An Inconvenient Truth

[mraynrand]

Technology may open up availability of resources, but advancement happens at a snails crawl because of greed and apathy. I don't believe that a country such as the U.S. can adapt to the coming threat of limited resources in a time frame of 50 years, when the planet is supposed to carry the load of a couple more billion people. As other countries step up their demand for resources to equal the U.S., we will DEFINITELY face a global crisis.

Tyler, I don't agree with you on a number of your views.

First, advancement isn't happening at a snail's pace, by my estimation. in some areas of technology, it is screaming fast.

Second, advancement DOES happen because of 'greed' (or rather, I would call it 'incentive'). I would argue alternatively that Prices and Costs are the cause of what you term 'apathy.' In the 80s, there was more prospecting for Oil in the U.S. becauseo of OPEC prices and more oil was discovered. But OPEC was able to increase production and drop prices to prevent competitors from bringing their oil sources on line (Other factors were involved as well). Now, the world is reaching or is at top oil production, if you assume no new massive exploration or construction of refineries. The current high prices will now actually affect real behavior and OPEC probably can't thwart efforts to either increase oil exploration, oil recovery from shale, or production of alternative sources. Innovation was not pursued aggressively in this area because the products were losers, economically.

Also, once the motive for innovation increases, I think the U.S. is one of, if not the best place, for it to happen. If you look at the changes in this country from 1950 to 2000, I think 50 years is more than enough time for this coutry to adapt to any challenges. If you think about it, we could have massive production of Nuke plants and electric cars over the next ten years alone, solving any energy shortage. If the conditions are right to increase incentive to automakers (demand from the public, as you are starting to see for hybrids) and political will to allow licencing of Nuke plants, it can happen very quickly. There's very little innovation even required. If you fear the oil companies 'preventing' such changes, I think you're in error. These companies have the capital to invest in the new technology and they will do so if they see the writing on the wall.

And about the population problem. As the two largest countries China and India modernize, family sizes will drop dramatically and you'll see the population curve flatten even more.

I was at a seminar in 1991 where Paul Ehrlich estimated the carrying capacity of the planet at 10 billion and that we'd reach that by 2005-10. He has since refigured his numbers and the 1991 numbers were reconfigured from his late 60s numbers estimating mass famines by the 80s. As I wrote before, you can't really predict technology and societal changes that will radically alter how we live in the future, but you can predict that there will be massive changes. There is a liklihood of major conflict over resources with an aggressive expanding China, but it's very likely that they will experience massive internal changes and the U.S. will adapt to the 'energy challenges.' Together these events will prevent apocalypse.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Technology may open up availability of resources, but advancement happens at a snails crawl because of greed and apathy. I don't believe that a country such as the U.S. can adapt to the coming threat of limited resources in a time frame of 50 years, when the planet is supposed to carry the load of a couple more billion people. As other countries step up their demand for resources to equal the U.S., we will DEFINITELY face a global crisis.

Tyler, I don't agree with you on a number of your views.

First, advancement isn't happening at a snail's pace, by my estimation. in some areas of technology, it is screaming fast.

Second, advancement DOES happen because of 'greed' (or rather, I would call it 'incentive'). I would argue alternatively that Prices and Costs are the cause of what you term 'apathy.' In the 80s, there was more prospecting for Oil in the U.S. becauseo of OPEC prices and more oil was discovered. But OPEC was able to increase production and drop prices to prevent competitors from bringing their oil sources on line (Other factors were involved as well). Now, the world is reaching or is at top oil production, if you assume no new massive exploration or construction of refineries. The current high prices will now actually affect real behavior and OPEC probably can't thwart efforts to either increase oil exploration, oil recovery from shale, or production of alternative sources. Innovation was not pursued aggressively in this area because the products were losers, economically.

Also, once the motive for innovation increases, I think the U.S. is one of, if not the best place, for it to happen. If you look at the changes in this country from 1950 to 2000, I think 50 years is more than enough time for this coutry to adapt to any challenges. If you think about it, we could have massive production of Nuke plants and electric cars over the next ten years alone, solving any energy shortage. If the conditions are right to increase incentive to automakers (demand from the public, as you are starting to see for hybrids) and political will to allow licencing of Nuke plants, it can happen very quickly. There's very little innovation even required. If you fear the oil companies 'preventing' such changes, I think you're in error. These companies have the capital to invest in the new technology and they will do so if they see the writing on the wall.

And about the population problem. As the two largest countries China and India modernize, family sizes will drop dramatically and you'll see the population curve flatten even more.

I was at a seminar in 1991 where Paul Ehrlich estimated the carrying capacity of the planet at 10 billion and that we'd reach that by 2005-10. He has since refigured his numbers and the 1991 numbers were reconfigured from his late 60s numbers estimating mass famines by the 80s. As I wrote before, you can't really predict technology and societal changes that will radically alter how we live in the future, but you can predict that there will be massive changes. There is a liklihood of major conflict over resources with an aggressive expanding China, but it's very likely that they will experience massive internal changes and the U.S. will adapt to the 'energy challenges.' Together these events will prevent apocalypse.

Then I will agree to disagree with you (though I don't believe in any sort of "apocalypse"--I just believe the United States will slip quickly from its perch as the "world power"). Great points though.

tyler

[Tarlam!]

Welcome to FYI, l & g.

[jack's smirking revenge]

I don't have time for an FYI-length debate about stuff. I truly don't. Thus, props to you for a great debate mraynrand. As I said, you made some very interesting points.

tyler

[No Mo Moss]

Why must we have so much sympathy for the oil companies. With every other product and market you either adapt or go belly up. Not with them though. They get to rape middle america and post record profits while still getting sympathy.

what gets me is all the blame shifted to the oil companies, by the gov't and politicians. after the oil wars the gov't mandated that oil companies must mark up gasoline 9%. if the cost of Gas is $1.00 they oil company must charge at a minimum $1.09. they make 9 cents per gallon. now lets say the price of gas jumps to $2.00 per gallon. that same oil company must charge 2.18 per gallon. and in return double there earnings!!! but lets look at those numbers from a diffrent angle. sales tax in my area is 6%. in the first example the gov't made $.06 for every gallon and in the second example they made $.12 for every gallon. DOUBLING their earnings!!! and they didn't have to do anything. no pumping, no trasporting, no refining, no drilling, no research. nothing. and that is just the sales tax. by the time you add all the other taxes and fees we are paying for gas, it is the gov't that is making more money on gas than the terrible oil companies. how come in this time of crisis and high gas prices the gov't isn't repealing any of the taxes and fees they place on gas?? who is really raping middle america??

In MN they are trying to repeal the state tax of 6 cents for one year. In its place they would like to use money from the 2005 tax relief fund to use for the roads.

Temporary relief I guess.

[mraynrand]

I don't have time for an FYI-length debate about stuff. I truly don't. Thus, props to you for a great debate mraynrand. As I said, you made some very interesting points.

tyler

Same to you.

[Little Whiskey]

In MN they are trying to repeal the state tax of 6 cents for one year. In its place they would like to use money from the 2005 tax relief fund to use for the roads.

Temporary relief I guess.

thats awful nice of them since the taxes and fees on a gallon of gas is upwards of $0.50!! at least in my area.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Suddenly, the earth was no longer cooling, it was warming. The ice caps were not growing, they were melting. The ozone layer was not thickening, it was thinning and a hole developed, which is growing. Science scrambled for an explanation. How about CO2? The chemistry works. That MUST be it!

But is it? Good science will look for explanations that are consistent with the phenomena of 35 years ago and the phenomena of today. I've not yet seen anything that does that, except naturally occuring ebs and flows, the alteration of which by man is minimal. Society has not changed enough in the last 50 years to have reversed global cooling and an oncoming ice age to global warming instead. If we were responsible for global cooling, how are we now responsible for global warming? If we are responsible for global warming, how could we have been responsible for global cooling just 35 years ago?

Sorry for delayed response, but just listened to radio show about global warming which got me to thinking.

Well, the "global cooling" phenomena proclaimed prior to the 1970's is still held to be true. The deflection of radiation mitigates the greenhouse effect. Scientific data and understanding moves forward, and a solid consensus now exists that global warming over-rides global cooling.

It's this consensus that I was just looking into. I found that it is pure myth that the scientific community is divided on the existence of human-caused global warming. The contrarians in climatology are rare.

"Science Magazine", THE journal of record for the scientific community, did a fair and complete survey of 928 articles from scientific journals (with keywords "Climate change.") They found (shockingly) that 100% of the articles indicated a human factor in global warming. See The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

The National Academy of Sciences is clear and unambiguous on global warming. See http://www4.nationalacademies.org/on...e?OpenDocument

Ten years ago there was a legitimate debate on the existence of human-created global warming. But the argument is over now. I'm angry that people still get away with dismissing the issue by claiming significant scientific uncertainty.

[Scott Campbell]

All I have to say is, how can I profit from this?

Can I buy some cold oceanfront property in Newfoundland and set it up to be the next South Beach?

[SkinBasket]

"Science Magazine", THE journal of record for the scientific community, did a fair and complete survey of 928 articles from scientific journals (with keywords "Climate change.") They found (shockingly) that 100% of the articles indicated a human factor in global warming.

With all due respect Blue... no shit?

Of course humans are "a" factor in climate change. I don't think anyone questions that. Cows fucking farting are "a" factor. A Chinaman lighting up a cigarette in Chengdu is "a" factor. That 10 second spray of AqauNet your mom used to lure your dad into the backseat where you were conceived was "a" factor. That dead bird in my back yard decaying is "a" factor.

The questions that are being asked by reasonable people are: How large of a factor are humans (in other words, are they "the" factor)? and Does "climate change" equate to "catastophic natural disaster" as folk like Al Gore like to assert as absolute truth.

People like Gore seem to find pleasure in defining the "human factor" as big business, conservatives driving SUVs, and most importantly, republican administrations and then predicting unspecified "global catastrophies" as a direct result of the senseless and evil acts of those involved in the "human factor." It is easy to demonize, afterall, when you don't include yourself as one of the demons.

[Fosco33]

I'm only mildly concerned about the 'increases' in green house gases and global warming. Throughout Earth's history, there have been periods of warming and cooling - plenty of this attributable to natural acts (volcanism being the main source, meteorite impacts, etc). Certainly, the use of fossil fuels and reductions of the rain forests have led to an undetermined effect on global warming.

I am concerned more about the human race's ability to reach the point where lack of clean water and resources needed to maintain the current style of living are used up (concrete, steel, etc.). Steven Hawking preached last week that humans should concentrate on space exploration and leaving Earth before a cataclysmic disaster kills us all (either natural or through MAD weapons -bio and nuclear threats).

Seeing Venice, Italy disappear will be a sad day for us all but IMO the US will be put in a precarious place unless we cut our love of oil and improve relations with enemy nations. There's not enough resources available (steel and concrete) to 'modernize' China and India to the state were in today. Our ability to continually innovate and improve technology while becoming a service economy will continue to separate the US from the rest. It's tough knowing we're outsourcing our manual labor force - but a necessary act for long-term sustainability.

The best part about all of this is that we have the ability and ingenuity to make all these things possible (using different materials, 'creating' materials, altering fuel source usage, etc.).

[Harlan Huckleby]

Of course humans are "a" factor in climate change. I don't think anyone questions that .... The questions that are being asked by reasonable people are: How large of a factor are humans (in other words, are they "the" factor)?

I was paraphrasing a long article, your argument is with my shorthand. The consensus opinion was that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." None of the 928 papers contradicted this opinion. 75% argued it directly. You have to read the whole article, but the high degree of scientific consensus is undeniable.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Does "climate change" equate to "catastophic natural disaster" as folk like Al Gore like to assert as absolute truth.

People like Gore seem to find pleasure in defining the "human factor" as big business, conservatives driving SUVs, and most importantly, republican administrations and then predicting unspecified "global catastrophies" as a direct result of the senseless and evil acts of those involved in the "human factor." It is easy to demonize, afterall, when you don't include yourself as one of the demons.

I don't know much about the consequences of global warming. But I suspect the worry-warts have some substance.

Regarding SUV's, I would be open to adding a tax on any vehicle that produces excessive greenhouse gases. I beleive this is practical and justified.

Sorry to see that you frame this issue in terms of politics. Rush Limbaugh is also at his worst on this issue. Remember, he has long claimed "global warming" to be a political conspiracy, and he looks increasingly foolish. Sounds like you part ways with him on the existence of (human caused) global warming, but you've moved the conspiracy over to the consequences part.

[Patler]

The deflection of radiation mitigates the greenhouse effect. Scientific data and understanding moves forward, and a solid consensus now exists that global warming over-rides global cooling.

It's this consensus that I was just looking into. I found that it is pure myth that the scientific community is divided on the existence of human-caused global warming. The contrarians in climatology are rare.


Ten years ago there was a legitimate debate on the existence of human-created global warming. But the argument is over now. I'm angry that people still get away with dismissing the issue by claiming significant scientific uncertainty.

You must have read the headlines, without reading the underlying articles and analysis. For example:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming in the last 50 years is likely the result of increases in greenhouse gases, which accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community, the committee said. However, it also cautioned that uncertainties about this conclusion remain because of the level of natural variability inherent in the climate on time scales from decades to centuries, the questionable ability of models to simulate natural variability on such long time scales, and the degree of confidence that can be placed on estimates of temperatures going back thousands of years based on evidence from tree rings or ice cores. (Emphasis mine.)

[Patler]

"The stated degree of confidence in the IPCC assessment is higher today than it was 10, or even 5 years ago, but uncertainty remains because of (1) the level of natural variability inherent in the climate system on time scales of decades to centuries, (2) the questionable ability of models to accurately simulate natural variability on those long time scales, and (3) the degree of confidence that can be placed on reconstructions of global mean temperature over the past millennium based on proxy evidence. Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years. Whether it is consistent with the change that would be expected in response to human activities is dependent upon what assumptions one makes about the time history of atmospheric concentrations of the various forcing agents, particularly aerosols."

Doesn't sound to me like even those who contributed to the report are convinced that natural forces are insignificant.

[Patler]

"What are the specific areas of science that need to be studied further, in order of priority, to advance our understanding of climate change?

"Making progress in reducing the large uncertainties in projections of future climate will require addressing a number of fundamental scientific questions relating to the buildup of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere and the behavior of the climate system. Issues that need to be addressed include
...
(e) details of the regional and local climate change consequent to an overall level of global climate change, (f) the nature and causes of the natural variability of climate and its interactions with forced changes,"

[Patler]

More uncertainty from the report Harlan cites:

'Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale. The warming that has been estimated to have occurred in response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is somewhat greater than the observed warming. At least some of this excess warming has been offset by the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols, and in any case one should not necessarily expect an exact correspondence because of the presence of natural variability."

[HarveyWallbangers]

Regarding SUV's, I would be open to adding a tax on any vehicle that produces excessive greenhouse gases. I beleive this is practical and justified.

I knew you were a liberal all this time. First solution is to raise taxes on those vehicles--to go along with the gas tax, sin tax, inheritance tax, death tax, marriage tax, license fees, income tax, sales tax, property tax. There ain't a friggin' thing they aren't willing to tax.

[Scott Campbell]

Regarding SUV's, I would be open to adding a tax on any vehicle that produces excessive greenhouse gases. I beleive this is practical and justified.

I knew you were a liberal all this time. First solution is to raise taxes on those vehicles--to go along with the gas tax, sin tax, inheritance tax, death tax, marriage tax, license fees, income tax, sales tax, property tax. There ain't a friggin' thing they aren't willing to tax.

Don't forget the gated community tax.

[SkinBasket]

Regarding SUV's, I would be open to adding a tax on any vehicle that produces excessive greenhouse gases. I beleive this is practical and justified.

I knew you were a liberal all this time. First solution is to raise taxes on those vehicles--to go along with the gas tax, sin tax, inheritance tax, death tax, marriage tax, license fees, income tax, sales tax, property tax. There ain't a friggin' thing they aren't willing to tax.

And when you add them all up, more than half of what you make goes to your various forms of government. But I guess some people don't see a problem with that. I mean look at the wonderful education the kids of Milwaukee are getting for that price. And Mil county still can't find a way to bridge the 80 mil gap in spending this year. Great stuff. But raise another tax. I'm sure it'll be spent well. Maybe we can get another deep tunnel project. Or maybe we can work on resurfacing the streets downtown that no one uses because the city has taxed just about every business out of there. More taxes! Yeah!

On a practical note, HH, who is going to decide what "excessive" greenhouse gases are? Where's the cutoff? Who's exempt? Why only SUVs? Because they're a popular target? What about semis, buses, boats, trains, construction machinery, minivans, cars over 8 years old, and that excessive gas produced the the collective anus of millions of cows? Are you going to tax all of them if they produce as much greenhouse gas as an SUV? How are you going to define SUVs?

Just a few things that come to mind when you mention dropping another tax...