Tackling Global Warming Cheaper Than Ignoring It 586
Coryoth writes, "In a report commissioned by the UK government, respected economist Sir Nicholas Stern concludes that mitigating global warming could cost around 1% of global GDP if spent immediately, but ignoring the problem could cost between 5% and 20% of global GDP. The 700-page study represents the first major report on climate change from an economist rather than a scientist. The report calls for the introduction of green taxes and carbon trading schemes as soon as possible, and calls on the international community to sign a new pact on greenhouse emissions by next year rather than in 2010/11. At the very least the UK government is taking the report seriously; both major parties are proposing new green taxes. Stern points out, however, that any action will only be effective if truly global."
Long term solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I think a long term solution to this will require technology on an unprecidented scale, not merely cutting back emissions. We should be investing in these new technologies and in general scientific and economic progress, and I am concerned that these short-term "band-aid" measures of reducing output could actually increase the amount of time it takes (and thus how bad it gets) before we have the appropriate technology and scientific understanding to regulate the climate of our entire planet.
Of course, if all else fails, there's always controlled stratospheric particulate matter injection, and the US and Russia certainly have enough devices for that...
Better off coping with a warmer planet (Score:2, Interesting)
Assuming global warming is true (a point I will neither defend nor oppose), the money spent on preventing global warming is a waste. The full implementation of the Kyoto treaty will result in a decrease in global warming by 0.07C [cei.org]. That's right, less than a tenth of a degree Celcius, with all the economic and humanitarian harm that Kyoto would impose. And that harm is real: the EU nations are already trying to figure out how to not do Kyoto while still claiming some kind of adherence to the treaty because the economic consequences are disastrous. That, and they're not meeting the requirements. [guardian.co.uk]
Our money is far, far better spent learning to cope with a warmer planet, assuming again that things are getting warmer and staying warmer. Frankly, the technological advances on our planet are going to decrease greenhouse gas emissions without any kind of treaty or government mandate. The rising cost of energy (of all kinds) will lead, quite naturally, to processes that consume less energy, thereby reducing the side-effects like CO2 production. And we mustn't forget that it is industrial processes that create products that consume less energy, like the newly popular compact fluorescent bulbs.
Re:Stephen Hawking (Score:3, Interesting)
It was even proposed that cleaning up particulate pollution over Europe could reveal a truer extent of regional warming, by 1-2 degrees. It is thought that pollution across Europe actually causes regional cooling.
Along these lines stop gap measures have been proposed, including adding 0.5-1% sulphur to jet fuel, in the hope the pollution caused would actually cool the planet. Or artificially seeding clouds over the Pacific, or even launching a giant shield into space blocking something like 2% of the suns heat(?). These are serious proposals as far as i could tell from the book.
But the problem with these solutions is that we are undertaking the problem of managing the earths climate, something Gaia has happily managed for the past billions of years.
Re:Long term solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently the cheapest way to put dust in the upper atmosphere is to shoot it up with big naval guns. But aside from that, my favored techniques involve providing tax incentives in cities to paint rooftops white. This results in an increased albedo, reflecting more sunlight (and heat) - not only reducing global warming directly, but indirectly in the form of reduced energy consumption for air conditioning and the like (the urban "heat island" effect). It's a simple, low-impact way to Do Something.
White rooftops are only one thing to do, of course. Planting some pleasant shade trees helps as well, as does the use of recycled glass in asphalt (which roughly doubles its albedo). I understand that about 1% of the nation is covered with some sort of man-made construction, so this could make a decent difference.
Re:Side Note: (Score:2, Interesting)
But seriously, don't worry.
Osama said it best... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, we should keep in mind that Bush is simply the symbol of this decay. The Administration as a whole is what scares the hell out of me. Add to this the people in Congress who support these shenanigans. And places like the UK have some nasty new laws as well.
Re:Long term solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Taxes: is there anything they can't do? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Better off coping with a warmer planet (Score:5, Interesting)
Not true.
The majority of the energy that the world consumes today is from non-renewable sources - coal, oil, uranium and so on. These sources of energy will be depleted eventually. In 100 years oil will be scarce, easily-extractable uranium may be in short supply and coal, although still plentiful, may not be used as widely for energy as it is now.
Even if one believes the most optimistic view (against all available evidence) that increasing the CO2 concentration from the preindustrial level of 280 ppm to a much higher level has no effect on the planet's climate and the ecology, one cannot deny that we will need new sources of renewable energy. If global warming provides us with an opportunity to implement renewable energy, it would provide economic stability for future generations.
Thus, the money would not be wasted. Instead, it should be considered as an insurance policy.
Re:Long term solution (Score:2, Interesting)
There has actually been quite a lot of research on how well the earth's homeostatic mechanisms will compensate for our waste. And those studies are not encouraging. Read Paul Hawken's The Ecology of Commerce. He cites quite a few studies. The book was written in 1993, so I would assume there are more now as well.
A few quotes are below because he says it so much better than me. Despite the somber tone of these quotes, Hawken's is remarkably optimistic and offers a long list of suggestions for reversing our current trend -- such as taxing waste. If waste were taxed (the manufacturer taxed, not the consumer), it would be amazing how quickly corporations found ways of recycling and reusing old versions of their products. And what is fascinating is that if corporations did this voluntarily, it could actually increase their profitability, not cut it into it. If AOL had been taxed for every 1,000 Hours Free CD that ended up in a landfill, our natural landscape would have survived the stripmining it has suffered. And perhaps, AOL would have been forced to come up with a business model that actually worked. Enough, on to quotes:
"For those who say times are tough, that we can ill afford sweeping changes because the existing system is already broke or hobbled, consider that the U.S. and the former U.S.S.R. spent over $10 trillion on the Cold War, enough money to replace the entire infrastructure of the world, every school, every hospital, every roadway, building and farm" (p 58).
"If, as predicted, our population doubles sometimes in the next forty or fifty years, we will usurp 80 percent of the primary production of the planet, assuming no increase in the standard of living. If our standard of living doubles in the next forty years--the accepted projection--we will quadruple our impact, a physical impossibility" (p 22).
"The global economy has already exceeded carrying capacity--that point beyond which further growth will decay and effectively destroy its host. ...the earth is stable. It does not grow.... No technology in the world can change this equation" (p 32).
EdGCM: NASA Global Warming Simulator on a Laptop (Score:4, Interesting)
We don't have an economics model attached so it isn't 100% relevant to TFA, but it will let you see the physical effects different CO2 and GHG scenarios will have on our planet.
Disclaimer: I'm a developer on the project.
Re:Oil Replacement Needed First (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if that reduction is even necessary (though I would say it's a good idea anyway). According to the CIA world factbook [cia.gov], the USA consumes about 4 trillion kWh of electricity each year. According to Wikipedia the energy content of biodiesel is about 35 MJ per liter [wikipedia.org]. For 4 trillion kWh, this works out to about 15 quads (the unit used by the UNH study [unh.edu]). To produce that much Biodiesel, according to the UNH study, we would need about 12000 square miles of desert land. This is a very rough approximation; converting Biodiesel to electricity is not 100% efficient, energy consumption has changed since the CIA world factbook was updated, we don't need to go all the way to Biodiesel to generate electricity (just using the oil extracted from the algae, or even the algae themselves, should work), etc. etc.
So, give or take, for transportation and electricity combined, we need about 30000 square miles of desert land. We have that much. And this is for the USA, which, to my knowledge, has the highest energy consumption per capita.
I wish I could write this eloquently (Score:3, Interesting)
For convenience (and posterity) I've copied the article below. The emphasis is mine, but please read the whole thing.
Please, please will someone... (Score:1, Interesting)
Some of my ideas:
1.) No non-HGV which operates at less than 20 km/L will be allowed to be sold. Milage to increase by 1 km/L per year until further notice for a period of not less than 10 years.
2.) No device shall be allowed to have a 'stand-by' mode. Either the item is in use, or it is consuming no power. Wherever reasonable a device must have an auto-off mode. (example: a television or lamp must be explicitely 'programmed' to not turn itself off after two hours.)
3.) The use of fossil fuels for the raw, or derived, material for packaging is forbidden.
4.) Individually wrapped items of fruit or vegetable is not legal. Use of plastic carrier bags not allowed.
5.) Use of HGV to transport items for distances less than 10 Km or greater than 100 Km is forbidden when rail service is available.
6.) Shopping outlets outside of city limits will be taxed for each vehicle that enters the premises.
7.) In-window air conditioning units to be illegal.
8.) Home cooling units may not cool houses below 30C (85F). Home heating devices may not heat houses above 18C (65F).
9.) Do something about the amount of unnecessary lighting. The solution to this is not immediately clear to me.
Re:Public planning based on hype is ill-founded (Score:2, Interesting)
Your post is reasonably well informed, but in my opinion you make some mistakes which are crucial in estimating the effect of man-made climate change.
First, of course, you assert that water vapor creates 95% of the greenhouse effect. I do not know why you mention this number (except that it is given at several skeptic's sites), but most people seem to think that 70% is a better estimate. However, it should not be forgotten that the water vapor content of the atmosphere balances itself - as such it cannot have a direct effect on global warming and abrupt climate change. This is well explained here [realclimate.org].
Some of your imformation is out of date. For example, the data of the temperature record for the last 18,000 years is ten years old, and is superseded by several studies [wikipedia.org]. You're right that these temperature changes cannot be attributed to man, the strongest change is due to the fact that we have left an ice-age.
Because carbon dioxide gives a significant contribution to the greenhouse effect, and it has significantly risen, one can expect an abrupt change in temperatures around the globe. Lo and behold, this is what we observe! There is no, I stress, NO natural effect known that could have caused this. Also, the 0.6 C change is NOT within natural climate variation on this timescale, if you know of any events, please tell me when this has happened.
Most importantly, you already claim defeat, because CO2 has a long lifetime. But the most important effects, such as sea-level rise an large-scale shift in weather patterns occur at high CO2 concentration. It is of the utmost importance to avoid the doubling of CO2 concentrations with respect to their pre-industrial age levels. We should reduce our emissions immediately and by at least 50%.