Americans Gearing up to Fight Global Warming 1104
TechnoGuyRob writes "Global warming has been one of the most controversial and debated issues in the political and scientific sphere. A recent poll published in the Chicago Sun-Times now shows that 'An overwhelming majority of Americans think they can help reduce global warming and are willing to make the sacrifices that are needed, a new poll shows. After years of controversy, 71 percent of Americans now say they think global warming is real.'" (Jamie adds: and all it took was twelve years of overwhelming scientific consensus.)
There's a lot of potential (Score:5, Insightful)
- mandating higher MPGs in automobiles
- granting huge tax credits for solar heating/electric panels on private and commercial buildings
- mandating solar equipment for ALL federal buildings
- mandating a switch to ethanol or methanol biofuels for federal fleets
- grant tax breaks for anyone switching to biofuels
- aid to cities that want to build or expand public transportation
- aid to cities to convert existing buses to biofuels
- massage research into alternative energy
- end the war in Iraq to free up the funds for the above initiatives
- Wind mill farms granted more eminent domain power (e.g., to overcome NIMBY opposition by estate owners in Marblehead, Massachusetts because "it ruins the view").
Germany during World War II switched to hydrogen for its cars when its petroleum supplies were cut off. Brazil has switched to domestically produced alcohol. It's all do-able with a strong federal leadership. This is clearly a situation where the market economy is going to favor lower prices, not (necessarily) environmentally desirable results. The federal government is the agent that can mandate the conditions necessary to make this stuff a reality.
Actions speak louder than words (Score:2, Insightful)
Missed the Mark (Score:5, Insightful)
~The Futurama Encyclopedia [gotfuturama.com]
It's wonderful that so many people are willing to say they want to make a difference. That's just as good as actually doing it! Studies also show that 74% of all Americans also say they want to start excersizing regularly, continue their education, spend time with their families, and find a cure for cancer. That's a load off my mind, I'll definitely sleep better tonight.
Regardless of that, the real problem isn't with the masses, its with the elite. My father is a plumbing and mechanics inspector in one of the richest counties in America. He recalls one house he inspected that had 7 heated swimming pools joined together with hottubs. The owner would keep them heated year-round just in case a random party broke out. He also had 10 furnace and airconditioning units in his 35,000 sqft. house that I'm sure he ran the hell out of. He also had a 6 car garage, one spot for each of his SUVs.
The real problem is, there are no limits on how much gasoline, electricity, or natural gas one person is allowed to use. Supplies are being wastefully depleted and turned into greenhouse gasses, and people are blaming the average consumer.
So when gas prices go up by 80%, this rich bastard probably won't even think twice. Meanwhile, an average person is being asked to "turn thermostats down in winter by 2 degrees, caulk around windows, combine driving trips when running errands... wash clothes in cold water, turn down water heater temperature, buy energy-efficient light bulbs, buy energy-efficient appliances, and buy energy-efficient cars." And this is a solution?
It's like having some large corporation lower 100,000 sub-management employee wages by $5 an hour instead of laying off one CEO who is making $500k per year.
Whoever said one person can't make a difference. --
"Man Bites Dog
Then Bites Self"
Can we, and should we? (Score:4, Insightful)
First, is it even our fault? Is global warming really a man-made disaster, or is it part of a climatic or solar cycle? It always seemed to be simply assumed that what we have documented is because of something humanity did...what if it's not? If this is a natural occurence, then wouldn't we be doing even more harm to nature by fighting it?
Second, what happens if there's nothing we can do? Action plans are great and all and we need to do everything in our power to reverse any damage we've done, but we need to get our heads out of the sand and have a Plan B. It's very possible that anything we do now will be too little too late, that we have already hit critical mass and warming will accelerate even if we climbed back up in the trees tomorrow.
If US don't seriously tackle it, will it matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
Gearing, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather than gear up, why not start right now? Sales of Hummers were up 174% from last year. If that's not going in the exact opposite direction, I don't know what is.
Re:Missed the Mark (Score:2, Insightful)
In that situation they're saving $500k per hour, rather than per year. Makes a big difference.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:4, Insightful)
I do not want our government mandating what types of products I can sell or buy any more than they do now. If you want to cut the amount of fuel that Americans consume, raise the tax on fuel. As much as I would hate to pay more at the pump, this is the fairest way to do it. Don't tax people on what they drive, but how much energy they consume.
Thinking and doing are not the same thing (Score:3, Insightful)
71% going out and buying efficient cars. I haven't noticed 71% of companies
switching off their lights after dark or turning down the air con / heating
a notch.
Its easy to say you're concerned about something , its quite another matter
to prove it.
Re:If US don't seriously tackle it, will it matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Given their current rate of industrialization, increasing demand for energy, and pollution output, I'd say there's plenty of doubt.
Useless polling (Score:5, Insightful)
70 percent are willing to drive less, and walk, bike, car pool or take mass transit."
BS. When it comes down to it, people will do what is cheapest and most convenient. It's very easy to tell some pollster you're willing to do something, but when push comes to shove, forget it. There is a social factor in polls that causes people to answer the way they want to be perceived, not the way they actually are.
I take mass transit daily (by choice), and I have lost count of all the people I know who've tried it but given it up as too inconvenient.
And as for energy-efficient appliances, the sticker shock is too much for many people, even when the appliance is cheaper in the long run.
You want real reduction in greenhouse gasses from US people? End the light-truck exemption for mileage standards. Increases mileage standards for all vehicles. Bring mass transit funding levels up to highway funding levels -- if it's pervasive enough, it WILL be convenient. Reducing consumption of power by 15% at home is not going to make near enough of a dent -- it is not enough, and it's irresponsible to let people believe it will be.
Re:Missed the Mark (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so sure. You ever go look at the energy usage of appliances in any store? The low-end budget models tend to use the most power, and those are the ones people getting hourly wages are buying. The Energy Star rated ones you'll pay a premium for.
Look at washing machines, for example. The ones that use the least water and electricity--by far--are front loading models. Now just try to find a front loading washing machine in a U.S. store that doesn't cost $800+.
Re:Can we, and should we? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably not. If you are in the camp that the planet is more resilient than we give credit for, than taking action against a phantom problem probably won't matter.
The place for potential damage, with AGW real or not, is to the economy. We've spend about 100 years building a petroleum based economic engine, and that cannot changed overnight.
Re:Missed the Mark (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly! As long as someone else has to do the cutting back everyone is all for it! *I* would *love* to be able to take mass transit to work daily -- problem is that it's just not possible as the transit system here (from the suburbs) was intended for suburb A city rather than being able to go from suburb A suburb B.
We need the local, state, and Federal governments to be able to help a bit and allow us the ability to help -- especially for those of us that really want to.
A great statistic, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's just so much easier to keep doing what you're doing. Change is hard.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't confuse the incompetence of the current party in power with the idea that government is neccessarily incompetent. That's exactly what they want you to do anyways.
Actions ? (Score:4, Insightful)
So how many are actually DOING any of those things? And did you notice they were good little capitalist consumption-enhancing options? Buy this, buy that. The idea is to *reduce* consumption.
I believe it when I see the first SUV manufacturer file for bankruptcy. There are practical things that *could* be done, like increasing tax on fuel to promote efficient usage, setting real requirements for home insulation, reducing coal burning. However its much easier to say you'll maybe think about buying a new SUV with 2mpg better economy, some point in the future.
Changing mindsets takes much more positive action than this - and I see no sign of a change there.
Re:Missed the Mark (Score:1, Insightful)
Problem is, you believe the elite is someone else. If you live in the US or Europe, you are the elite. If you live in China, you are going to be part of the elite.
It's not just the people who don't care if fuel cost $1.50/gal or $5.00/gal.
Meaning less (Score:3, Insightful)
And besides, actions speak louder than words. Somehow I don't think many Americans are going to all stop driving their big cars and start taking the public bus any day soon, no matter what they tell a telephone pollster...
Re:Good news everyone! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
I recently bought a new car. I was on the hedge about getting either a super-efficient car or a larger car with a sporty engine. I picked the larger car that gets around 20MpG with suburban-area driving (better on the highway).
However, my commute is only 10 miles (through the suburbs) each way and I don't go very far during the weekends. Meanwhile, I know people who drive 4-cyl Civics that drive about 4-5 times as much as I do commuting alone; lord knows what their weekend travel is like. Meaning they use at least twice the fuel I use.
If I have to pay more at the pump, then fine. But if I want to buy a bigger car with a sporty V6 then I should be able to without having to worry about the Fed crippling it.
Sure, my next car will probably be a more efficient car (possibly a hybrid) but for now this is the car I wanted.
However, I'm all for gas-guzzler tax. I just think that margin shouldn't be raised much more than it is. If you have a newer vehical that can't even break 15MpG on the highway (and it isn't a commercial truck/transport) then getting hit with a tax is acceptable.
Re:If US don't seriously tackle it, will it matter (Score:2, Insightful)
Two words:Kyoto Protocol
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying there isn't other things to worry about, but nuclear power isn't going to spew waste and carbon into the atmostphere. America could also take a look at the design of Frances 11 or so rebirthing power-plants that re-use radioactive matierial.
I'd rather see wind, solar, and hydro power riegn supreme, but where these are unavailable, we shouldn't be burning fuel like coal.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely, you must still think it is April 1?
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
If Brazil can do it, Why can't we? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, some that come to mind are the Interstate Higheway System, the FDIC, the Marshall Plan, WIC, the GI Bill...
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:2, Insightful)
So if your truck get half the milage of your car you should pay double the tax on it?
If your truck only gets half of the milage of a car, you are already paying twice as much to go the same distance!
It sounds like your "stepped price" system is already in place....
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Crazy progressive crap. It is not real fair to tax bigger cars more.
Easy to tax: the more gas you use, the more you pay in tax.
They are looking into taxing based on use per mile, since electrics don't use gas.
Here in SC, we have a property tax based on the value of your car. I never want to get a new car again, since tax on a $25,000 car is about $800 PER YEAR.
Tax the crap out of gas, tax a bit on mileage, tax me once for purchase / value. This is crazy just to drive a car.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Next, mandates don't work. You can encourage a sector to do something, but as soon as you mandate, you are requiring without funding. For a private company, it is often less expensive to simply ignore these mandates. That's why it took 10-15 years for many factories to get scrubbers on their smoke stacks. If you simply state "all vehicles will be 40mpg or better", what you have is bankrupt auto companies, and a very pissed off populace.
First, you want to avoid the common solar panels, which are previous generation solar panels. The harm they do for the environment during production is not recouped by energy production during their lifetime.
Maybe some day people like you will bother to look at a picture larger than your own house. Decentralizing energy production results in *more* wasted energy, *more* pollution from production, and a *less* efficient infrastructure. If things run on electricity, then you need to make the central generation equipment better. Throwing a solar panel on everything just means you shift the pollution to the production of panels.
If you want to aid cities in their projects, then the Federal needs to stop taking all their base tax monies. Cities can't afford to operate without Federal aid, because the Federal requires so much money for all their bloat and inefficiency. Cities would *have* good roads and public transit systems if they could keep the money where the applicable citizens live.
You don't need tax breaks or to massage anything. If you simply got the Federal out of it, the problem would tend to itself. Make the Federal stop fighting wars for the oil companies, and stop subsidizing other aspects of the oil industry, and prices will go up dramatically. That means gas will be more expensive, and people will demand more efficient vehicles. It means that research into alternative fuels will spike. All of what you seem to want, with none of the Federal meddling.
BTW, wind mills don't work, not the way you seem to think. They especially don't work in places with highly variable wind, like Massachusetts. You need *reliable* and high density energy production. Wind power is a supplementary energy source. It augments the grid and allows other, more reliable, energy production methods to scale back operations when conditions allow. What we actually need is more efficient, reliable, primary methods of power production. If you want to minimize pollution, that means fission.
Oh, and Marblehead is a roughly 3 sq mi town just south of Boston, on a small peninsula into the Atlantic. Try putting something like wind turbines in places where people don't currently have their house. There's a lot of places where you could locate something like this. If people wouldn't choose sites that "coincidentally" happened to be where the highest land values are, then you wouldn't get much opposition. You don't hear about a bunch of rich people complaining that a wind farm is going up in Kansas, do you? Do you think such things aren't being built? If you do, then you should stop keeping your eyes closed. I'd be pretty pissed if someone wanted to devalue my land, or take part of my land, and you'd bet that I'd be trying to find another location for it. The same is true of just about everyone else. I hear the Federal owns a ridiculous potion of the US; how about we use *that* land?
If you have to use eminent domain, then you've *FAILED*. You're basically stealing a person's land by doing that. You need a damned good reason, and windmills isn't one of them. If you wanted to put up a real generation station, that would produce respectable amou
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:2, Insightful)
Other more persistent problems with biofuels are concerned with the resourses needed to produce them. More land will be needed for farming and this farming activity will cause additional environmental effects such as fertilizer runoff, reduced forest land, and most likely trigger the debate about genetically modified crops, which boost production per acre.
I do believe that we need to move in this direction, though.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:2, Insightful)
An added benefit for more motorcyles on the road: a bike takes up a lot less space on the road, more bikes would reduce congestion, maybe...
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Aid To Dependent Children
No Child Left Behind
20 Trillion spent so far on fighting inner city poverty (how's that going by the way? I still here about those poor folk in New Orleans)
The war on drugs
The War on Terrorism
FEMA
Medicare
Social Security (might not be worried about that if congress had not borrowed money from it.)
The Space Shuttle
Funny you should mention WIC, I have witnessed people buy Milk and cheese with WIC and load it into a Mercedes Benz, is that what congress had in mind?
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
The Interstate system, that the Federal mandates the maintanance of, but then will revoke the aid for if you don't do exactly what they tell you. Which leaves the State still required to maintain the road, but without the money to do it. Such Federal edicts have been the old 55mph speed limit (state wide), and the drinking age at 21 (state wide).
The FDIC, which in the case of another depression, would fail due to lack of funds. This, of course, makes the existence of it pointless.
The Marshall Plan, a policy of the US in regards to another *continent*, which the US did not administer, but only funded. Also, one of the reasons for the cold war with the USSR, and the poverty of eastern Europe. It very much strengthened the Soviet hold over that part of Europe. It was probably quite good for the rest of Europe, though.
The GI Bill, which has made college educations impossible to pay for without massive loans, for those that are even able to get them. Now many people join the military simply to afford to go to college.
Then you have the WIC, which used to be handled privately by charity. Another Federal program that does something that was already being done, just less efficiently, with more corruption, and a much larger price tag. It's easily the most benign and sucessfull without poor side-effects of your list, though.
Re:Missed the Mark (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom at being an idiot consumer is not necessarily freedom, and especially not consumer-friendly.
Don't believe me? How come I can't buy crack? Just raise the taxes on crack. I think it's fair to say that heavy users of crack should pay more taxes, that way the crack-problem will go away in no-time.
Sometimes sarcasm is the only weapon I have. Quite effective in this case, I hope.
Re:Actions ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Look how fat America is. We're not a people who naturally cut back on anything.
I believe it when I see the first SUV manufacturer file for bankruptcy.
This is a monumentally stupid statement for reasons that I'm not even going to bother to get into. You know nothing about economics, sir.
There are practical things that *could* be done, like increasing tax on fuel to promote efficient usage
Which won't solve anything. It'll just cause the poorest people in the nation to have even less discretionary income. It's not the nation's $18,000/year citizens who are buying H2's. They're driving pickups and old cars with shitty gas mileage. You're screwing them, not the idealized rich shithead in your head that's tooling around the suburbs in a Hummer dumping motor oil on puppies on his way to the RNC convention. When gas prices go up, consumption is reduced slightly but most people just bitch about it. Sometimes Congress has hearings in their unceasing search for the guy who sets the oil price so they can tell him to lower it again. Again, you don't seem to understand much about economics, particularly how fuel is purchased and distributed.
setting real requirements for home insulation
This one has some merit.
reducing coal burning.
Driving up general energy costs. Again, we're just going to hammer the poor with this shit. I know, I know, what good does it do to help the poor when we've all got melanoma and are racing Kevin Costner around on Ski-Doo's because we melted the ice caps. Fine. Go try to sell that to the poor. "I know you only make $23k/year, but we'd like to jack another 25 cents a gallon on your gas taxes and raise your home heating and electricity costs by about 18%. It might force you to sell your home and move somewhere cheaper, but it's for the environment!" Good luck with your next election, Congressman.
However its much easier to say you'll maybe think about buying a new SUV with 2mpg better economy, some point in the future.
I hate to urinate in your Kashi Go-Lean, but SUVs are not destroying the environment, and their contribution to global warming, if any, is statistically insignificant.
Changing mindsets takes much more positive action than this - and I see no sign of a change there.
Nor do I. Because no matter what a poll sponsored by an environmentalist group says, people aren't willing to change their lifestyles until it's clear that it's unsustainable. Given how frequently we are wrong in our scientific consensus, I can't blame a skeptical nation for being hesitant to abandon their lifestyle because a bunch of government scientists think the temperature is going to go up 2 degrees in 200 years, long after we're all dead, and that it might cause a famine. It's a battle that can't be won. I fully expect extreme environmentalists to begin engaging in increasingly destructive, deadly, and dangerous stunts and demonstrations to give people something to think about. And that'll also fail.
Re:And yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slight Problem With Gas Tax (Score:3, Insightful)
Over the short term the price of gasoline is relatively inelastic. This means it takes a large increase in price before there is *any* impact on demand. Over the longer term one might see a trend towards more efficient vehicles, but I don't know of any evidence that large masses of people would suddenly consider giving up their cars.
All that happens in the meantime, while people convert to a longer term model, is that such an increase hurts the economy (busses, public transportation, shipping companies, etc all use gasoline in various ways) and those in the middle income bracket--since the price of gasoline is relatively inelastic, it just impacts the amount of money they have to budget into gas purchases every month, which cuts down on what they spend elsewhere.
An economic ripple effect.
For the record. I don't own a car. I get everywhere on foot or using a bicycle or, in a few cases, by taking the bus. In the US, cars are so convienient that many people--particularly those with kids--just cannot give them up easily.
Re:Slight Problem With Gas Tax (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Screw Federal Leadership (Score:5, Insightful)
The notion that if we don't reduce our carbon emissions now then the world we be an ugly place in 50-100 years time simply can't be accounted for without giving the free market a helping hand, because unaided there's no mechanism by which that potential future event has a dollar cost for the companies and consumers involved in energy transactions today.
This is specifically the situation that governments are for - they are able to apply to a cost to something and hence influence the market in a way that accounts for this externality. For example, raising the tax on gasoline is a very direct way of applying some of that external cost into the appropriate market. The free market still does it's work, we've just made the cost of gasoline what it "should" be to take account of future global warming. The market can then decide what to do about it, whether it's building more efficient cars, taking fewer journeys, or investing in alternative fuel sources.
No need for fancy tax credits or pork barrel schemes. Just make the price of gasoline (and other carbon-emitting fuels) reflect the future global warming risk, and let the usual action of the market do it's work.
Re:Missed the Mark (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Screw Federal Leadership (Score:5, Insightful)
First paragraph: knee-jerk ranting about environmentalists.
Second paragraph: You're obviously a William Dembsky fan, notorious creationist (who uses the term intelligent design). That bastard is in a feud with the University of Texas scientist Eric Pianka, and actually *reported him to the Department of Homeland Security* while misrepresenting what he said. It is a fact that Pianka was not calling for the extermination of humans, but in fact he was warning about a danger which he sees as a reality. He brought up the Ebola virus to shock his audience into thinking about his message: airborne agents that can kill 90% of the human population are not science fiction. They exist, and few people are concerned. Another part of his message was that biological systems crash when they become overpopulated, and that humans are setting themselves up for a crash. He was not calling for the extermination of human beings, and since you're saying that he was, I'm going to state that I consider you a vile sort of liar, who lies by misrepresenting what others have said.
Third paragraph: Unreasonable faith in the free market, which treats the environment as a commons that they can use up. When a company uses the environment as a dumping ground, they are stealing from everybody else. Make the companies pay the true cost of their pollution. When pollutants are injected into the atmosphere or into the ground water, I expect to see a check in my mailbox reimbursing me for the loss of a resource that I do not have any more.
Fourth paragraph: Finally, something that can be discussed. Nuclear power is definitely something that we should consider right now.
Re:Actions ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah, how about exercise? Seems people must have cut way-back on that... "Conserving Energy" and all.
Cars with great gas-mileage like Geo Metros are pretty cheap old cars that even the poorest can afford.
Actually, the nation isn't hesitant at all:
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:5, Insightful)
I look at it this way... we want the government (and I bet you do too) to set minimum standards of safety for electrical applicances so that they don't short out and injure us. These standards don't have to harshly restrict trade, just ensure that products are minimally safe. It doesn't seem outlandish at all when these standards are tightened to better reflect what kind of electrical saftey is possible with the advancement of modern technology.
Global Warming (as seen in the increase in intensity of storms worldwide and the devistation of Hurricaine Katrina) has become a safety issue. Increasing MPG standards to match modern technology is a measure the government can take to better ensure our safety in the long run.
Re:No, and no (Score:3, Insightful)
The Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare Trust Fund exist on paper only. About 35 years ago a senior senator from Massachusettes by the name of Edward Kennedy came up with the brilliant idea that the Trust Funds should be invested in a "safe" investment. So, what do these funds buy? Why U.S. Savings bonds, of course. Which means that every dollar that goes into Social Security is immediately converted into money in the General Fund, and the SSTF holds an "IOU".
All current benefits are paid out of incoming funds, with each recipient being paid for by between 4 and six current workers. This situation is about to change drastically with the influx of the baby boomers, meaning that you will need between 8 and 12 workers supporting each recipient, or you'll need to raise the tax rate, or the SSTF will have to call in it's $3.7 Trillion in savings bonds.
If you go for the last option, effectively tripling the deficit, then by 2035, that 3.7 trillion is exhausted, and the Social Security Trust Fund goes completely broke. To maintain current levels, given trends in lifespans and birth rates, by 2036, the Social Security tax rate will need to be 85% to cover all the recipients, with many recipients spending as many years on Social Security as they spent working.
So, your first item is more or less a lie. The fact is that the 36% of the budget that goes *back* to Social Security, Medicaid, and the like are a line item on the budget, in addition to what comes out of the savings bonds purchased by the SSTF. In fact, the fictitious "surplusses" of the Clinton Era included this Social Security Trust Fund "investment" in order to balance the budget. Now that the CBO doesn't include this extra 4-500 billion, we have deficits. Go figure.
National Defense has always taken between 18-25% of the budget, and since it's the only one of the above list specifically authorized by the constitution, I'm fine with that.
The fact that you break Social Programs into two categories shows the disingenuousness of the argument. Social programs now represent 57% of the budget. Add in the 6% spent on education and you're up to 63% of the budget spent on "public good" programs, a category created whole cloth by Alexander Hamilton... Find Social Security in the Constitution, I dare you.
The fact that we hear the tired old mantra of "Cut the Millitary" over and over is mind-numbing.
Ask yourself this. Bill Clinton bragged from 1996 on that he'd cut the Welfare Rolls by 50%. Welfare represents an expenditure in excess of $100 Billion per year. If he really cut the Welfare Rolls by 50%, then why haven't we cut welfare funding by a penny? In fact, we've raised spending something like 13% since 1996, to serve half as many people. At that rate, we could cut each welfare recipient a check for $175,000 and end poverty in the nation.
Don't you dare whine about the millitary. At least they work for their money.
Re:Missed the Mark (Score:3, Insightful)
First, that guy can't drive 6 vehicles at once, so the emissions is really split across all those vehicles.
Heating a 35000 square foot home is obviously going to take a lot of energy. If you assume an average "normal" house is 1500 square feet, then he is taking the resources of 23 houses. Sure, that's excessive, but how many people in the US are as rich as him? If there's only a handful, then trying to get him to turn off his pool or build a smaller house is pointless. Not only because of the Golden Rule, but much larger net gains are likely to be had by making broad but shallow changes to something that affects most people, like mpg standards.
A house can last a few hundred years. That guy's house is likely to be there, just as big, in a hundred years or so, eating up as much energy. Change code and regulate all you want, it's hard to undo that house.
Cars have much shorter lifespans. Yes, there are classic cars, but very few people drive even 50 year old cars as daily drivers.
So, yes, I suspect that a
On The Track Record of "Scientific Consensus" (Score:3, Insightful)
Michael Crichton
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeche
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therap6y...the list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
Always amuses me how statistics are abused (Score:3, Insightful)
The US is actually only slightly above average in military spending. The only reason its spending in $ is so high is because its GDP is so huge. Once you normalize it to GDP, [nationmaster.com] you can see that many other countries actually spend more than the US. China and most of the middle eastern countries actually spend significantly more, and "peace-loving" France spends just slightly less than the US.
It's the same argument used against the US when funding the UN. Countries are supposed to fund the UN in proportion to the GDP. "You have more money so you can pay more." Yet for some reason the same reasoning seems to escape people when it comes to military spending. You can't have it both ways. (Note: The US has been successful in trying to reduce its share of UN funding; partially understandable since GDP doesn't take into account taxation rate, so while US GDP is much bigger, the US govt gets to use less of it in its discretionary budget than socialist nations.)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:2, Insightful)
As the earlier poster pointed out, an english (Imperial?) gallon is larger than a US gallon (5 US quarts = 1 Imperial gallon).
There are also implications for the cost per gallon of fuel there.
But, I detect the not-so-subtle hand of the would-be tyrant in the OP.
Would anyone care to explain to what extent using:
biodiesel (how does this compare to regular diesel in terms of emissions?)
ethanol (less effiecient fuel so you burn more of it - how much CO2 per mile?)
hybrids (big hype, but does it actually do anything other than make people feel good?)
will actually reduce greenhouse gases and exactly how much impact the changes will have on global warming?
Back up your answer with facts. All of the scientific consensus in the world has yet to produce a climate model that can *predict* the climate for *any* century in the past - so I don't think that you can actually state how much impact (for example) switching every auto in the entire world to ethanol would have on global warming. But the OP wants to mandate a switch to these alternatives without providing any evidence that it would reduce greenhouse emissions. (much less any evidence that it would measurably affect global warming).
But is important to get some real facts to play with - and those facts should be stated in a standardized nomenclature (avoiding problems like mileage measured in US vs Imperial gallons) I propose the following measures.
grams of CO2 per kilometer of travel.
grams of CO2 per kg of fuel consumed
grams of H2O per kilometer of travel. (hydrogen enthusiasts, water vapor is a greenhouse gas too)
grams of H2O per kg of fuel consumed
Set up identical vehicles differing only in powerplant and fuel.
Run each of them for 5000 km at 100km/hr while measuring and recording the emissions. This is what real scientists call an "experiment".
Publish the results (the data) so everyone can see the methodolgy employed and what the results are. Also publish your conclusions.
Let other people run the same experiment - they may pick different powerplants (maybe you thought a 12 liter V16 engine for the regular gas burner was the equivalent to an 800cc gasburner in a hybrid) But since you published your methodology everyone knows what you did.
Now a "consensus scientist" starts out with a single fact.
Fact: "There is money available for producing papers that conclude X"
Everything the consensus scientist does can be derived from that fact.
His experiments (if he does any) will be designed to support "X"
Data which does not support "X" is flawed and must be ignored
If the experiment produces too much contradicory data, then he will claim
ownership of the methodology and refuse to publish it. ("hockey stick" curve anyone?)
"Scientific consensus" is to science as the fur indutry is to baby seals. (hmm my new sig)
Re:Slight Problem With Gas Tax (Score:4, Insightful)
United States of America -- Area: 9,631,418 km Population: 295,734,134
That's only a land area factor of, oh, 19. Yes, the US is 19X the size of Spain, but with only 7X the population. Things are nowhere near as close to one another as they are in Europe. It's not ideal, but that's the way things are in the US. You just about have to drive to get to where you need to go in anywhere less than a day, unless you happen to be right on a bus route that goes very near where you're going. But most bus routes to where I need to go would take multiple transfers, many stops, and be at least 3 or 4 times as long.
Gas is cheap and subsidized here for a reason... we need it to get where we're going. When you can walk across the street to get your groceries, it's not so bad. But the nearest market to my house is over a mile away, and I'm not lugging a couple week's worth of food over a mile. And that's just food.
I'm not excusing waste. I drive a more efficient car, I try to drive as little as possible, walk where I can, take public transport when i can (they're on strike now... that really sucks). But Europeans seldom seem to understand the actual SCALE of the United States. It's big. Bigger than most anything you've experienced. 3 hours is not a long drive in a car. 24 hours is getting there.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, Biodeisel and ethanol do not reduce the CO2 emissions that come out of the car signifigantly, if at all. (they do reduce some other pollutants, which is nice...)
However, the source of that carbon is the big win there -- the carbon that went into the biodeisel and ethanol comes from C02 in the air, (go read any high-school biology text on photosynthesis and the carbon cycle...) not out of the ground. And you don't put all of the carbon from growing the plants into the fuel. So using biodeisel and/or ethanol reduces the net amount of C02 in the air. (i.e you use 100g of carbon from the air to grow the corn; you put 80g of that carbon into the fuel, and burn it, you have a net loss of 20g of carbon from the air...)
So if we switched everything from petroleum to biofuels overnight, we would change from adding x amount of carbon to the air a day, to removing x/10 or so per day.
However, unless we change the way we grow our crops (with petroleum derived fertilizers) and produce our ethanol (petroleum fueled distilleries) we arent' actually going to reduce our fuel consumption nearly as much as we ought to with this approach; as numerous studies "debunking" ethanol as a solution have pointed out. (The part those studies get wrong is that there *are* ways to grow corn, etc. *without* using all that petroleum, ask any Amish farmer in Pennsylvania...)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens to the materials used to make ethanol/biodiesel if they are not used for that purpose? They have already removed that CO2 from the atmosphere. By turning them back into fuel we may be pumping more CO2 back into the air(depending on effieciency vs fossil fuel) than if we plowed them back under (or whatever else we are doing with them now)
If you posit that more crops will be planted solely for the purpose of feedstock for fuel production, then remember the energy costs involved in dealing with these new crops (additional tractors, harvesters, etc). At what point would it become cost effective to raise "crops" of biodiesel and ethanol?
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Showing how thin the "commitment" Americans have to fighting global warming. Express "concern", but drive big wasteful cars and vote out anyone who says you shouldn't. Don't be a hypocrite, just say you don't care if the world goes to hell as long as you're comfortable and have your "sporty" penis subsitute.
Hmmm.... So? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, there are large distances between different STATES, just like going from Spain (a state) to Germany (another state). But a city is a city. Or is there a "space warp" that makes travels longer in the US having the same distance than in Europe? And here the distance to a market can be the same as the place you live.
And for the bus travel you say, I had to take a subway, a train and a bus to get to work when I was working in Madrid. And where I live now (Majorca) isn't better, because there are only buses and more than half of the city is "blue zone". And if you don't live in Palma (the capital) you have to come by car and park "where Jesus lost the shoe" (spanish, don't know if it translates good) and then take a bus.
So, the problem you have is here too.
The real problem (here and maybe there too) is that public transport is a shit. Too much time between buses/subways/trains, too bad "drawn" the lines,
Better public transport = less people using private transport.
Re:Slight Problem With Gas Tax (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it means that demand falls less than prices rise. If there wasn't any impact on demand then it would be *perfectly* inelastic, which doesn't happen except in contrived scenarios like the demand for water of a person dying of thirst in the desert.
Over the longer term one might see a trend towards more efficient vehicles, but I don't know of any evidence that large masses of people would suddenly consider giving up their cars.
They won't. But they might look for jobs closer to home, carpool, eliminate unnecessary trips, or voluntarily buy more fuel-efficient cars. (We've already seen the latter; SUV sales have dropped as gas prices have increased). Gas taxes give people incentives to conserve gas; MPG restrictions give people incentives to find loopholes in the restrictions. (Which incidentally is how SUVs came to exist, since they qualified as trucks for CAFE purposes).
An economic ripple effect.
You get the same ripple effect when people have to pay more for cars with better fuel efficiency. TANSTAAFL.
Re:The poll was from an advocacy group (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's pretty clear that Environmental Defense paid for the poll, however. I'm not claiming shenanigans in this case because I simply don't care, but you always have to remember that any survey firm worth their fees will be able to toy with the sample or bias the questions to end up with results close to what the survey sponsor is looking for.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can we, and should we? (Score:3, Insightful)
And the money spend to repair the damages, might have been better spend to cure your cancer or to a nice trip to hawaii.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:2, Insightful)
And probably 95% (or more) of Americans haven't actually researched the topic and are simply believing what they've had pounded into their head for over a decade. Unfortunately, 71% of Americans would probably believe in the tooth fairy if they hear it on the nightly news week after week for a decade.
Electric Drivetrains FTW!! (Score:2, Insightful)
What we need to do is use gasoline as efficiently as possible. A car converts about 15% of the energy in gasoline to mechanical motion at the wheels. By moving to a full-electric drivetrain, with gasoline or diesel-powered generators/gensets/fuel cells and a rechargable energy storage device, far higher efficiencies can actually be achieved. The downside is that weight and cost for a vehicle will be higher.
There are interesting battery technologies being developed now, if the consumer would accept the fact that dedicated BOVs are actually an excellent choice for municipal commutes, we could see more BOVs like the EV come back into the market. I know that electricity is generated from fuel in many places in the US, however, it's far easier to manage emissions from a few power plants than it would be to manage them in a general population of automobiles.
You hate humanity and you lie (Score:1, Insightful)
Someone walks into a crowded room. He says that there are too many of X, that X is terrible. It just so happens, that everyone in the room is studying to learn how to make things that get rid of X. They stand up and cheer and say "Yes, we must get rid of X".
Upon reading about this, you agree, that yes, there are too many X, and that yes, someone should do something about too many X. But, you call yourself ok because you, as the professor writes:
I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us. [utexas.edu]
In this case, X happens to be humans and his audience happened to be biologists. But, if someone said, X = black, or X = jew, the world would be in an uproar.
Re:Slight Problem With Gas Tax (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in the US we'd call that high-density housing and its only where you're stuck if you can't afford any better.
Here in the Netherlands the government-enforced 'vinex' guidelines require this density in parts of the country. The size of parcels is basically related to the distance from from the large cities. If you want a big garden, you are going to spend a large part of your live in your car. Incomes in higher density areas are on average some 30% higher than in lower density areas, and the most popular areas are generally within (former) city walls.
At 12+ houses per acre, the houses are so close together that you can stand in one place and touch two houses at the same time. It means if you raise your voice or burp loudly your neighbor can hear it.
Not here in the Netherlands. Our home construction methods are completely different. We don't use wood framing. Traditionally this is because we have few trees in the country and lots of clay for bricks and roof tiles, and people look down on flimsy building materials and lightweight roof constructions. The inside/warm and outside/cold walls in newer houses don't have structural connections passing on noise or heat. US houses of the same floor area are much cheaper to build.
And I really dont get the wasteland comment. Just because the human density is low doesnt mean its an unpleasant part of the country. In fact, the more lush and beautiful the land is in your area, the more of it you'd want to have for your own and separate you from your neighbor.
It's a cultural choice. Economically speaking it's wasteland in the sense that it costs the US economy money to let people live in those parts of the country. The biggest employer in most rural states is the government and generic services, and most of the land is used for heavily subsidized, destructive, and low yield agriculture. For Americans it is apparently a worthwhile investment of money and time (spent in your car) to live far apart, but it is an expensive luxury. I agree parts of the US are spectacularly beautiful, but on the other hand the 'manmade' parts of the landscape look very sloppy with above ground utilities and stuff like that.
Considering how quickly house prices drop in proportion to population density here in a tiny country such as the Netherlands, we apparently have much less tolerance for being far away from civilization (and more for smaller living quarters). Few want to live 40+ minutes from a major city.
A sidenote: the few people who emigrate from here to the US, Canada, and Australia generally do go to sparsely populated areas, but these people usually don't have to work (anymore) for a living. We obviously don't have the choice, given that our population density is some 16 times higher than in the US. US expats who go to the Netherlands usually want to live in or near a historical town center if they can afford it.