No logic for inaction - Global Warming

[denverdoc]

Unfortunately, public policy will not change as long as big businesses and lobbyists are the ones framing the arguments and writing the laws. In my opinion, lobbying should be illegal, and corporate contributions to politicians should be banned and henceforth prosecuted as bribery. We voters elect the congressional representatives from a field pre-approved by vested interests and they scurry off to DC to cuddle up to the money-men and betray our interests. Until this cycle of corruption is interrupted, we will never have an honest representative government.

I recently emailed all of my state's congressional representatives pleading with them to stop Bush from instigating a war with Iran. I got one automated reply from one representative that said essentially "thank you for contacting the office of Rep XXX". You can bet that if my name was Exxon-Mobil, I wouldn't have gotten the brush-off. Where in the Constitution does it say that businesses have rights to congressional representation that exceeds the rights of individual citizens?

Theres an idea. Limit input from special interest groups, i.e. lobbyists. Colorado passed a bill last Nov that does exactly this. Whether it works or makes such maneuvering even more secret remains to be seen. But until some reform takes place, you're right on Turbo. As to GH gasses, energy efficiency, it'll happen when it becomes profitable to do so. Here's a question--we were assured of a peace dividend when the USSR collapsed. Well what has happened to it? This years defense budget is as bad as the highest under Reagan--includng Iraq, close to 700B. Iraq alone has cost or will after amortization, a trillion dollars. Let's see 10^12/300E^6 is 3333 dollars per every citizen in the US. For what, we might secure access to the big fields in this end game, and extend our current petro consumption more or less mindlessly for another 2 decades. But a terribly shortsighted policy, whether or not it contributes to GH warming.

Divert 400 billion per year to energy programs of all types. instead of mandating a 40 mpg fleet figure, build in some heavy incentives for being the first US automaker to achieve such a figure. No you can't build only motorcycles covered with shells. I know this is a bit ot, but even w/o GH gases the pollution is awful. Plus we need to save it for plastic and for food.

 

[Astronuc]

But wait! There is action.

In Niger, Trees and Crops Turn Back the Desert
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/world/africa/11niger.html

GUIDAN BAKOYE, Niger — In this dust-choked region, long seen as an increasingly barren wasteland decaying into desert, millions of trees are flourishing, thanks in part to poor farmers whose simple methods cost little or nothing at all.

Better conservation and improved rainfall have led to at least 7.4 million newly tree-covered acres in Niger, researchers have found, achieved largely without relying on the large-scale planting of trees or other expensive methods often advocated by African politicians and aid groups for halting desertification, the process by which soil loses its fertility.

Recent studies of vegetation patterns, based on detailed satellite images and on-the-ground inventories of trees, have found that Niger, a place of persistent hunger and deprivation, has recently added millions of new trees and is now far greener than it was 30 years ago.

These gains, moreover, have come at a time when the population of Niger has exploded, confounding the conventional wisdom that population growth leads to the loss of trees and accelerates land degradation, scientists studying Niger say.

The vegetation is densest, researchers have found, in some of the most densely populated regions of the country.

“The general picture of the Sahel is much less bleak than we tend to assume,” said Chris P. Reij, a soil conservationist who has been working in the region for more than 30 years and helped lead a study published last summer on Niger’s vegetation patterns. “Niger was for us an enormous surprise.”

It's one small step, but it's in the right direction.

Now if we can only get the US to cut energy consumption by 20% or more.

And coincidentally, I just read an article that provides incontrovertible evidence as to the deleterious effects of higher CO₂ levels - even without the concommitant temperature increases. Noxious plants like poison ivy and ragweed increase growth rates, while nutritional content of food crops decreases - just to name a few of the detriments.

And let's not forget the heavy metals, particularly mercury, which are a direct by-product of using coal (used for more than 50% of electrical production in the US). One can easily measure heavy metals deposition straight back to the power plants from which they are emitted.

 

[turbo]

And let's not forget the heavy metals, particularly mercury, which are a direct by-product of using coal (used for more than 50% of electrical production in the US). One can easily measure heavy metals deposition straight back to the power plants from which they are emitted.

That is a bad problem in Maine, since we are downstream from the Midwest coal-fired plants. People (especially children and women of child-bearing age) are warned not to eat too much fresh fish from Maine waters because of the mercury in the fish and there are similar warnings against eating too much liver or kidney meat from moose and deer due to elevated levels of cadmium, again due to coal-fired plants upwind from us. Our government, in its infinite wisdom, let's the plants continue to pollute by buying "emissions credits" from other companies, so these toxic heavy metals continue to accumulate in our wildlife, our water, and our soils.

 

[denverdoc]

That is a bad problem in Maine, since we are downstream from the Midwest coal-fired plants. People (especially children and women of child-bearing age) are warned not to eat too much fresh fish from Maine waters because of the mercury in the fish and there are similar warnings against eating too much liver or kidney meat from moose and deer due to elevated levels of cadmium, again due to coal-fired plants upwind from us. Our government, in its infinite wisdom, let's the plants continue to pollute by buying "emissions credits" from other companies, so these toxic heavy metals continue to accumulate in our wildlife, our water, and our soils.

This is weak. So we can barter among ourselves with emission credits, but not the rest of the world?!

 

[turbo]

This is weak. So we can barter among ourselves with emission credits, but not the rest of the world?!

Of course. Instead of creating jobs by requiring the installation of scrubbers, etc to make coal technology cleaner and safer, our government protects polluters and their profits so that those of us downwind from the coal-fired plants have to absorb the heavy metals, ozone, etc. It's the American way.

 

[denverdoc]

OT, but don't you love the Orwelliain dbl talk as in the last Clean Air act?

 

[Andre]

$10,000 to debunk global warming!1
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm?cnn=yes
funded by yours truly: Exxon

Talk about desperate! And they certainly have no reason to show bias, do they?

I think the anti-warmers have been duped by a big oil conspiracy. Of course the skeptics claim that they know the truth but no one will listen - that it's a conspiracy of scientists. And they appeal to the scientific expertise of Joe Sixpack to prove their point.

You choose.

Sure go ahead:

I finally found the letter.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/02/aei-responds-to-bizarre-criticism.html

I, for one, think that this is not too funny. I, for one, think that 1 million dollars is 100 times more than 10,000 dollars. I also think that there are literally hundreds or thousands of people who are deeply immersed in this extraordinary and ethically problematic business and who are collectively mining billions of dollars a year from their absurd hypotheses that the world is going to face climate emergency in a foreseeable future.

If someone tries to paint the skeptics - who often live as ascetic monks and whose physical safety is at risk - as corrupt people, even though everyone may easily see billions of dollars flowing to the pockets of people whose job is to defend some very different dogmas - such as the silly theory about the catastrophic global warming - he either shows that his ability to judge reality has collapsed to zero, or he shows that he is a financial part of the global warming fraud himself.

http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/aei-president-responds-to-attack.doc

Many of us have received telephone calls and emails prompted by a shoddy article on the front page of today’s Guardian, the British newspaper, headlined
“Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study” (posted at http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html#article_continue).

The article uses several garden-variety journalistic tricks to create the impression of a story where none exists. Thus, AEI is described as a “lobby group” (we are a research group that does no lobbying and takes no institutional positions on policy issues); ExxonMobil’s donations to AEI are either bulked up by adding donations over many years, or simply made up (the firm’s annual AEI support is generous and valued but is a fraction of the amount reported—no corporation accounts for more than 1 percent of our annual budget); and AEI is characterized as the Bush administration’s “intellectual Cosa Nostra” and “White House surrogates” (AEI scholars criticize or praise Bush administration policies—every day, on the merits). All of this could have been gleaned from a brief visit to the AEI website.

But the article’s specific charge (announced in the headline) is a very serious one. Although most of you will appreciate the truth on your own, I thought it would be useful to provide a few details...cont'd

Conspiracy? Most definitely. It''s called noble cause corruption, if you're absolutely sure that you are right then it's okay to lie and plant false accusations.

 

[Andre]

Just for reference:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/longversionfinal.pdf

Note for instance about the rewriting of climate history, the hockeystick:

The IPCC has not retracted its egregious error. It carries on as if nothing is wrong with its conduct or its conclusions. If the IPCC were a commercial corporation operating in Australia, its directors would now be facing criminal charges and the prospect of going to jail.

There is more rewriting going on right now; formerly, there was no global warming in America, but there is now:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1142

 

[D H]

In my opinion, lobbying should be illegal, and corporate contributions to politicians should be banned and henceforth prosecuted as bribery.

What a stereotypical, off-topic opinion. Do you really mean that, or do you really mean contributions to Republican politicians should be banned and henceforth prosecuted as bribery?

Now that the Democrats are in power, they are playing the lobbyist-financed games that got some Republicans in jail (i.e., golf at exotic resorts):
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/20/PM200702205.html"

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland is a Democratic powerbroker. Last year, Hoyer campaigned hard on ethics reforms. And in the wake of several scandals, harangued Republicans in the house.

STENY HOYER: The greed and flagrant absues of convicted felons, former Republican member Duke Cunningham and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, hang over this House like a dark cloud.
​

It was former Majority Leader Tom Delay's golf trip to Scotland — courtesy of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff — that inspired many recent reforms.

Still, that hasn't stopped Congressman Hoyer from planning his own lobbyist-financed, springtime getaway. He's headed to the Rio Mar Beach Golf Resort and Spa in Puerto Rico.

But Hoyer's golfing trip — scheduled to begin May 2nd — is completely legal, because it will be a fundraiser for the congressman's political action committee, or leadership PAC.​

Back on topic:
By almost any measure, the world is, on average, a whole lot better off than it was 100 years ago. If that is the price for a fraction of a degree of global warming, it was well worth it.

The US would suffer immense economic damage should we become signatories to the Kyoto protocol. This is one reason why the Senate unanimously rejected the treaty and why neither Clinton nor Bush signed it. And what would be gained environmentally? Very, very little. Killing our economy is not the answer.

 

[turbo]

What a stereotypical, off-topic opinion. Do you really mean that, or do you really mean contributions to Republican politicians should be banned and henceforth prosecuted as bribery?

I am registered as an independent, and I vote for the best candidate regardless of party affiliation. The two-party system is so corrupt as to have institutionalized bribery as "lobbying", which disenfranchises us citizens of our rights to fair representation. Don't try to twist my statements into some straw-man so you can knock them down for "dittos". I am far more conservative in fiscal matters and in the matters of the rights of states and individuals than any Republican I know, and I am far more liberal on social issues than most Democrats. The control that big-money interests have over all facets of our corrupt two-party system should be evident to anybody who has been paying attention. If you can only manage a bit of indignation about such dealings when your favorite party is in the minority, you are one of the sheep and are a crucial part of the problem facing our country.

 

[D H]

Which of these constitutes institutionalized bribery? Where do you draw the line?

• Ten farmers, upset about a new Federal mandate, pool their money together and send one of the farmers to Washington to talk to their congresscritters.
• The farmer comes back completely dissatisfied. He organizes ten groups of ten farmers each from across the county. They send the farmer back to Washington D.C. for a longer period of time. Still no satisfaction. The proposed legislation will hurt farmers immensely. Washington doesn't care.
• The farmer now organizes hundreds of groups from all over the state. The send several farmers back to Washington to harangue all of the state's congresscritters. Washington is now starting to pay attention.
• Farmers from neighboring states join the cause. Retired farmers volunteers to spend full time in Washington if the group will pay their expenses.
• The movement expands. The group decides to hire a (gasp) lobbyist to help their cause.

Where do you draw the line? Is it OK for employees to lobby congress through their unions, but companies cannot?

Giving bribes is already illegal. Exercizing my free speech rights is not illegal yet (but there are elements of both parties that want to curtail those rights).

 

[denverdoc]

Looks good to me, up until the time the farmers send the lobbyist--this effectively short circuits the democratic or republican process. If the farmers in the above hypothetical, were able to mobilize as you suggest, they don't need a lobbyist
J

 

[D H]

Theres an idea. Limit input from special interest groups, i.e. lobbyists. Colorado passed a bill last Nov that does exactly this.

Nice ammendment. It prevents gifts (including meals) to elected and appointed government officials and government employees, apparently including awards (so long, CU Nobel prize candidates) and scholarships (oops). It looks like you guys wrote another gem, amendment 27, which prevented people from volunteering for political candidates (oops again).

Looks good to me, up until the time the farmers send the lobbyist--this effectively short circuits the democratic or republican process. If the farmers in the above hypothetical, were able to mobilize as you suggest, they don't need a lobbyist

What is a lobbyist? Can he/she be distinguished by the horns growing from their head? How does hiring someone to talk for you short circuit the democratic process? Banning it certainly short-circuits my First Amendment rights. Note well: Colorado Amendment 41 does not prevent lobbyists from providing input to legislators. Doing so would violate the US Constitution.

 

[denverdoc]

We will likely have to agree to disagree on this; by short circuit, I refer to the situation where power in the form of economic clout trumps popular interest. I have no problem with the lobbyist talking to the representatives, so long as we all have equal access, something I think you would have to agree doesn't exist, if for no other reason than constraints of time.

Who are the most powerful lobbies in the US today: pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Just there to look out for Joe Q no doubt.

Once upon a time, physicians were wined, dined, and given lavish handouts including ski vacations etc by pharm companies. Common sense stood up to this practice, and I believe our better interests have been served by prohibiting these practices, (tho a fair amt of wining, and dining still goes on, it is always within the context of an educational meeting and spouses, etc are forbidden from benefitting). So I still have half a dozen drug Ho's knocking on my door weekly, but my decicions will have to be guided by their persuasiveness and not some 3 day junket.

 

[D H]

I would say the AARP is one of the most powerful lobbies. They have money and voters that they can use to throw their weight around in Washington. Pharma and insurance only have money.

How do you limit contact between politicians and evil lobbyists without stomping all over the First Amendment? And what exactly is an evil lobbyist? Contrary to popular opinion, they cannot be recognized by the pair of horns growing out of their heads.

 

[denverdoc]

I would say the AARP is one of the most powerful lobbies. They have money and voters that they can use to throw their weight around in Washington. Pharma and insurance only have money.

How do you limit contact between politicians and evil lobbyists without stomping all over the First Amendment? And what exactly is an evil lobbyist? Contrary to popular opinion, they cannot be recognized by the pair of horns growing out of their heads.

Just behind the NRA last time I looked Thats 14 million vs 35 million.

You want business as usual,

http://www.dirtymoneywatch.org/author/?authorId=4529835

Fine, but I think taking the most egregious abuse out of the system is a good idea, as well as a strong dose of reform for campaign financing.

 

[edward]

I would say the AARP is one of the most powerful lobbies. They have money and voters that they can use to throw their weight around in Washington. Pharma and insurance only have money.

Only have money?? That is all that is needed on K street.

 

[Astronuc]

Now interestingly, TXU is the biggest wind energy provider in Texas. They are involved in a big buyout deal with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) and Texas Pacific Group.

The deal was remarkable not only for its size but for the role that environmentalists played in the negotiations, which were first reported Friday evening. To secure the support of these groups, the bidding consortium has agreed to scale back significantly on TXU's controversial plan to build 11 new coal plants.

Environmental Defense has hired Perella Weinberg Partners, the boutique firm founded by veteran investment banker Joseph R. Perella, to advise it as the group takes on an unusual role in the $38 billion buyout of Texas energy giant TXU, The New York Times reports. In bringing in a banker, the influential environmental group is taking a page from Wall Street's deal-making playbook and may be seeking an even more powerful seat at the bargaining table with TXU and its suitors. For Perella Weinberg, the unconventional alliance may be a bet on a new force in deal negotiations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/business/08deal.html

HOUSTON, March 2 — Texas, as everyone knows, does everything big. Its giant oil and gas fields dominate America’s energy patch. It is now the nation’s largest wind power producer, with more than 2,000 turbines gathering some of the country’s strongest currents. It gets the booby prize for being the biggest producer of greenhouse gases.

And now Texas faces a big hole in its electricity production, since the country’s second-most-populous state also happens to be one of the fastest growing because of immigration and the rise in riches from the recent increase in oil and gas prices.

That hole just got bigger as the TXU Corporation, the state’s biggest utility, scrapped plans for eight new coal-fired plants under a deal it has agreed to with potential new owners. The deal has delighted many environmentalists, but it has also stoked one Texas-sized problem.

Unless new generation is built quickly from some source, Texas energy production in 2009 will fall below reserves recommended by the state operator of the power transmission grid for guaranteeing smooth operations during peak periods of high heat.

Texas officials must figure out how to replace the 6,000 megawatts that TXU’s former plan would have added to the grid, equivalent to about 10 percent of the state’s current installed capacity. This comes as the state’s population is expected to grow by 20 percent, to nearly 30 million people, over the next decade.

. . . . continued

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/business/08energy.html?dlbk


TXU has indicated that it is willing to scrap plans for 8 coal plants - and some environmental groups will push to scrap the remaining three. Likely, capacity shortfall cannot be met by wind and solar alone - so the other seemingly viable option would be several new (Gen III or III+) nuclear power plants.

It used to be that conventional wisdom held that a 1000 MWe electric plant could provide for 1 million homes (that was before 1 kW hair dryers ). Now with homes typcially having 200 A service, a 1000 MWe is considered to supply about 500,000 homes.

 

[Astronuc]

And look again!

Citigroup Ponies Up $50 Billion to Fund Green Projects
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10080659

All Things Considered, May 8, 2007 · Citigroup Inc., the largest U.S. bank, says it plans to commit $50 billion to environmental projects over the next decade. The amount is the biggest commitment yet from Wall Street to address climate change.

Apparently Bank of America will commit $20 billion to programs aimed at reducing Global Warming.

The programs involve not only alternative energy but also conservation measures, which makes sense for the bottom line of many large companies.

 

[Skyhunter]

And look again!

Citigroup Ponies Up $50 Billion to Fund Green Projects
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10080659


Apparently Bank of America will commit $20 billion to programs aimed at reducing Global Warming.

The programs involve not only alternative energy but also conservation measures, which makes sense for the bottom line of many large companies.

This reminds me of when the IBM PC was released. Business leaders decided that micro computers were the direction of the future and the rest is history.

General Motors joins USCAP's call for aggressive pollution cuts

In a move that transforms the political landscape, General Motors is the first automobile manufacturer to join the coalition of high-level corporate and environmental leaders. The group's mission is to urge the federal government to:

cut greenhouse gas emissions 60-80 percent,
create business incentives and,
act swiftly and thoughtfully.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentID=5828

I have looked at all the options and my conclusion is that we must reduce consumption. Just like the 4 R's of recycling (reduce, reuse, recycle, and rot), reducing is the best option (no energy consumed). In a household of 5 adults and teens, our household produces one small bag of garbage a week. The contents of that garbage is 95% plastic.

If plastic packaging was to be replaced with bio-plastics that can be composted in a hot pile, we could easily reach 90% diversion of waste currently going to landfills.

There needs to be a comprehensive global strategy to meet the challenges the world will face this century.

I am encouraged by business decisions to confront the challenges. I just hope that they don't make it worse. Flex-fuel vehicles could exacerbate the problem.

Current petroleum fortified industrial mono-crop agriculture is unsustainable. Switching to bio-fuels will only accelerate the loss of soil. Cellulosic ethanol will further deplete the soil by removing all the organic mass from the land and returning nothing.

http://energybulletin.net/28610.html

There’s so much life in the soil, there can be 10 "biomass horses" underground for every horse grazing on an acre of pasture (Wardle 2004). If you dove into the soil and swam around, you’d be surrounded by miles of thin strands of mycorrhizal fungi that help plant roots absorb more nutrients and water, plus millions of creatures, most of them unknown. There’d be thousands of species in just a handful of Earth –- springtails, bacteria, and worms digging airy subways. As you swam along, plant roots would tower above you like trees as you wove through underground skyscrapers.

"The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself." - President Franklin D. Roosevelt

$500 billion and counting to occupy Iraq.

Vanesh could be correct that we are a doomed species. The greatest threat facing mankind is our own greed.

 

[Skyhunter]

Logic for Inaction

How is this for a line of logic.

The wealthy industrialized nations will not bear the brunt of catastrophic climate change. We have the wealth and resources to adapt and survive. Just like in New Orleans, it is a great way to rid prime real estate of all the unsavory poor people living there.

As long as you are a member of the club (shareholder) you will be fine. And 500 years from now. The new continental tropics will be a wild Utopian paradise without any poor people to spoil the experience. And our privileged progeny will inherit this new world.

 

[Smurf]

don't be too sure, we have a regenerative underclass, so in 500 years we'll probably have a bunch of new poor people.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=C4B62D71-E7F2-99DF-3C3B53587E1B5AC2&pageNumber=1&catID=1
Changes to agricultural practice and forestry management could cut greenhouse gas emissions, buying time to develop alternative technologies

Saving the trees could slow climate change, new research shows. Each year, nearly 33 million acres of forestland around the world is cut down, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Tropical felling alone contributes 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon—some 20 percent of all man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—to the atmosphere annually. If such losses were cut in half, it could save 500 million metric tons of carbon annually and contribute 12 percent of the total reductions in GHG emissions required to avoid unpleasant global warming, researchers recently reported in Science.

Forest depletion ultimately contributes more GHG emissions than all the cars and trucks in use worldwide, says Werner Kurz, a forest ecologist with Natural Resources Canada, who was not involved with the study. "What we are doing in these tropical forests is really a massive problem."

Changes in forest management and agricultural practices could significantly reduce the threat of global warming much more quickly than can technological solutions such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) from coal-fired power plants, according to experts. "We don't know how to do CCS. These are things we could do today," says Bruce McCarl, an agricultural economist at Texas A&M University in College Station. "They are a bridge to the future."

Don't use wood or paper?

While people argue about GW or AGW, others are proposing solutions to GW apparently assuming its AGW. Hmmm.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While people argue about GW or AGW, others are proposing solutions to GW apparently assuming its AGW. Hmmm.

Some people argue and some people take action.

We don't have the luxury of time to wait for certainty - to act is the only logical course. And in the mean time we create an entirely new and clean economy that keeps the $300 Billion spent on foreign oil annually, at home.

 

[Astronuc]

We don't have the luxury of time to wait for certainty - to act is the only logical course. And in the mean time we create an entirely new and clean economy that keeps the $300 Billion spent on foreign oil annually, at home.

Even if it is GW that motivates it, it great to develop a theoretically renewable/sustainable source of fuel. The algae seems to be a great idea - transforming sunlight into stored chemical energy.

It would seem algae makes a lot more sense than growing crops for fuel.