to admit.

Daniel should be proud of the fact that he is one of the few Americans who hasn't fallen for the current administration's propagandist nonsense with respect to global warming. Over 90% of the world's most distinguished scientists can't be wrong. The lack of knowledge regarding this issue in America is ridiculous.

You're just jealous because only America can make a difference. If we choose to ignore the global warming cry, then all the efforts by you guys will not mean squat.

Once again only America matters

I bet you picked 90% as a random number that you have no backing for what so ever.

But making up facts isn't new for you guys.

I think that was a joke. Let's hope so.



http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/21/news/climate.php

Leading scientists conservatively estimate that the likelihood of human actions being responsible for the sudden global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution to be over 90% certain. Excuse my mistake.

For what? Where do that majority of our rescources that we need/use to sustain ourselves come from?

Not America.

Global interdependence. Welcome to the 2000s.

A global economy..?

/gasp

can't we all just get along?

I like DN- I do. He is a genuine human being,but a little uneven at times and easily excited. That doesn't make him bad, it makes him human.

Is it just me but wasn't there a journal out of england recently that stated that the sun was the main reason for Global Warming? Did I just dream that? Nope- it actually happened.

The thing I enjoy the most in these debates when people like you get involved,you are so obviously completely and utterly powerless it induces pity from me. If the U.S. doesn't play along, you are screwed,and that makes me sad for you because I put myself in your shoes and I think,"What if I was completely reliant on somebody else to take action? That would suck." The good thing is, in the U.S. we don't let it get that far- we make things happen, while you wish you could,which is a travesty for your people,it really is. You should try power on sometime- it feels great,and fits like a glove.

Happy wishful thinking. Cheerio.

Lets all realize that there is no significant proof that global warming is of anthropogenic origin. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that makes up a VERY VERY SMALL percent of the total greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. Before we start listening to people going crazy about the issue, research the chemistry behind it. I have research at the collegiate level on the subject.

In response to your comment about 90% of the world's scientists. 100% of the world's scientists used to think that the world was flat. When we are talking about areas of chemistry that are new, there is no definite answer until a fact is stated.

Sorry, but this is just wrong. Most educated people since the 3rd century B.C. knew that the world is spherical.

The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.

I think it was clear the point of my post. I could think of other examples where scientists were all agreed on a theory and it turned out to be false.

Let's hear some...bonus points for one in which the fate of the world hangs in the balance.

I dont have much time, but how about the atom, used to be the smallest particle.

Right...how can we trust scientists after this fiasco? They improved on our knowledge of the universe! Sorry for the sarcasm, but this sort of this is what's expected in science. Atomic theory is not exactly obsolete after the discovery of quantum mechanics. Similarly, the laws of Newtonian physics still apply in all but the most extreme situations despite Einstein's theory of relativity. It's hardly reason to stop believing in gravity. The atom certainly still exists and is still pretty fracking small.

2000 respected climatologists met in Paris recently and unanimously stated that there is over a 90% chance that human activity is a significant contributor to climate change and that the results will be devastating. Yet many people on this forum think we should give equal credence to 3 donkey scientists lining their pockets with oil industry money. It's complete madness.

I really was curious to see if you could come up with an example in which 100% of scientist agreed on something which turned out to be 100% wrong. It's definitely an improvement on the first though.

I think somebody's been watching too much Battlestar.

Also, the point about the atom was pretty fracking stupid.

That's because I'm a huge nerd.



My point about the atom? How so?

Water Vapor (H2O) due to it's higher average concentration, has more impact on the greenhouse effect than any other greenhouse gas. However, CO2, largely due to it's linear shape, reacts very strongly with several bands of IR that are emitted from the Earth's surface. So despite its lower concentrations, it is a very potent greenhouse gas and easily number 2 on the greenhouse effect list. Ozone (O3), is third on the list, followed by several more minor absorbers/emitters... All of this is hard science; there is a greenhouse effect, no one argues that, and the relative contributions of individual gases are pretty much known. Here's just one link, although many studies have been done trying to decipher specific contributions from individual greenhouse gases...

http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_i...butions-GHG.htm

You are correct, the reason that H2O and CO2 are greenhouse gases is because of the linear shape and their ability to stretch asymetrically and to bend. This is what keeps the energy inside the earth and warms the planet. However, even though CO2 is number two on the list, it is pretty far behind. I would compare it to Rafael Nadal playing Roger Federer at Wimbledon, even though he is number two, he doesn't have much of a chance. Until it is a proven fact I do not believe that it is my duty to go out and by a hybrid car and do everything I can to downgrade the amount of CO2 being produced. I compare that to someone like Daniel who is a vegan. They choose that course because it is something that they believe in deeply (I know it is also sometimes for health purposes, I don't know which one is DN's view) and they feel that they are making a small difference that might lead in the future to a larger one; however, I highly doubt that if Daniel is at dinner with Doyle he is going to yell at him for eating a steak. This is just my view until I see more proof that global warming is not only man caused, but also that it is the CO2 that is the major problem. One last thing, I do not understand why everyone has to be so sarcastic on the issue. Believe me, I am not an up tight person, and I love shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report even though I do not agree with their politics all the time, but when you are responding directly to a comment by someone and you use a sarcastic tone instead of reinforcing your point it comes across as a method of trying to cheaply amplify your point by taking cheap shots. That last point about sarcasm wasn't meant for the quote above, btw, it was meant for previous posts in the thread.

Now I'm in no way an expert on the subject but my basic knowledge tells me this. More CO2 would mean that more heat is absorbed by the atmosphere. Now CO2 may be "pretty far behind" but it still has an effect and this effect might or might not be enough to cause noticeble changes. The simple (yet very complex) simulations that has been done show a measurable increase in temperature will be likely over the next decades. I have faith in science, if millions of people can believe in a beeing they have no proof of, believing in empirical knowledge shouldn't be that far fetched.

"Now I'm in no way an expert on the subject but my basic knowledge tells me this. More CO2 would mean that more heat is absorbed by the atmosphere. Now CO2 may be "pretty far behind" but it still has an effect and this effect might or might not be enough to cause noticeble changes. The simple (yet very complex) simulations that has been done show a measurable increase in temperature will be likely over the next decades. I have faith in science, if millions of people can believe in a beeing they have no proof of, believing in empirical knowledge shouldn't be that far fetched. "

Blah, blah, blah...

and lets face facts DN may be an honest and genuine person but he is not balanced. He is an extremist by nature. I am not making any judgment on if that is good or bad just that it is a fact.

Is the bolded part the only value you can add to a discussion?

"Is the bolded part the only value you can add to a discussion?"




It is kind of my way of expressing my opinion of your thoughts. You like to ramble, quote sources and show the entire forum how brilliant you are…if that works for you enjoy but all I hear is background noise.

Go write your thesis and impress yourself with never ending posts about the end of the world from gas emissions that will raise the temp in Peru .003 degrees per year…blah blah blah.

teehee!


DN - I saw you at the bellagio saturday...but i opted not to come into bobby's and give you the biggest bear hug!

At least I bring something to the discussion, you are just going here, reading this and then making utterly pointless responses.

And yeah, I post here so a random bunch of poker players think I'm brilliant, that must be it...

first of all DN is not american I beileve he is a proud Canadian. Secondly the global warming poster child Al Bore i mean Gore is a huge energy waster. His estate has electric bills every month of thousands and he fly's a private Jet. So what a joke. So lets all hug a tree pack a plastic bag full of pine nuts and tofu and drive our huge SUV's to the arctic to check on the ice. While we are there lets club a baby seal . The earth has always since recorded time fluctuated in a cyclic manner. We are in a hotter cycle at the moment. At least thats what they tell me. Its gonna be 5 degrees tonight so i hope global warming hurries up.

Hey newbie don't come on here posting logic...there is no place for that.

Everybody knows it is much easier to shoot a baby seal then to club one. Get your facts str8

Why does anyone care how much energy Al Gore uses? Just because one of the most known informers of global warming is a hypocrit doesn't make the underlying facts false. The bolded part is not correct unfortunately. Man is the cause of a rapid temperature increase (and rapid in a sense that it's compared to other periods of temperature increase).

I still don't understand why people refuse to believe in the findings the international science community has made. Do you, mrwojo, think that you have greater knowledge of the subject than the IPCC?

ok i stand corrected on the baby seals , but in my defence clubing them is easier to make a hat outta. Do I know better , Probably not but in the 70"s the world was in an uproar over the ozone. By now we were sposed to all be dead due to radiation from the sun. I have spent a life working in the sience industry ( partical physics ) so I am well aware of scientists having pet projects and taking a little information and blowing it outta proportion. I happen to be of the frame of mind that it is a cyclic weather pattern not the end of the world as we know it. At least if it happens and we are thrust into a new ice age then my head will be warm in my baby harp seal hat.

"ok i stand corrected on the baby seals , but in my defence clubing them is easier to make a hat outta. Do I know better , Probably not but in the 70"s the world was in an uproar over the ozone. By now we were sposed to all be dead due to radiation from the sun. I have spent a life working in the sience industry ( partical physics ) so I am well aware of scientists having pet projects and taking a little information and blowing it outta proportion. I happen to be of the frame of mind that it is a cyclic weather pattern not the end of the world as we know it. At least if it happens and we are thrust into a new ice age then my head will be warm in my baby harp seal hat. "

Nice to have another voice of reason! Good luck on that whole seal hunting thing...take plenty of booze. I recommend Crown Royal but whatever works for you.

What? Are you serious? Yes the ozone layer was a threat, but governments over the world took action to prevent it from happening. Freon was banned in spray canisters and because of this and other actions taken the bad trend that we saw was slowed down and today the problem isn't solved, but under control.


Now what happened with the ozone is exactly what's going on with global warming. The alarm sounded for the ozone layer long before it became a big enough issue that it would affect life on earth and now we are safe for the moment. See the parallel to global warming? We aren't in dire need to cut back on pollution because of short term effects, we need to do it now to prevent it from becoming a huge issue in decades to come.

Although I think it's clear that I'm not a believer in global warming, I do think efforts to prevent/stop pollution in the environment are important. That is a real threat to marine life which is ten times more important to me than drowning polar bears.

But the global warming crowd's crying the sky is falling is actually creating a backlash to the cause of pollution.


Alot like vegetarians that could sway people with the positive effects on health, but instead tell us that cows have feelings and rights. Makes me want to eat more steak, not less.

I don't see why they aren't one and the same. Cutting down on the consumption of fossil fuels will have a very positive effect on pollution. That is not to say that stopping global warming is the one and only problem we as mankind should focus on. Far from it, it is one of many. The reason I'm so stubborn about it is because there is so much unfounded doubt. No one doubts the AIDS problem, so therefore I don't see a need about informing people about it, I just pick my fights.

ok I will never concede that global warming is real but I will praise the world for curbing there use of fossil fuels. I do also like the fact that pollution is being addressed in a way that makes me hopefull for a real change. I live in upstate NY where more than one lake has suffered a horrible death due to polution. I just dont think Global Warming is the problem that so many fear it is. I especially dont like the fact that Gore is raising the alarm while waisting more energy that most towns around me. Why should I limit what I do and he be allowed to fly in his own private plane and spend what he does on electricity. I will walk thru any city street with a sign saying stop global warming or anything else the left can come up with if... If Gore begins traveling everywhere he goes in a hibrid.

Gore travels on land wherever he goes in a hybrid car. What he can't change is what the secret service use to follow him. And try flying in a hybrid airplane, yeah, it's though, they don't exist. And do you seriously think Gore can travel in a regular airplane. He can travel regularly as well as President Bush can. But who cares about Gore? He has no real power, he didn't "invent" global warming. He just believes strongly that we have to make a change in order to preserve our high standards of living. So what if he's a hypocrite, that doesn't make the underlying facts less correct.

"He just believes strongly that we have to make a change in order to preserve our high standards of living."

Gore believes strongly in nothing but getting his face on TV and being able to fill the void that will be created by the latest batch of Democratic pretenders....this is not hard to see, if you open your eyes.

Good old Al keeps in name in the public shows little interest in the 08 elections and sweeps in when Hilleary / bill and the rest of the clowns get exposed for the frauds they are....I will give him some credit though I realize he isn't smart enough to come with this on his own but he is at least listening to good advice.

This goes to show how big the 08 election is going to be. The one good thing I do see coming from this is that for the last 30 years the Dems have not been able to put forth a candidate capable of winning and election(outside of Bill of course). They always go way to far to the left and I have some hope they will do it again in 08...you can almost always sleep well at night knowing they can't see the forest through the trees.

The party maybe slow but at least they incompetent as well!!

Well it's obvious you're Republican, and that also makes it obvious why you think everything about global warming sucks. You think it's a democrat idea and therefore you can't associate yourself with it. Fine. Just so you know, it's not a democrat thing, a well known democrat just happens to be one of the most recognizable faces attached to the movement. I'd be willing to bet that you would be a great global warming "believer" if there was a republican you support that was doing the same. Unfortunately it would be impossible to find out if it's true. Funny how these things work though.

Anyways, although I'm not American I think the next election will be very interesting, for a lot of reasons. Especially interesting if a guy like Obama wins. The interesting part will be to see if he will make some fundamental changes like he's hinted at or if he's just like all the other American politicians...

"Anyways, although I'm not American I think the next election will be very interesting, for a lot of reasons."

We just found something to agree on! Well done Zeatrix and by the way Republicans don't go off half cocked like our freinds on the other side....well most of them don't bush just happens to be the idiot in charge.

Go Newt!

SW