I'm not an expert and even I can answer this: raise emissions standards for automobiles. Switch SUVs from being designated as trucks to cars. Invest money that would normally go into carbon energy subsidies instead into green energy. I'm pretty sure the IPCC report, on the last page, lists some recommendations. Nope. I checked, no recommendations. Well, those are my ideas.



I'm all for that...those are reasonable, productive ideas that everyone should be able to get behind.

1. Most or all of that $$$ goes out the window if oil returns to $35/bbl. Then you have the subsidies and more carbon consumption.
2. K Street

I beg to differ in that I think that most Americans have a strong preference for private transportation. I read somewhere that demand elasticity for gasoline is about .30, which suggests that it is not quite a necessity. The reason taxing gasoline is viewed as similar to taxing food is due, in part, to the peception that we are entitled to an unlimited cheap supply of a scarce resource.

Now, that's something I'd like to learn more about. I'll wikipedia "demand elasticity."

I haven't called anybody either of these things, nor has anybody else. Let's keep it civil, eh?

I have heard the term "global warming denier" in the media, which implies a certain association.

I read somewhere that demand elasticity for gasoline is about .30, which suggests that it is not quite a necessity.

I should have said that not all gasoline consumption is a necessity. Some of it is essential and some of it is discretionary. My bad.

demand elasticity

IOW a 10% increase in price results in a 3% change in consumption.

Playing catch up during lecture ...

This is the kind of statement that makes the global warming movement so frustrating. We've been doing things to reduce the negative effects of industry on pollution for decades.

Honda, a Japanese company, along with Toyota, currently dominate the hybrid industry while American car manufactureres were content to sit on their own hybrid technology, and pump out SUVs to inflate the coming quarters' bottom line. That they're now struggling to catch up to Japanese companies in sales of smaller, fuel-efficient cars is a testament to their short-sightedness.

When I say "we" I meant our national energy policies -- I should have been more specific. As I mentioned earlier, it wasn't until this last month that this Administration even officially acknowledge global warming. I understand that using the government to drive energy trends is anathema to many posters here, but when government pushes tens of billions into industries that clearly don't need support, it puts emerging alternative energy producers at a severe disadvantage.

(1)We may not be addressing it quickly enough, or with the gravity some think it deserves, but (2)there is a conscious effort from even this administration to discuss and to address environmental issues. Those in good positions to change the situation are not merely ignoring the problem.

Numbers mine. I agree with the first, but I won't argue that there's plenty of wiggle room either way.

As to the second part of that statement ... As DMN pointed out, the U.S. government has been very antagonistic towards reducing emissions. The President, until the last SotU, wouldn't even acknowledge a problem existed. just today, the Administration's come out with an open letter suggesting that the President has forever been a proponent of global warming solutions, a claim that is just prima facia absurd. Tom Poquette and others may complain about the alarmists in the ecosphere, but what would they call people who wouldn't even admit that the problem even exists? People may not like "screechy", but when nobody who matters in handling national energy policies is willing to acknowledge the obvious, I can understand why people start raising their voices.

We are even then... I find the global warming citation of the IPCC report as the Truth about as comical as fundamental Christians citing the Bible as the complete Truth. Instead of the non-believers getting sent to hell, skeptics are simply called oil whores and morons.

No, we've apparently settled upon "doom-mongering alarmists" and "global warming deniers". Those phrases are far more satisfyingly loaded with negative conotations.

Moreover, people can talk about electric cars until the cows come home -- but where do people think that this electricity is coming from? I'm not even talking about the fact that electricity is also generated from fossil fuels; that's true, but there are economies of scale that don't exist with cars.

That's exactly right -- we can't allow ourselves an energy shortage, and that's why I've been harping on national multi-prong energy policy and fostering green technologies. We should, as a nation, be investing billions in developing solar and wind power. I'm a huge fan of nuclear energy. Closed-loop ethanol technology (as opposed to the present processes the President talked about) is fantastic, and there's at least a dozen other viable avenues of energy production we should be investigating.

Aside from creating the type of energy independence that will allow us to give the finger to OPEC, we'd be creating new production and manufacturing infrastructure here at home, something we desperately need. AND, we'd be in position to export technology abroad. I would bet, given a choice between dealing with either the US or the MidEast, most countries will opt for the greener technology and saner business partner.

I understand that using the government to drive energy trends is anathema to many posters here, but when government pushes tens of billions into industries that clearly don't need support, it puts emerging alternative energy producers at a severe disadvantage.

Producing less energy per dollar is disadvantage enough. Again, the future use of eco-friendly fuels will likely correlate inversely to the price of oil and I don't think there is any reasonable level of subsidies that will change that.

Where might the rapid technological advances brought about by the marketplace fit into all this? My 1999 model car uses less gas, emits fewer toxins, and uses less metal than the 1974 Impala I once drove. While CAFE standards are a factor, the trend for utilizing fewer inputs to produce a given output is generally universal (excepting perhaps Zimbabwe and the New York Knicks).

Aside from creating the type of energy independence that will allow us to give the finger to OPEC, we'd be creating new production and manufacturing infrastructure here at home, something we desperately need. AND, we'd be in position to export technology abroad. I would bet, given a choice between dealing with either the US or the MidEast, most countries will opt for the greener technology and saner business partner.

In even the most optimistic scenario, they would deal with both. In that case, a supply disruption in the middle east would still reduce the aggregate supply of energy and global prices would increase despite our "independence". Note that the Iraq war has increased oil prices in the USA even though we were not importing oil from there in the first place.

Producing less energy per dollar is disadvantage enough. Again, the future use of eco-friendly fuels will likely correlate inversely to the price of oil and I don't think there is any reasonable level of subsidies that will change that.

Pricing and efficiency are always issues with new technology; that doesn't mean they're not worth pursuing. That government continues to fund fossil fuel energy -- especially when they're making money hand over fist -- makes things even worse.

Where might the rapid technological advances brought about by the marketplace fit into all this? ... While CAFE standards are a factor, the trend for utilizing fewer inputs to produce a given output is generally universal ...

Cars, air, water ... industry didn't take environmental safety seriously until government regulations began demanding it via legislation. I don't think, despite the initial cost to implement the new technology, anybody's going to argue that those regulations didn't created a net benefit. Nobody's saying that green energy needs to replace all fossil fuel energy sources TODAY!, but it'd be smart if we started pushing alt-fuel technologies to become viable for phasing/replacing fossil fuels over the course of the next two, three, four, five decades.

In even the most optimistic scenario, they would deal with both. In that case, a supply disruption in the middle east would still reduce the aggregate supply of energy and global prices would increase despite our "independence".

A supply disruption in the MidEast would increase the demand for alternative energy sources. If, when that happens, the US just happens to have a bushel of said technology for sale => profit! The US isn't the only country that would want to take advantage of new energy technology; everybody needs power, and if there's available technology that's affordable and can push them towards some measure of independence, of course they're going to want it.

We aren't addressing it now either. Here's the problem with people wanting action on global warming. By letting Al Gore take the lead on these types of things, it politicized the whole debate. If Al Gore believes something deeply, half the country already is on the other side, regardless what the subject is.

So, basically you're saying political conservatives are unable to see past partisan lines on this issue ... and it's everyone else's fault that they can't? Well, that's just great. Tell me, Tom, which national figure should liberals annoint their Great and Powerful Messiah to take the lead on global warming? The idea that Joey's limo liberals met in some back room to handpick Gore -- "You! You will take the lead on global warming! Go make a movie!" -- is beyond ridiculous. You guys are looking for comic book villains, and none of them live here.

So... since we're speaking about past and present Presidental candidates... how about those Edwards bloggers?

(Hey, if we've come this far, we at least need to get this to 500 posts, if for no reason other than pride :P )

So, basically you're saying political conservatives are unable to see past partisan lines on this issue ... and it's everyone else's fault that they can't? Well, that's just great.

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

You know, Tom, if you're going to disregard every substantial argument that's been made about global warming and then start throwing strawman accusations around, you might as well just leave the thread. There aren't that many of us conservatives on BBTF and you're making us look bad. Shut up.

Once the alternatives ball starts rolling, OPEC will be helpless to stem the tide.

Dan Yergin seems to make the argument in The Prize that OPEC's day in the sun has already passed, that the global futures market for oil drives prices now and has for some time. Not that this contradicts your point, of course.

You know, Tom, if you're going to disregard every substantial argument that's been made about global warming and then start throwing strawman accusations around, you might as well just leave the thread. There aren't that many of us conservatives on BBTF and you're making us look bad. Shut up.

Phil, piss off. I don't know/care what your politics are, but I do know we aren't on the same side here. When we are, you can 'ask' me to tone it down. Until then, you have no standing to tell me anything.

Tom, you only heed those who are ideologically with you on matters of conduct when ideological issues are being discussed? When arguments about bad faith are brought.

That doesn't seem right. Of course, I haven't schlepped through the entire thread so WTF do I know. Nevertheless, it still doesn't seem right.

So... since we're speaking about past and present Presidental candidates... how about those Edwards bloggers?

Edwards might not be so smart for hiring them, I haven't looked at this at all, but he's dumb as paint for firing them. When will Democrats learn: when someone tries to smear you or someone loyal to you over something fairly minor, stick to your guns, put out a bag of chips and throw yourself a party. Ignore the problem and it goes away. Free publicity.

Anyhow, firing them was dumb politically. Then again, it doesn't really matter because I'm onboard the Obama express, straight from Illinois to Washington. The only person who could take away my vote is Al Gore, and possibly John Kerry (but likely not).

Of course, I haven't schlepped through the entire thread so WTF do I know.

Don't spread this around, but neither have I. I started at comment 200.

Until then, you have no standing to tell me anything.

I have standing to tell you you're making an ass of yourself, because I've spent enough years getting an edumacation to tell when someone is behaving like an idiot.

Normally, I'd just let you flutter in the wind like a dry, lonely January leaf. But there's this problem at BBTF, where the general consensus is:

Conservative=Moron
Liberal=Good

I happen to self-identify as a Conservative, and I'd love not to see negative stereotypes reinforced. So unfortunately, your deuchebaggery reflects upon me, and therefore has become my business. Shut the hell up.

Anyhow, firing them was dumb politically.

In the enviroment of a political campaign, the 'Holy Spirit jizz/find another mythology' remark *WOULD* be used and probably would offend more than a few potential voters who consider themselves even mildly religious.

It's not just the 'right-wing' he'd have to worry about getting on him about that - he's running against the well-travelled, well-oiled, well-financed Clinton Political Machine. The primaries are probably going to be a nasty little bloodbath.

I mean, the whole 'religion & family values' thing is still out there and is still deemed to have importance.
When I was watching that Senate subcommittee hearing w/ the FCC a few days back to see what Kerry had to say about ExtraInnings (the hearing he didn't attend and sent a message to instead), there was a lot of complaints from senators about all the sex and violence on TV and morality nowdays, etc. etc.... and this was coming from the DEMOCRATS.

After the FCC/Kerry thread segued into a health care discussion, I just managed to segue the global warming thread back to FCC/Kerry (even if just for a post).

Ha!

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

You're the expert, Tom; you've been doing it all thread. There's been a lot of good points made here, and none of them have come from you. The best you could muster were quotes from three scientists about the last IPCC report, as if those three guys should outweigh the 197 other international contributors? Really?

Phil and I don't quite see eye to eye, but he more than carried his water -- #320 was easily the most informative post in the entire thread, and the last thing I want him to do is shut up. DMN and xbhaskarx, both of whom I disgree with on this, brought up some excellent points, and I found myself agreeing with certain arguments they've made. There were others, of course. I learned a lot over the course of this thread, and that doesn't always happen.

If you're going to just take partisan potshots, then fine, but don't pretend like you're actually engaged in honest debate and discussion.

The primaries are probably going to be a nasty little bloodbath.

I hope not. I'd prefer Obama skated to victory. He can pick Richardson as his running mate and make Gore his science advisor in the resurrected "Science Advisor to the President" office. Clinton and Edwards can keep doing whatever it is they do.

Is it bad that I view politics as an RPG?

The real bottom line is that the A's belong at the Coliseum or somewhere else in Oakland next to a BART station. Or does anyone remember the original topic?

If this is the case we should just sign it and ignore it.

Actually, we did. (We never ratified it. Clinton never bothered to submit it for ratification; the Senate voted 95-0 in a nonbinding resolution to reject it.)

Considering, as has been said on this thread before, that the U.S. emits 25% of the world's greenhouse emissions, maybe other countries don't feel like making changes until we're on board, which is rather the same way we--or you, specifically--feel about china.

China is set to surpass the U.S. in total emissions around the end of the decade.

I haven't heard too many detailed solutions to the problems out of the Global Warming crowd.

Well, the "solution" is a carbon tax. Period. It's the neutral way to reduce emissions, without the government trying to muck about in the economy and guess what solution might be the best. The problem is that government can't just legislate new technology into existence. We (humanity) don't use fossil fuels because we hate icebergs; we use fossil fuels because they're by far the best (from an energy standpoint, if not an externality standpoint) we have right now for the purposes we use them.

Nuclear is better for generating electricity, but until the left stops opposing it on spurious anti-science grounds, it isn't viable -- and in any case, we don't use much oil for generating electricity; we use it for powering cars. And of course building nuclear plants wouldn't get us operating nuclear plants for a long time. The problem is that ANY realistic solution is going to take a long time to have an impact. If we outlawed the sale of internal combustion engines tomorrow, there'd still be hundreds of millions of gasoline-powered cars on the road.

The fact is that this planet--and the people on it--exist as complex systems. Perturbations to those systems will be expensive. I think it would be smarter to change the system ourselves, even marginally, than to allow global warming to institute numerous changes in crops and population movement for us. It doesn't seem like a good idea to put our future in the hands of nature or fate when we can control it.

Indeed. Unfortunate that we can't control the environment. We may be able to pollute it. Or clean it up a bit. But control it? Ha! I find myself in agreement that warming is occuring. I'm convinced humans contribute a finite amount that is, perhaps, significant and perhaps not. I'm not convinced disaster is upon us due to climate change, but I'm open to the idea that we should take as many steps as are necessary to reduce our role in climate change without hamstringing future moves when we know more and have better technology. Thus, moving to nuclear power (proven technology) and replacing carbon generated electricity and cars with nuclear generated electricity whenever possible makes sense. Shifting government subsidy of carbon fuel companies to nuclear and alternative makes sense.

But folks really lose me with statments suggesting we can control the weather or that the only thing preventing wind and solar from taking over is the government. I'm the biggest advocate of basic research in the world but it needs to be recognized that no one knows where basic research goes. Wind is a great solution where there is wind. Solar might work where there is a lot of sun. (BTW, if you want to rag on the US government, rag on them for ####### NASA up so that we still don't have cheap access to space where we could use space solar power and for regulating nuclear power essentially out of existence in the US).

We can easily slightly reduce carbon emissions with conservation. According to the IPCC report, that won't stop warming. Taking drastic measures now could easily have no effect on warming and bankrupt us to the point of not being able to implement the solution when and if we find it. If the GW isn't a long-term trend and we take drastic action now to cool the earth we could #### things up even more. The long and the short of it is we do not understand the global climate well enough to know for sure what will happen nor do we have any inkling of how to reliably prevent it from happening.


Of course, I haven't schlepped through the entire thread so WTF do I know.


Don't spread this around, but neither have I. I started at comment 200.

Ah, well then. More accurate: global climate models or posters who Dial threads? Discuss.

It is true that the federal government shouldn't be subsidizing fossil fuel companies (any more than it should any other companies). It is true that SUVs ought not to be treated better than cars by the government. On the other hand, there are plenty of other countries on the planet, many of which discourage oil use through high taxes; I haven't seen all these economic, efficient viable alternative energy sources having been developed there.

And of course building nuclear plants wouldn't get us operating nuclear plants for a long time.

If we decided to do it, it could be done relatively quickly. The left will have to decide if GW is a threat grave enough to do away with their opposition to nuclear power and intensive regulations. If the world really is ending, one would think they'd go for it. But that seems to be the political problem to me. The politicians who argue that GW is a threat to all mankind haven't proposed anything resembling a proper response to such a threat. They propose a tax and research on alternative energy. Both may be good policies to the real problem. But to the problem they advertise, they are laughably insufficient. IOW, I think the overstatement of the problem inhibits efforts to solve the actual problem. They may want to scare us but people are, generally, pretty good at recognizing ########. As pointed out eariler, you can fool people with such tactics in the short term, but eventually they wise up. On the scale of modern politics, climate change is incredibly long term.

Of course, I don't have the political answer. I criticize the PR approach of the hard core GW folks but without significant advances in technology they're left asking for great sacrifice on a 1% chance of disaster a long way down the road. That is a tough sell.

Incidentally, when I say the left has to get over its opposition to nuclear power, I don't necessarily mean the hard-core environmentalists. A number of these people and groups have gotten over it (though they haven't apologized for having been badly wrong the last 30 years). The folks that have to get over fear of the word nuclear (in the US at any rate) are the soft lefties. The ones who think its terrible how the Republicans won't acknowledge climate change but don't want higher taxes and go into fits at the word nuclear. These folks "believe in science". They assume that if they pay enough money there is nothing "science" can't do. But they don't know any actual scientific facts (like, say, the first and second laws of thermodynamics) nor do they really understand how science works. This is a large group of people and if you could move them to some action or understanding, you'd have something. That something may be horrible and awful or bright and good, but you'd have something.

In the enviroment of a political campaign, the 'Holy Spirit jizz/find another mythology' remark *WOULD* be used and probably would offend more than a few potential voters who consider themselves even mildly religious.

It's a good thing right campaign bloggers are squeeky clean.

It's not just the 'right-wing' he'd have to worry about getting on him about that - he's running against the well-travelled, well-oiled, well-financed Clinton Political Machine. The primaries are probably going to be a nasty little bloodbath.

Yeah, the right would never try to smear him for something like that. I bet this whole controversy was created by Clinton's team, just like the Madrassa story.

I read The Prize and had Yergin in mind when I wrote that, scotto.

I remember your recommendation of it from several years ago, and after starting it only to drop it several times finished it a couple of months ago; I figured you remembered it. I wanted to make the point explicit for the rest of the crowd, I get the impression that some still believe that OPEC has the substantive power to set prices.

A number of these people and groups have gotten over it (though they haven't apologized for having been badly wrong the last 30 years).

I'm still waiting for apologies from the people who voted against the Clean Air Act of 1970. Wait ... no I'm not. It's enough for me that people come around to good policy. When they finally start construction on new reactors, I'll gloat in private.

the U.S. government has been very antagonistic towards reducing emissions.

The U.S. government has been very antagonistic towards reducing emissions without a true consensus among nations. In other words, don't ask us to make sacrifices that damage our economy if certain other countries (such as China) aren't making the same sacrifices.

There are always tradeoffs as well, and not always merely financial. Modern American cars generate more greenhouse gasses and are less fuel efficient because of requirements for catalytic converters, which reduce toxic emissions and smog.

The automobile industry certainly deserves some criticism for its contribution to damaging our environment, but they also have made substantial changes (often to conform with government mandates) to mitigate the damage they cause, from modifications to the gas tanks to reduce vapor emissions, to the Clear Air Act, to stricter emissions testing, to more efficient engines, etc.

I hope we can all agree that rejection of wind power because "i don't want them turbines blocking my view" is a fairly pigheaded position. But solar and hydroelectric power still have massive costs to implement, switching to electric just shifts the problem to the energy producing factories, and nuclear power has its own problems of waste and associated hazards.

I'm not against any of these alternate sources of power, but to think that it doesn't require massive, expensive restructuring of our lifestyles to switch is pie-in-the-sky. Right now, it is exceedingly difficult to do a cost/benefit analysis. It seems unlikely that the problems of global warming will be seriously addressed until it becomes obvious that it is economically advantageous to do so.

If the choice is between a cool Earth with all of Africa ravaged by AIDS and famine or a hot Earth with the U.S. coastline moved inland 10 miles, is that really an easy choice to make?

Easy for me. Sorry Africa (so sue me). I live 1 block from the ocean at 5 feet above MSL.

The automobile industry certainly deserves some criticism for its contribution to damaging our environment, but they also have made substantial changes (often to conform with government mandates) to mitigate the damage they cause, from modifications to the gas tanks to reduce vapor emissions, to the Clear Air Act, to stricter emissions testing, to more efficient engines, etc.

Who killed the electric car?

It seems unlikely that the problems of global warming will be seriously addressed until it becomes obvious that it is economically advantageous to do so.

At which point it may be too late.

At which point it may be too late.

Too late for what? It's not like we're going to all be extinct.

There may be permanent damage that forces us to change our way of life; it is debateable whether we will ultimately be better or worse off one hundred years from now making the sacrifices and paying the cost of those sacrifices than we would be waiting until it makes good financial sense to do so.

How so? All a supply disruption would do is accelerate the transition to alternative fuels, alternative energy sources. Once the alternatives ball starts rolling, OPEC will be helpless to stem the tide...A supply disruption in the MidEast would increase the demand for alternative energy sources. If, when that happens, the US just happens to have a bushel of said technology for sale => profit!

The key words in the combined quotes above is "(a) supply disruption in the MidEast would increase the demand for alternative energy sources." That's exactly correct and exactly why the market price would increase. The increased demand for the theoretical alternative fuels would necessitate greater supply, the supply being most reliably attracted to the market by higher prices.

Cars, air, water ... industry didn't take environmental safety seriously until government regulations began demanding it via legislation.

No argument, but my statement specifically addressed trends in the marketplace. As I type, I sit next to about 300 record albums. Market driven technology has resulted in these petroleum based products being replaced by hardware/software that require a small fraction of the resources. My friend owns a mid 1800's vintage shoemaking machine, which was made from about 250 pounds of steel. My father had a huge Stromberg Carlson stereo that approximated the ouput of a good shelf unit today. I would say that such "progress" has been very environmentally friendly. In general, higher oil prices will increase the flow of capital into alternative fuels or fuel efficiency technologies. But, my greater point is that the market will be able to provide for more efficient usage of fuels regardless of the identities of the energy winners and losers selected by government.

There may be permanent damage that forces us to change our way of life; it is debateable whether we will ultimately be better or worse off one hundred years from now making the sacrifices and paying the cost of those sacrifices than we would be waiting until it makes good financial sense to do so.

Where does that 54 cent per gallon tariff on foreign ethanol fit in to all this?

Kevin, I don't understand your contention that we will lose animal species on the basis of global warming. My understanding is that the measurable temperature increase is at its peak nearest to the poles, whereas at the equator the temperature delta is significantly smaller. Accordingly, doesn't it follow that GW will not only increase the amount of arable land on our planet, but based on the typical bio-diversity one finds nearer the equator, increase bio-diversity as well.

Obviously, a million other factors come in to play. Chief among them is the concern you have mentioned with respect to disease transmission. However, I have never understood the argument that seems to be warmer weather = fewer species.

It's a good thing right campaign bloggers are squeeky clean.

Never said they are; I wasn't saying the bloggers should go out of any sense of moral outrage, but just the fact it gives Edwards' opponents something they can try and use to weaken Catholic support.

Yeah, the right would never try to smear him for something like that.

Of course, right-wing commentators want to damage Edwards a bit. Obviously.

On the other hand, Edwards' primary opponents sure aren't shedding any tears when Edwards stumbles, either, and until the nomination is settled, his Democratic opposition are his enemies just as much as someone from the right is.

Political campaigns are a nasty, dirty business, and if you assume the worst from all involved, you'll rarely be disappointed :P

In any event, Edwards is keeping the bloggers for now, and issued a statement:

"The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me," Edwards said in the statement. "Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor or anything else."

Kevin, I am not taking a blase attitude about species loss, i completely understand the value of biodiversity, aprticularly with respect to [potential meidicianl benefit. I am asking why species will be lost, and much more importantly, why will no species be gained?

Obviously, as you indicate, certains species will lose habitat altogether and will probably disappear (assuming that the habitat doesn't shift.) What is less clear to me, is why the rapid change in the environment (assuming it occurs) won't create a brand new milieu from which would spring new species, or would better sustain certain existing species.

Moreover, statements like this are confusing, The bald cypress is NOT going to migrate to Canada. The conditions there aren't sufficient to sustain it. Well of course the conditions now aren't there to sustain it, but the GW argument is that conditions everywhere are about to change. How do we know what the changes will be like such that we can be sure that they will be bad.

Who killed the electric car?

We do!

If you lose one specie, the world's biodiversity decreases, no matter if another specie fills the void it left.

And I can't think of a more shortsighted attitude than to take ablase attitude towards species loss. Even leaving aside the spiritual aspect of allowing beautiful and fascinating creatures to be gone forever, we have finally reached a point when humankind can really start to truly exploit the biological resources we have available to us through genetic engineering and such. And the DNA of existing species is the raw material for such industrial endeavors. It's such a goddamned waste and people just yawn when another bird or amphibian species goes extinct. We could be kissing goodbye a cure for cancer and not even know it.

We could be kissing goodbye the next AIDS virus, too. I mean, why is it always the unknown good things we're losing, and not the unknown bad things?

As for losing creatures, extinction is a natural part of evolution. I don't feel that it's any great tragedy that there aren't Tyrannosaurs roaming the Great Plains, do you? (Although I suppose a few of them in Manhattan might be useful.)

Well, I'm not implying you are and I'm sorry if that's how that came out. but there have been some statements in this thread that basically said "I don't give a #### about specie X, Y, and Z". And that's just really sad, that somebody could be that shortsighted.

Yeah, that was me. And honestly, I don't care if me building a field of wind turbines shreds every migrating bird that comes near it. I'm also the one who said that it's stupid to build something which purports to be eco-friendly that also kills all the local wildlife.

I can't fathom how people can be cavalier about species loss. This planet is the only one we know of with life, and every species is unique unto itself in all of creation. Extinction may be a natural part of evolution, but no creature has ever hunted other species into extinction or obliterated entire ecosystems the way humans have. Certainly, it's no source of pride.

I would say that such "progress" has been very environmentally friendly. In general, higher oil prices will increase the flow of capital into alternative fuels or fuel efficiency technologies. But, my greater point is that the market will be able to provide for more efficient usage of fuels regardless of the identities of the energy winners and losers selected by government.

The market may strive more efficient WRT pricing and performance, but history suggests not necessarily towards environmentally friendly unless compelled to by law. I'm also not sure about the latter. As we speak, both government as well as Big Ag and Big Oil are pushing corn ethanol as an alternative fuel source. It's an incredible waste of taxpayer cash, but between subsidies and industry money, they're in a position to dictate to the market instead of the other way around. It's not inconceivable that they could dominate the market and shunt better alternative energies to the side, if not forever, for a very long time. Bad for us.

So ... close ... to ... 500 ...

but no creature has ever hunted other species into extinction or obliterated entire ecosystems the way humans have.

With the possible exception of Tibbles the cat, that is.

But the increase would have no legs. Once the price started forcing the use of alternatives, the demand would decrease and that would force the price back down.

We would still be reacting to global market conditions, which was the original point. The only way this doesn't happen is if oil is completely obsolete, which appears very unlikely.

The market may strive more efficient WRT pricing and performance, but history suggests not necessarily towards environmentally friendly unless compelled to by law.

To use another example that is within three feet of where I sit, I can produce pictures without film, flash bulbs, or the chemicals used for film development. The process through which this happens is all around us.

As we speak, both government as well as Big Ag and Big Oil are pushing corn ethanol as an alternative fuel source. It's an incredible waste of taxpayer cash, but between subsidies and industry money, they're in a position to dictate to the market instead of the other way around.

Corn prices have nearly doubled in the last year in conjunction with increased ethanol subsidies and mandates. I understand that the poor in Mexico are finding skyrocketing corn prices to be problematic.

I could imagine a scenario where large swaths of North America become desert, in the same way that the Sahara and Gobi deserts area are expanding, the Sonoran desert could migrate north and impact the US.

Where does that 54 cent per gallon tariff on foreign ethanol fit in to all this?

I found out something yesterday -- do you know which species on earth weighs the most, if you put all of its members together? Hint: it is not us.

ants? some other bug?

Where does that 54 cent per gallon tariff on foreign ethanol fit in to all this?

Ask Arthur Daniels Midland about how that happened.

To use another example that is within three feet of where I sit, I can produce pictures without film, flash bulbs, or the chemicals used for film development. The process through which this happens is all around us.

It's great, isn't it? However, I doubt anyone was thinking about the environmental impact of digital printing -- ease of use and lower production costs were probably the reals issue.

There's tremendous economic motivation for petrolium companies to and Big Ag to adapt the existing gasoline infrastructure towards one which handles corn ethanol -- they're doing it already, in part with our tax dollars. We'd both referenced how emerging tech always has cost and efficiency issues earlier, and having existing Bigs essentially buying the marketplace can lock out those emerging techs for perhaps decades. Bad for us.

but no creature has ever hunted other species into extinction or obliterated entire ecosystems the way humans have.

With the possible exception of Tibbles the cat, that is.

Apparently, Tibbles wasn't the only cat on the island, but it's a great story. When I first read that, I laughed and laughed.

but no creature has ever hunted other species into extinction or obliterated entire ecosystems the way humans have.

With the possible exception of Tibbles the cat, that is.

Apparently, Tibbles wasn't the only cat on the island, but it's a great story. When I first read that, I laughed and laughed. And laughed and laughed.

It's great, isn't it? However, I doubt anyone was thinking about the environmental impact of digital printing -- ease of use and lower production costs were probably the reals issue.

The point is that the marketplace has made our standard of living significantly more resource efficient than it was even ten years ago. That trend is an important mitigant to the probability of environmental catastrophe. The motivations driving the trend don't matter.

There's tremendous economic motivation for petrolium companies to and Big Ag to adapt the existing gasoline infrastructure towards one which handles corn ethanol -- they're doing it already, in part with our tax dollars.

As luck would have it, I flipped on Bloomberg 1130 and Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute was on the air talking about the price of corn potentially reaching $4.50/bushel due to US ethanol subsidies and the resultant risk of food riots in developing countries.

I found out something yesterday -- do you know which species on earth weighs the most, if you put all of its members together? Hint: it is not us.

Yankee fans, if you count their egos?

I can't fathom how people can be cavalier about species loss. This planet is the only one we know of with life, and every species is unique unto itself in all of creation. Extinction may be a natural part of evolution, but no creature has ever hunted other species into extinction or obliterated entire ecosystems the way humans have.

First, that's almost certainly not true -- you don't think any predator has ever caused a species to become extinct? And second, so what? The issue here is what we think of the fact of the extinction. And my answer is that some animals are cute and fuzzy and others are pretty much indistinguishable from some other species, and I don't feel any great loss.

Certainly, it's no source of pride.

Well, sometimes it is, such as Kevin's example of smallpox. Any other ones aren't, since they weren't the result of conscious effort.

Yankee fans, if you count their egos?

Close, but no. Krill. There are billions and billions of tons of krill out there.

but no creature has ever hunted other species into extinction or obliterated entire ecosystems the way humans have.

SPH, could you please clarify this. I read "the way humans have" to mean "to the extent humans have". As in, there are likely creatures who have hunted other species into extinction, but there likely aren't creatures who have hunted as many species into extinction as humans have. Is that an accurate reading?

SPH, could you please clarify this. I read "the way humans have" to mean "to the extent humans have". As in, there are likely creatures who have hunted other species into extinction, but there likely aren't creatures who have hunted as many species into extinction as humans have. Is that an accurate reading?

You've got that exactly right, Shredder. Sure, the introduction of new predators into a particular ecosystem may mean the extinction of certain animals, but that's just natural selection at work. That's not how the passenger pigeon became history -- humans shot them down by the hundreds of thousands, and bulldozed their habitats into the ground. Again, I've no love for birds I can't/don't eat, but the idea of wiping out entire species that pose no threat to humans is ... well, "dispicable" comes to mind.

There may be permanent damage that forces us to change our way of life; it is debateable whether we will ultimately be better or worse off one hundred years from now making the sacrifices and paying the cost of those sacrifices than we would be waiting until it makes good financial sense to do so.

Absolutely correct.

Kevin, I don't understand your contention that we will lose animal species on the basis of global warming. My understanding is that the measurable temperature increase is at its peak nearest to the poles, whereas at the equator the temperature delta is significantly smaller. Accordingly, doesn't it follow that GW will not only increase the amount of arable land on our planet, but based on the typical bio-diversity one finds nearer the equator, increase bio-diversity as well...
However, I have never understood the argument that seems to be warmer weather = fewer species.

Whoa there, stud. You're forgetting that some of the Earth's most important ecological systems exist at the poles. Further, diversity's not going to increase from this temperature rise for two reasons: first, global warming and a slight associated change in ocean chemistry may be killing off coral in reefs. You'd be hard pressed to find a more diverse ecosystem than the global reef metapopulation. Second, this temperature increase is, as has been said before, without precedent. We're not giving ecosystems or populations time to move, much less time to evolve. There's only one way that diversity is going as a result of global warming and the associated perturbations of ecosystems: down.

we have finally reached a point when humankind can really start to truly exploit the biological resources we have available to us through genetic engineering and such. And the DNA of existing species is the raw material for such industrial endeavors. It's such a goddamned waste and people just yawn when another bird or amphibian species goes extinct. We could be kissing goodbye a cure for cancer and not even know it.

Da-mn straight!

We could be kissing goodbye the next AIDS virus, too. I mean, why is it always the unknown good things we're losing, and not the unknown bad things?

Viruses, from what I know of them, have no temperature dependency. The reason there's no malaria in the U.S. is, if I'm not mistaken, that their host mosquitoes cannot survive. We may actually be exposed to new viruses if any ancient ones have been trapped in the arctic permafrost that is now melting. Now, I don't really think that's a big risk, but that idea has been put forward, it's out there. It's unlikely, but possible.

And it will take millions of years for new species to arise to fill the void.

Potentially, this could occur in a few thousand years. However, that's still longer than we have.

I found out something yesterday -- do you know which species on earth weighs the most, if you put all of its members together? Hint: it is not us.

If you don't mind, I'll take a few guesses:

1) Diatoms - they have a huge weight when combined
2) Some common form of bacteria, like Blue-Green algae
3) some type of arthropod.

I found out something yesterday -- do you know which species on earth weighs the most, if you put all of its members together? Hint: it is not us.

If you don't mind, I'll take a few guesses:

1) Diatoms - they have a huge weight when combined
2) Some common form of bacteria, like Blue-Green algae
3) some type of arthropod.

Close, but no. Krill. There are billions and billions of tons of krill out there.

Makes sense. I believe they're arthropods, too. Could be wrong on that, though.

3) some type of arthropod.

I believe that's right. See more specific answer above.

Second, this temperature increase is, as has been said before, without precedent

No. See my post #320. The PETM is an excellent precedent for the present temp/carbon situation. It had a disastrous effect on carbonate-shell-forming species.*



*Though, if you want to be a pill about it, they did recover eventually. Time cures all Earthly ills.

When you find "IPCC scientists" that exist solely off "regular salaries" and don't get grants to subsidize their work, please let me know, okay?

So you don't dispute that scientists were not getting paid for their participation in the IPCC, right?

In fact, I do. The IPCC trust fund explicitly exists in part to support the participating scientists who weren't getting paid by their own governments.