Alonzo Fyfe

The basic facts about global warming are difficult for any credible scientist to deny.

Given the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, and the emission spectrum of the Earth, greenhouse gasses cannot help but absorb energy that the Earth would otherwise radiate into space.

And, since CO2 emissions for example are rising at 3.5 ppmv per year, and human emissions are 7 ppmv per year, it is clear that these levels would not be increasing if not for human action.

<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/761073.asp" target="_blank">Now, the Bush Administration has admitted this.
</a>

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

echidna

To be fair, the Cato Institute is exactly one of those libertarian groups busy on discrediting problems with climate change.

Economic libertarianism (which personally I side with) is idealistically opposed to reductions in energy consumption. So I’d be taking their climatic data with a sizeable grain of salt too.

Alonzo Fyfe

I am a libertarian, and I generally like what the CATO Institute does. In this case, however, it is dead wrong on the science of global warming. And I believe it is doing the world a terrible disservice because of it.

The science of global warming is not a political issue. One can hardly say that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation if one is a Democrate but is transparent to infrared radiation for Republicans.

What the CATO institute should be doing (rather than supporting poor arguments against the science of global warming) is proposing free-market solutions to the problem.

These solutions would draw on a great deal of free-market work done on externalities and the need to internalize the costs inflicted on others in order to generate optimum market performance. Instead, it ignores this line of research.

So, we are stuck between two options. One side stupidly denies the evidence supporting global warming. The other side accepts the evidence but offers stupid solutions to the problem (e.g., the Kyoto treaty).

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

Thor Q. Mada

Alonzo Fyfe,

I am not a conpspiracy theorist, but why is it that for the energy source of the future , evrybody is concentrating on LNG (natural gas) , which is in the hands of big oil.
The most obvious alternative for clean energy with virtual absence of greenhouse gasses, would be hydrogen.
There are small scale research projects and some cities in Germany are shifting their public transport to hydrogen, and BMW has invested BIG into hydrogen driven cars, but the push from big oil towards LNG is clear.
LNG while burning cleaner than other fossile fuel is NOT the solution.

echidna

I have sleepless nights trying in vain to reconcile my own libertarianism with my alter-ego of being a closet-greenie.

In reality I think there is no solution to curtailing greenhouse gases. Basically it’s gonna get a whole heap worse before it even begins to get better.

At the end of the day, people don’t give a toss about climate change. In my experience, only the smallest proportion of the world’s community even sees it as a problem, and many of those who are vocal about it, seem quite unwilling to follow-up their words with actions of their own.

Ultimately it comes down to economics and willpower.

a) Energy prices, especially petroleum need to increase dramatically to curtail usage. And can I say I’m feeling very very lonely in suggesting this. Prospect for this ever receiving public support : 0.05%

b) Hybrid cars such as the Toyota Prius still cost 50% more than conventional equivalents and still compromise performance. Realistically they are a niche market for the tiny percentage of the community who care sufficiently.

c) Who is actually willing to give up their car completely & rely solely on public transport ? Who is willing to forego any future aircraft travel overseas or interstate ? Who is really willing to embrace the Spartan life of minimal energy consumption ? Easy to talk the talk, not quite so to walk the walk.

d) My only glimmer of optimism is for scientists to genetically modify a low-fart cow.

Alternative energies are still largely a pipedream, and really at best will only serve niche areas of industry. When one analyses the sheer mass of energy we consume & stack up the unpleasant economics of alternative energy costing, hydrocarbons still come out way in front, and with the immense stores of coal, gas, methane hydrates, always will.

Unpleasant, but as long as we object to paying an extra 50% at the petrol bowser, fossil fuels will always dominate 80% of our energy consumption, especially in those countries with lower population densities.

Friar Bellows

[quote]Originally posted by echidna:
<strong>I have sleepless nights trying in vain to reconcile my own libertarianism with my alter-ego of being a closet-greenie.</strong>

At least you're honest about it. The arguments I've had with libertarians on this issue sadly remind me of arguments I used to have with creationists in my younger, more naive days.

Cynicism. That's where I'm currently at, too!

Me, but I'm nothing if not unconventional. The real problem is that over the 20th century, cities were designed for the car, not for the human being. When I was a kid, the suburb I lived in used to have a shop on every other corner. In the morning, if you wanted your milk, bread and newspaper, you walked a hundred metres and that was that. I used to walk half an hour to school every day. Now, the corner stores are gone, replaced by malls which require a car to reach. And mothers now drive their kids to school every day. The peak hour for traffic is now when kids finish school, not when workers finish the 9-5 shift (9-5? That's becoming extinct too!)

We won't give up our cars as long as the man-made environment which supports them stays as it is. And no politician is going to last long if s/he makes significant changes to it. We're screwed in the long run. Pray for some miracle technology.

echidna

What an unusual recommendation on an atheist website.

It’s a bit chicken & egg though. The last time we prayed for a technological miracle we got the automobile. And it’s the cars themselves which support and encourage our sprawled urban environment, by enabling people to travel greater distances at will.

Personally I’m opening a life-jacket business in New Zealand (on second thoughts maybe I should choose an island where the national currency isn't the IOU )

Late_Cretaceous

Interestingly enough, the automobile was the environmentally friendly travel solution of its day. Horses were the primary mode of transport, and in urban areas piles of horse dung was piling up and causing problems. Cars were viewed as being the solution to pollution. NOw cars are the problem.

Skydancer

In 1900, the cities were congested and the streets were full of unspeakable filth. Now, the cities are still congested, and the air is full of filth - but we can talk about it.

fando

It's hard to figure out anything concrete about the issue of Global Warming, especially if you're trying to get into the actual science. Here's my story and opinion:

I have a degree in Astronomy and have an ample amount of planetary science behind my belt and have only recently been taking an interest in studying the issue. Unfortunately, there's this huge problem in obtaining useful scientific information that is not already tainted by ego and politics. I've long given up any attempts to distill information from the internet or the media for these reasons. My only recourse is to go to my alma mater (Caltech) and do some actual research.

In particular, I'm trying to answer the following question:

"Why should we even care about climate change?"

I ask this primairily because I think all the hysteria over Global Warming is simply a bleeding-heart cry to save the humans and the biosphere. The former can adapt, the latter is already fucked beyond repair. Resource wars might happen, but I consider such issues trivial; The only real concern I would have is if our greenhouse gas production rate increases to a point where we will cause a runnaway greenhouse effect. If this were the case, then I would feel motivated to do everything I could to help curb our emissions.