[Npbfamgt]

6) Coal is a global cooling agent and can be cheaply used to reverse the effects of global warming

[grosqueneen]

I have zero problem with a carbon tax so long as industrial emissions in China, etc are treated the same as those in Ontario, etc; petroleum producers in Saudi, Venezuala, Nigeria, Russia, etc are treated the same as those in Alberta; farms in Argentina, the Ukraine, Kansas, and France face the same carbon costs as those in Saskatchewan; and forestry in Sweden and Russia faces the same taxes as in British Columbia.

I am not sure about cap and trade.

[rowneigerie]

What?

[Optipitle]

I'm pretty much in total agreement with the OP. With the additional clarification that I don't give a **** in general.

The climate on Earth has changed dramatically in the past, it'll happen again sooner or later. Adapt or die.

[usatramadolusa]

What kind of whiskey?

[Tamawaipsemek]

I'm debating joining my brother in Kentucky in February just to tour the distillery. He's going to visit his woman who is on an optometry rotation. But the airfare is a bit too much, and the distance too far to drive.

[snova]

1) CO2 causes a greenhouse effect (duh) Yes, but I don't see how the greenhouse effect by atmospheric CO2 is significant, compared to that of water vapour. It seems to me that changes in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere would have greater effects than the amount of CO2.

2) Human beings are currently altering the CO2 balance of the atmosphere significantly Do you mean measurable? I'd agree that we can measure increases in atmospheric CO2. I don't believe that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere represents a significant shift in the overall atmosphere.

3) This push will cause significant rises in global mean temperature (1-5C) over the next century or so 1-5 C? I'm not convinced that the increase in CO2 will outweigh other factors, such as water vapour and solar radiation. The entire temperature shift we have recorded so far can be explained as variations in solar radiation.

4) This will cause significant increases in global mean sea levels (30-200cm)
5) This will flood a number of currently low-lying areas Wow, you really believe we'll see significant changes in sea levels? I don't think we'll see anywhere close to a 2 metre rise in the seas.

[mGUuZRyA]

i) A carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system will both find the same equilibrium no matter how permits are initially distributed (Coase theorem) and both have the same initial deadweight costs

One will probably take longer then the other to reach a state of equilibrium so it is still worth while to study the options closely. Also one is applied to everything (theoretically) while the other is more open to political manipulation and thus is likely to be less effective (or take longer to reach equilibrium if you prefer that terminology). In my mind there are simply more factors politicians can **** with in cap & trade (the size of the cap, the value of off sets) so my inclination is to go with the simpler solution of taxing all carbon and letting god sort them out.

ii) The revenue from a carbon tax and a fully auctioned cap-and-trade system can be used to reduce other, more destructive taxes, and this is by far the most efficient way to reduce emissions (particularly compared to legislating/regulating/subsidizing technologies or industry-specific emissions levels) It won't. It never does. Politicians see money, politicians spend money. Theoretically all that TARP money banks are repaying to avoid the penalties should be used to pay off the debt incurred getting the money to finance the TARP to begin with but it won't. It will be spent. We all know this.

[SergeyMaikov]

I'm down with 1 & 2, the rest not so much. I think there's a high likelihood that our current understanding of global climate is not entirely accurate, and computer models that rely on proxy data and significant data adjustments seem shaky at best.

The issue seems to be so highly politicized that it's affecting certain scientists and institutions a great deal, most especially the UN and the IPCC.

[Feflyinvelf]

The data is adjusted to a fairly large extent. Whether it is appropriate or not is debatable, but to say that only a single data point has been adjusted is not accurate.

And I guess half of Americans are wing nuts, probably an understatement, but doesn't say much for your "fringe" accusations.

And there is quite a bit more than the 3 compromising emails if you can manage to dig a little deeper than mainstream media soundbites.

[PoideAdelereX]

I agree with everything in the OP

And on rainfall.

I think it's been proven that rainfall patterns in local areas can be significantly changed, and drought conditions created as a consequence of deforestation or major changes in land use, where areas have been conversed to mass agriculture with changes in water use for irrigation or where water has been directed to cities for human use. This is a separate issue to climate change caused by atmospheric CO2, or other greenhouse gasses. It is more man made local climate change rather than global, and it is tied to industrial development. I think there is reasonable evidence (if not conclusively proven) that the number of these local changes are already contributing to increasing the number of extreme weather events across the globe. One problem is not enough historical data, reliable cyclone monitoring really only started in 1970. Certainly extreme weather events are increasing, it's just what the exact cause/causes are that is in doubt.

I will try and find some links to met office hadley centre research later to back that up.

[auctionlover]

1) Duh indeed, although we’re running the risk of entering the realm where positive feedbacks kick in. Already the permafrost around the world is beginning to melt, giving off ever increasing quantities of methane, which is 20 times more potent!
4) At least! The sea level rise figures are constantly being adjusted upwards. It has to be noted that sea level rise during the 20th Century was approximately 20cm. Also the effects of isostasy have to be taken into account – for example, in the UK we have the curious situation where in Scotland the land is rising, whilst in southern England it is sinking.
5) Already happening across the world!

a) Extreme weather events (floods, hurricanes, droughts, fires etc.) are already killing thousands of people globally each year and this is the tip of the iceberg. Also imagine the socio-economic effects of mass displacement, competition for dwindling resources (water, fish stocks, viable land for farming, peak oil, raw materials etc.) – riots will be triggered (witness the food riots of last year), wars will be fought…
b) This is a no brainer – or at least was. I think we may have already passed a point where it would have been relatively affordable to do something about it. Mitigating stuff from a) above is going to be hugely costly and spiral ever upwards. How much has it cost so far dealing with New Orleans?
c) They already are! Too much or too little rain for an area is a significant negative effect. I’ve seen first hand the ongoing droughts affecting Australia – droughts and their severity are on the increase wherever there is a susceptibility to them. The converse is also true of floods. In the UK again, 2 out of the last 3 years have seen extreme localised flooding events – costly ones too (see b)).

As for i) and ii), I am fairly ambivalent about their potentials for success, with the potential to give rich countries carte blanche to continue their polluting ways for a small premium. However something does need to be done, the UK govt is taking the wrong approach by using climate change as an opportunity to fleece people left and right for additional taxes. There should be positive incentives as well to actually stimulate the creation of green jobs – instead of setting the population against the whole concept.

iii) Education on climate change on the positive effects. Clearly lacking here in the UK as the prevailing opinion is the fact that all the measures required are actually a BAD THING that are going to adversely affect people's standard of living. I’ve taken a series of steps to reduce my carbon footprint quite drastically around the house and the result of this small amount of effort (I am a lazy person!) is the saving of hundreds of pounds! Our government has us believing this is going to COST MONEY, when in actual fact most of the things in your power to change should actually be saving you money! My car died in August and, as an experiment I have yet to replace it. I guess I am lucky as I live in the middle of town and work is only a ten minute bike ride away – however I have found that I have almost completely not missed having a car at all! When I do need one, I hire one – which I have only done twice so far. I figure again I have already saved hundreds of pounds. I have also lost about half a stone and am much fitter! People need to be engaged via the positive benefits – not beaten with the evil tax stick!

iv) A virtual declaration of ‘war’ on the climate (America should be good at this: ‘war on drugs’, ‘war on terror’ etc.). In the UK for example, the entire population had to conserve energy and resources during WWII because of Hitler’s (crap, have I Godwinised this thread!?) U-Boat blockade. Our population was exhorted to ‘Dig for Victory’ with virtually every available piece of land being used to grow food. Meat was rationed, public transport encouraged, things were mended etc. Of course, Nazi Germany was a clear existential threat, as opposed to climate change where even now 40% of UK citizens aren’t convinced. A good bit of martial law helped as well. Currently I believe we are in the ‘phoney war’ stage, a bit like before Germany unleashed her armies and overran France in 1940… We can start small on this one...

[ssupermegatone]

I have zero problem with a carbon tax so long as industrial emissions in China, etc are treated the same as those in Ontario, etc; petroleum producers in Saudi, Venezuala, Nigeria, Russia, etc are treated the same as those in Alberta; farms in Argentina, the Ukraine, Kansas, and France face the same carbon costs as those in Saskatchewan; and forestry in Sweden and Russia faces the same taxes as in British Columbia.

China has done more unilaterally to combat climate change than any other country in the world – namely the One-child policy enacted in 1979 (not to mention its efforts at population control since the ‘50’s). Since then it estimates that it has 300-400 million fewer people in 2008 than without the policy – basically the population of the USA!

The average Chinese person is responsible for less than a third of greenhouse emissions compared to an American, or a Canadian.

China’s proposals for cutting CO2 by 2050 is more than twice that of the USA (40% to 17% IIRC).

Any more excuses for sitting on your arse and continuing to pollute the world as you see fit while having the cheek to blame others?

[avaiptutt]

Not to mention that the greenhouse effect is also dependant on the sun.

FTW

[bonyrek]

Welshmen

[Dwnijzhd]

Are there more disasters, or are there more people living on earth, making every catastrophe worse because more people are hit?

[Cucoulkrory]

To all those using the word "proven": I said "adequately demonstrated".

[KellyLynchIV]

It has not been adequately demonstrated that reducing the human influences on greenhouse gases will positively impact the welfare of the people of Earth.

[hieklyintinee]

Not too long ago, in the grand scheme of things.

[betraaaus]

a) Extreme weather events (floods, hurricanes, droughts, fires etc.) are already killing thousands of people globally each year and this is the tip of the iceberg. Also imagine the socio-economic effects of mass displacement, competition for dwindling resources (water, fish stocks, viable land for farming, peak oil, raw materials etc.) – riots will be triggered (witness the food riots of last year), wars will be fought…
b) This is a no brainer – or at least was. I think we may have already passed a point where it would have been relatively affordable to do something about it. Mitigating stuff from a) above is going to be hugely costly and spiral ever upwards. How much has it cost so far dealing with New Orleans?
c) They already are! Too much or too little rain for an area is a significant negative effect. I’ve seen first hand the ongoing droughts affecting Australia – droughts and their severity are on the increase wherever there is a susceptibility to them. The converse is also true of floods. In the UK again, 2 out of the last 3 years have seen extreme localised flooding events – costly ones too (see b)).

a) Extreme weather events have always killed thousands of people. Mass displacement would be an issue that takes place over years and years. Resources would probably be more plentiful, since warmer weather and increased CO2 would lengthen growing seasons and increase crop yields. Riots and wars happen all the time, regardless of the weather.

b) New Orleans flooded because Louisiana politics are as corrupt as humanly possible. They aren't even ashamed of it down there. If it had been a well run city in a civilized state, the levees never would have failed. As it is, I see no reason to rebuild it. Keep the French Quarter as a tourist spot, and let the rest sink beneath the waves.

c)Droughts and flooding have always occurred. They're why ancient civilizations from the Nile to the Indus took calenders and irrigation so seriously. They're expensive to deal with, but certainly manageable.

Let me just note that it seems like every year we get predictions about the Atlantic hurricane season, and every year they're exaggerations. There's already a Colorado State University prediction that 2010 will have above average hurricanes. The past few years haven't been any worse than most years on record, but every year the news is full of nonsense about how this is gonna be one for the record books.

Also, what population control efforts in the PRC date back to the 1950s? The Great Leap Forward?