Scientists Agree - We are Ruining the World

[bigfatron]

Will not do one iota of good unless their government backs it. And what government in its right mind will back legislation that hurts its GDP?

First, your government does it all the time - any legislation imposing duties on corporations can be argued to introduce inefficiency, whether it is employment law, anti-polluting rules, etc. That reduces GDP growth.

Second, the assertion that addressing global climate change will significantly impact GDP is far less proven than the actuality of anthropomorphic climate change.

Show me some good, strong evidence that there will be a negative impact. Using your own standards of proof, I want to see actual cases of pollution control impacting GDP, not just model predictions (I would strongly argue that economic modelling is less predictively accurate than climate modelling) or expert opinions (economists are often so entrenched in their political views I would hesitate to call them objective scientists at all).

Third, many governments have already taken action - most European countries, including the UK. Data suggests the GDP impact so far has been so minimal to be almost unmeasurable - the UK estimate of GDP growth impact for the years 2000 - 2050 of climate change abatement is 0.01-0.02% of GDP per annum (source: http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_..._public_consultation_background_document.pdf).
That is 1-2/10,000 of GDP! For the US that would be USD12-25bn, not even enough to fund a decent Haliburton reconstruction contract....

The CEOs of companies like General Electric, aluminum producer Alcoa, chemicals giant DuPont, Duke Energy, Lehman Bros, and BP America are asking for urgent implementation of curbs in the US - do you think they WANT to wreck their corporations? Of course not. They see a risk to be mitigated and a profit to be made in doing so.

I'm with them.

All the best
BFR

 

[Verbose]

Instead of reinventing the 'blamegun mk II' scientists need to invent a fix for the problem; not just another 'I told you so'.

They have. It's just that it's not necessarily simple, cheap and possible to implement through national politics.

You seem to make a rather naive demand for a scientific "quick-fix" from the lab-coat guys, a clever gadget of some sort?
They're saying this is a problem that's not possible to adress like that.

Anything that's in anyway possibly going to cost real money, require political will and stamina and voluntary compliance of a lot of people on a truly international scale, because it's the right thing to do, well, we are as yet woefully unable to pull off as a species. We might have to seriously rethink international politics to be able to get a handle on this thing.

Though as I'm sure you've noticed here, as in many areas, there's an onus placed on the US to lead the way, or at least stop actively obstructing.

 

[BasketCase]

So you believe the best action to take is none whatsoever?

Instead of presuming my answer, how about you ask the question properly: "BasketCase, what do you think we should do?"

 

[bigfatron]

Instead of presuming my answer, how about you ask the question properly: "BasketCase, what do you think we should do?"

OK: "Basketcase, what do you think we should do?"

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Now wait a second. How does raising beef on land 'leech' the nutrients from the soil?

Huh?

People have been raising beef all across the USA since forever....I dont recall ever reading about how the soil was 'leeched' out.

(kinda boring biochem stuff ahead )

Most of the good stuff in a rainforest is present in the biomass (the plants). When the plants die, their remains go into the soil - which, being excessively watered, is a poor reservoir for nutrients; if the stuff stayed in the ground, it would soon be washed out of the topsoil by constant rainfall. But since there's tons of plants, it gets picked up right away and goes back into the biomass. So, the important point is that it's sustainable.

When you slash-and-burn the forest and replace it with cow-munchable grasses, you're temporarily returning the entire nutritional content of the forest to the soil. Obviously the grasses take up as much as they can, which makes the land very fertile for about half a decade. But they can't take it up fast enough and lots gets washed out of the soil. Also, that biomass is never returned to the ground: cows eat it and then the cows get shipped to the United States. So the land soon becomes barren unless you cart in an exorbitant amount of fertilizer. Now (says rancher McD) why do that when you can buy more rainforest on the cheap?

Regarding agriculture in the USA: the soil of the South and Midwest is actually much less fertile today than it was a century or two ago (a lot of Southern land has practically been destroyed by tobacco farming). This is why we have to use so much fertilizer, and it causes other problems (aquifer depletion for instance). However, American soil is hardier than tropical soil because it gets less rain.

 

[BasketCase]

OK: "Basketcase, what do you think we should do?"

Thank you.

Two big problems: number one, a bunch of developing nations are determined to industrialize and improve their standard of living. No. Matter. What. And second, as Narz said earlier on, violent force really isn't an option to bring such nations to heel if they refuse to do anything about the problem.

So, the big picture is this: while some nations have "seen the light", lots of others have not--and there's no indication they're going to. And we can't use force on them. Therefore we have no choice but to work around this limitation.

Which means the only sure-fire solution is to develop a method or technology that will stop global climate change without significant effort or cost. Something that we can put to use without intruding on the territory of "backwards" nations or enlisting any cooperation on their part.

 

[batteryacid]

To add my 2 cents here:

-A lot of joint venture between western and developing countries already exist to help them cope with pollution (e.g. Japan helped China significantly to implement Scrubbers and Flue gas cleaners on Coal-based Chaloric power plants)

- imo they have the same right to develope and rise their standard of living no matter what as the first world has the right waste energy and to pollute the environment no matter what

- your statement above, BC is simply arrogant and cynical, but at least I´m releived that nuking them into stoneage to prevent them wasting energy and fossile fuels is not a real option for you. ( hope also that this it is no option for developing countries to prevent us from wasting fossile fuels and polluting and overfishing the oceans)

-I don´t understand the point why we should have to wait fo some magic new technology that reduces pollution and saves energy without cost. The technology to reduce polltuion further and save more energy exists already and will never be cheap enough to stop the whining of some CEOs about levels in pollutant regulation laws.
A lot of studies as well as the past experience with pollution reduction in the chemical industry has shown, tham implementing environmental beneficial technologies (solar power, wind power plants, cleaning devices for the chemical industry etc) are beneficial for both: the standard of living and the economy as the implementation iof these technologies add more new jobs than jobs that are cut because of the the higher production costs.

 

[Shylock]

Well I guess it's best we enjoy life now. Nothing we can do about it.

It seems unfair that the younger generation should inherit and a more expensive and world stripped of most of it's resources.

 

[bigfatron]

Which means the only sure-fire solution is to develop a method or technology that will stop global climate change without significant effort or cost. Something that we can put to use without intruding on the territory of "backwards" nations or enlisting any cooperation on their part.

Relying on a 'future tech' is clearly not a 'sure-fire solution' as you put it. It is simply a gamble.

Your premise though is flawed - third world countries are determined to industrialise, true, but through co-operation and hi-tech support are looking to industrialise along a far lower polluting curve than the first world followed. This may be inconvenient to them, but they are in agreement with the principle.

What stops them signing up binding commitments to this is the refusal of the highest polluting nations to accept the need for restraint - why should THEY commit to holding themselves back when YOU will not commit to reducing the damage you already do?

In reality they are already doing so, witness the Japanese-Chinese cooperation programmes, but if you want a fixed commitment, give one yourself.

 

[History_Buff]

Thank you.

Two big problems: number one, a bunch of developing nations are determined to industrialize and improve their standard of living. No. Matter. What. And second, as Narz said earlier on, violent force really isn't an option to bring such nations to heel if they refuse to do anything about the problem.

So, the big picture is this: while some nations have "seen the light", lots of others have not--and there's no indication they're going to. And we can't use force on them. Therefore we have no choice but to work around this limitation.

Which means the only sure-fire solution is to develop a method or technology that will stop global climate change without significant effort or cost. Something that we can put to use without intruding on the territory of "backwards" nations or enlisting any cooperation on their part.

Well, you surely cannot expect China or India to make a commitment to reducing emissions until the US/EU makes a determined effort themselves. Even on the day US and Chinese emissions are equal, the US will have pumped far more Carbon into the atmosphere to date, and thus bears a heavier burden in fighting climate change.

As for future technology: The price of scrubbing Sulphur from output has gone down substantially since the US introduced legislation saying companies just couldn't pollute certain things anymore. Private industry responded with massive investment, and we're better off for it. If you want a miracle solution, you'd better give someone a reason to pay for it.

 

[BasketCase]

What stops them signing up binding commitments to this is the refusal of the highest polluting nations to accept the need for restraint - why should THEY commit to holding themselves back when YOU will not commit to reducing the damage you already do?

We DID commit to reducing the damage we do. Just not with pathetic sham treaties such as Kyoto. We cleaned up our polluted rivers and implemeneted public programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Other nations failed to learn from our example. They went right ahead and made all the same mistakes the U.S. already made decades ago.

And there's a second reason: because the damage they do is going to do destroy them while merely being inconvenient for us.

Take a look at China. China has a serious problem with pollution right now. And by serious, I mean a lot worse than the United States. Now, take a look at where the damage is. The pollution is in CHINA, not the United States. The smog is OVER THERE. The lung cancer is OVER THERE. The lead poisoning is OVER THERE. The only potentially worldwide effect China is having is through greenhouse gases, and they're dropping the ball there, too--they're going right ahead and making the same mistakes.

China had a chance to learn from America's mistakes. They blew it.

 

[History_Buff]

We DID commit to reducing the damage we do. Just not with pathetic sham treaties such as Kyoto. We cleaned up our polluted rivers and implemeneted public programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Other nations failed to learn from our example. They went right ahead and made all the same mistakes the U.S. already made decades ago.

Without trying to discredit you by screaming "SOURCE", could you provide an example of a public program to reduce emissions? For I haven't heard any.

And there's a second reason: because the damage they do is going to do destroy them while merely being inconvenient for us.

WRONG. While that flies for things like lead and smog, and to a lesser extent Acid Rain, CO2 is just as harmful to the earth, no matter where you emit it. What China does hurts us and China equally, and it's the same with us.

The only potentially worldwide effect China is having is through greenhouse gases, and they're dropping the ball there, too--they're going right ahead and making the same mistakes.

China had a chance to learn from America's mistakes. They blew it.

The only worldwide effect America is having is through greenhouse gases, and the West is dropping the ball just as surely. The West had a chance to learn from our mistakes, but we blew it too.

 

[BasketCase]

Smog checks. Conservation efforts. Carpooling. Recycling. Old-car turn-in programs. Tree planting (plenty of which has been performed by yours truly).

WRONG. While that flies for things like lead and smog, and to a lesser extent Acid Rain, CO2 is just as harmful to the earth, no matter where you emit it. What China does hurts us and China equally

Then why is it China has damaged itself so much worse....?

I stand behind what I said. China's pollution will be a lot worse for China than for the U.S.

 

[ummmm........]

Basket, after your post, I can't help but be remided of a quote: "It's tobacco! It's one of the healthiest things for your body!"

(Ten points for anyone that can identify the quote.)

It's Woody!

But I do not need your ten points.

I carry twenty-three great wounds, all got in battle. Seventy-five men have I killed with my own hands in battle. I scatter, I burn my enemies' tents. I take away their flocks and herds. The Turks pay me a golden treasure, yet I am poor! Because *I* am a river to my people!

 

[Quasar1011]

According to Algore, we have 8 years, 360 days, 2 hours, 11 minutes and 55 seconds before Doomsday... and counting!

 

[ummmm........]

Yeah, but I count slow . . .

 

[History_Buff]

Smog checks. Conservation efforts. Carpooling. Recycling. Old-car turn-in programs. Tree planting (plenty of which has been performed by yours truly).


Then why is it China has damaged itself so much worse....?

I stand behind what I said. China's pollution will be a lot worse for China than for the U.S.

How exactly is China any more damaged by CO2 than the US?

 

[Xanikk999]

How exactly is China any more damaged by CO2 than the US?

Well they certainly dont have as much arable land. But thats not because of global warming or CO2.

However they have much laxer standards (If any standards at all) on thier pollution controls.

 

[History_Buff]

Yes, but my point is that while China will suffer from local pollution issues, CO2 spreads itself so rapidly that it affects just about everywhere on the globe equally.

Regulating certain pollutants is not neccesarily the same as regulating CO2 output.

 

[BasketCase]

How exactly is China any more damaged by CO2 than the US?

Carbonic acid comes to mind. China's CO2 emissions will tend to dissolve in local waters, so any theoretical damage done to drinking water and fisheries would mostly be done there. To what degree, exactly? I don't know.

In general, however, the damage being done by China's pollution is being done in China.