Who will be the next Liberal leader?

[BrianHawkins1]

bizorky:

I've watched you staunchly present this 'the-debate-is-not-over' argument several times on this board, and I still have no real understanding of where you're coming from. This seems to be a significant pet(-peeve?) issue for you, and I'm increasingly curious re what motivates you to repeatedly insist, alone and at great length, that the verdict is still out and whatnot.

Let's assume that your position is completely correct re the non-'absoluteness' of scientific findings so far and re the possible risks of choosing flawed policies - my question is, "so what?". What exactly are you proposing as an alternative course of action at the moment? Just how long would you have the occupants of this planet wait before we at least try to start to do something about this mega-problem? How 'absolute' does the evidence have to become before we can start to adjust policy? And what the hell do we do instead in the interim? Just wait?

afransen TO wrote:

"...the changes in climate we are facing will and already do have significant repurcussions for humanity in terms of suffering, famine, and economic loss. Given the potential downside, I'm willing to gamble that GHG does cause climate change by endeavouring to have the use of fossil fuels reduced. We can use alternate forms of energy, and if I'm wrong, we'll have new forms of energy to rely on that won't be depleted. If I'm right, we'll avert monumental catastrophe. Doubting the science is not really an argument iin favour of status quo. The stakes are high enough that acting as if we had established a causal relationship is the most prudent course of action."

Why do you apparently not agree with this? What is a more sensible approach at the moment than this, in your opinion? And why is it seemingly so much more important to you to point out the unknowns in the equation than it is to support the idea that we simply have to do *something* right ****ing now about this problem, regardless of the incompleteness of our understanding of the contributing factors? I'm trying to understand what you're thinking in terms of motivation and focus, rather than the technical details of the situation being discussed. Why harp on the scientific uncertainties while the planet burns? And what is to be lost by at least trying something based on what we know and suspect? I'm not suggesting that we flail about wildly in the dark trying to fix things, but that we at least act on what limited understanding we have at present, until the picture hopefully becomes clearer. Why are you seemingly not on board with that?

In other words, it seems to me that even if every single word you've ever written on this topic is correct, you are nonetheless on the 'wrong' side of this issue wrt actions taken or not taken, and I can't imagine what has made you choose that side of the fence.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

IMO, those that believe man-made GHG is a major concern are adamently convinced of their position, while those that believe it is not are equally convinced.

 

[Brighter Hell]

^The difference is that those who believe man-made GHG are causing global warming have something concrete to back it up with.

 

[bizorky]

I've watched you staunchly present this 'the-debate-is-not-over' argument several times on this board, and I still have no real understanding of where you're coming from. This seems to be a significant pet(-peeve?) issue for you, and I'm increasingly curious re what motivates you to repeatedly insist, alone and at great length, that the verdict is still out and whatnot.

A fair question. I present this "debate-is-not-over" argument as you refer to it because the debate is not over, simple as that. The science is not finished (this is the conclusion of many scientists - a fact that does not make for great headlines). If you refer to the IPCC itself (the scientific portion of that document), it suggests much of the same (but not the section for policy makers - written by policy-makers). It should seem odd that the document at the centre of this issue, while suggesting that that human GHG's cause warming, is filled with tentative conclusions, question of error measures, warnings that climate dynamics and its complexity (and many other such issues) are not all fully understood, and the like. That should say something with respect to absolute statements about what is causing what to the global climate.

As for the "consensus" on the issue, that consensus ranges from a portion of people who strongly believe that human GHG's have caused this present warming, to those who think it has some contributing role.

As I have pointed out, there is strong evidence that changes in the sun's output is, at the very least, a siginficant contributor to this warming trend. In the political agonizing over this issue - and what to do about it - that fact tends to be obscured, as does the fact that climates and temperatures have changed throught the history of the planet - all without the (supposed) input of human beings. Increases in C02 have often followed natural temperature increases (followed - not caused). Slightly more than half of the "warming" of the last 120 years took place from 1880 to 1930, when human-generated C02 was a small fraction of what it is today. So did it actually contribute to the warming, or was it the sun's output (or something else)? This and many other issues should raise questions about the accuracy of so many assertions about human-induced climate change (since you have followed my posts I won't bore you by raising some of them all again). Against the backdrop of this, I have stated that the burden of proof is on those wishing to assert that all temperature change since 1880 is caused by human beings.

The issue is not about me; it is about the evidence and how robust that evidence is. I see nothing wrong with questioning these issues (do you?). If far-reaching global environmental policy is to be developed around these conclusions, then it better be more than guesses or the concensus of a group of like-minded individuals (because that's what the IPCC is; contrarians didn't get published in it). There is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with questioning policy development that is based on a research program in progress (because that may generate better policy, and that's supposed to be good). There is also nothing wrong with questioning an idea once it has become a social "belief" by way of constant repetition. Doom and gloom scenarios of what the world will be like in 100 years speak of future that has not happened and cannot be modeled. Holding them up as incontrovertable facts is simply nothing more than propaganda, and no more than that! Yet it is these scenarios that are driving so much of policy development now.

Hope that answers your question.

 

[afransen TO]

Let's say we go beyond whether GHG cause global warming, to discuss carbon taxes.

Carbon taxes aren't necessarily a bid idea, even if GHG don't cause global warming. Carbon taxes would be applied almost exclusively to the burning fossil fuels, which generally has other negative environmental impacts. Carbon emissions from sources other than fossil fuels are generally indicative of ecologically unsustainable resource management practices.

A carbon tax would then be a consumption tax which would further incentivise the implementation of energy efficiency measures. Our economy will inevitably adopt the use of renewables, simply because renewables will continue to decline in price while fossil fuel will only continue to rise. Speeding up the process wouldn't be a bad thing, especially as it would induce us to develop technologies that are marketable to the rest of the world.

It would also allow us to lower taxes on desirable things like income and investment. It's really not a bad policy, even if you suppose human GHG emissions do not affect global temperatures.

 

[bizorky]

^If you are speaking to a more comprehensive environmental, industrial, and international policy that reduces dependence on fossil fuels and pushes forward the development of new energy technologies, I would completely agree. The reasons for pursuing such a policy have many layers.

Sorry, typing fast. Squeezed for time.

First off, the demand for fossil fuels is increasing just as easy access to such resources is (possibly) peaking (with the exception of coal). If we look what is happening in the world today, I think we can agree that too many geopolitical decisions are made on the basis of oil or its movement (everything from economic to human rights can be linked to the movement of oil). This skews political decision-making not only developed nations, but in developing nations as well.

Peak availability will mean that prices will only stay high with respect to the access to energy. While developed nations may be able to absorb the high costs, many developing nations can't. They will remain energy poor because there are no alternatives, and they have no resources to pursue alternatives in a comprehensive manner. The problem is that creating carbon taxes ends up looking almost punative in that they don't create solutions, but only mitigate some problems. We have not created the problem, but inherited it. So there is nothing with respect to carbon taxes in wealthier nations that provide anything that speaks to equalling the energy equation across the globe (or even investing in new technologies). More comprehensive set of coordinated policies are needed.

For example, reducing dependence on a scarce resource demands an international industrial policy that can help technological development of new energy sources move forward. Regulatory changes can set changes in place (such as building codes, practices, materials certifications, etc.), international efforts can bring about appropriate technology transfers that provide benefits to poorer nations that can't afford new technologies (efficient, simple wind power systems, packaged biofuel systems ready for export and installation, and the like). There are so many good ideas out there, but with no proper way to access their viability or to bring about coordination of efforts.

In my opinion, making the focus on carbon reduction alone still leaves in place the blinders that would impede more effective policy development with respect to energy, energy independence, technological development, technology transfer, geopolitics and environmental issues and the ideas that guide such things. Would the pursuit of such policies be easy? No, not at all. Would it be more useful? Yes.

To make a long story short, what if all the efforts to reduce greenhouse gases turns out to have no effect on rising temperatures? Or what if over the next thirty years temperatures begin to drop to a degree where winters become more severe? Reducing greenhouses gases alone as a policy will have no legacy. A more robust energy policy that is more comprehensive in scope will still provide potential goods outside of trading carbon units and a fixed effort to reduce one small class of gases, the largest of which (C02) actually has net positive impacts on the environment!

 

[afransen TO]

Increasing the cost of fossil fuels via a carbon tax serves to speed up the implementation of alternatives. Presently, there are many technologies available on the market that can be used to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and increase energy efficiency. Firms and individuals don't place a very high priority on exploring and investing in these technologies because energy has been and continues to be fairly cheap. I'm not convinced we need to directly support R&D. I think creating the demand would be more helpful.

 

[bizorky]

On your first point, there are a number of negative secondary or downstream effects from using taxes as a means of motivating or speeding up the implementation of alternatives. Taxes collected from one source not always going to be guaranteed to end up being invested in alternatives or their development. No government would ever bargain itself out of using its taxes collected on general spending when it saw it fit to so - unless it established some project or initiative with a long-term goal.

It is true that some of the most significant technological changes in the 20th century were implemented without alterations to, or the use of, the tax system. That is not to say that there is no use for the tax system.

Concerning cheap energy, that is a "selling point" for pursuing new energy sources. Cheap energy is not the problem, it is the goal as well. That fact alone would make new energy source viable as replacements to fossil fuels.

As for direct support of R&D, I am surprised that you don't like the idea of direct support from government. I think the government can set goals and initiate research efforts through a number of means at their disposal. They can also offer direct investment through a number tools that could serve to spark a competition in ideas. Also, investment risk is reduced if government is willing to stand by (within reason) and support research initiatives that would otherwise be avoided by private companies. The trouble is that governments have to be consistent in their approach to supporting or investing in technology development and the policies supporting it. There has to be willingness to set long term goals for technology development, and there should be willingness to work with other governments on such initiatives.

Concerning the creation of demand, I am not sure what you mean. Creating demand for alternatives, or more energy?

 

[SD2]

As I have pointed out, there is strong evidence that changes in the sun's output is, at the very least, a siginficant contributor to this warming trend. In the political agonizing over this issue - and what to do about it - that fact tends to be obscured, as does the fact that climates and temperatures have changed throught the history of the planet - all without the (supposed) input of human beings. Increases in C02 have often followed natural temperature increases (followed - not caused). Slightly more than half of the "warming" of the last 120 years took place from 1880 to 1930, when human-generated C02 was a small fraction of what it is today. So did it actually contribute to the warming, or was it the sun's output (or something else)? This and many other issues should raise questions about the accuracy of so many assertions about human-induced climate change (since you have followed my posts I won't bore you by raising some of them all again). Against the backdrop of this, I have stated that the burden of proof is on those wishing to assert that all temperature change since 1880 is caused by human beings.

But there's also very compelling evidence that human-generated emissions are a sigificant contributor to global warming.

I don't see how increases in methane and CO2 output into the atmosphere can be ignored or seen as having no negative impact.

 

[bizorky]

Methane has remained relatively stable for the last seven years. Ocean surface temperatures have also dropped slightly in the last two years. What does that mean? It probably means that climate is variable - as it always has been. Climate has been and can be quite variable beyond the impact of human beings.

Considering that C02 makes up about 0.034% percent of the atmosphere at any given time (it cycles and is quite difficult to measure), and that all human contributions are, tops, roughly about 1 to 3% or so of that total (depending on how it is being measured), human contributions are very small when compared to non-human sources of C02 (and those non-human emissions do vary). One can assume that C02 has accumulated in the atmosphere, and that some of that extra C02 is due to human activity. However, it is important to recognize that C02 content has always been quite variable over time, and that natural build-up has resulted in levels far higher than those found today.

Climate on earth is sustained and changed by many things, and is not affected evenly around the globe. In an era of "warming" some regions of the planet are actually colder or wetter. The idea of an average global temperature is something of a myth; like the idea of the "average" person. An average temperature does not exist; it is a compilation of a collection of temperature measures.

While climate is affected by atmospheric content including C02 and methane, it is also affected much more significantly by water vapour, low altitude and high altitude cloud cover. Climate is affected by ocean currents and geological and hydrological changes to landmass. Climate is affected by plant cover (plants use C02 and sunlight, and C02 availability allows plants to grow greener and in drier regions. Prochlorococcus in the oceans also use C02 for photosynthesis). Climate is affected by volcanic activity, variations in planetary orbit, cosmic rays and, of course, the sun. Climate is non-linear and dynamic and undergoes constant minor changes. It is complex and constantly changing. Is this change radically different from any of the others that have occured over the past 2,500 years? No one can farm on Greenland today, but the Vikings could in the past.

But there's also very compelling evidence that human-generated emissions are a sigificant contributor to global warming.

Just how significant? Compared to what? Remember that from the late 1930's to the late 1970's globally averaged temperatures actually dropped - to the degree that some scientists were concerned about a new ice age. Yet this is the era of the largest growth in human C02 emissions (the Second World War and post-war rebuilding and industrialization). It is an era that also included the first post-OPEC fuel crunch and a move to conservation - and then the temperatures started to climb in the 1980's.

Consider this: the "compelling" evidence that human-generated C02 is a significant contributor to global warming is a correlation - two curves that match roughly. There is also a curve tracking sunspots and temperature change that has a better match. Add to that the recognition that sunspots and crop success have a relationship that goes back nearly four-hundred years. This, too, is a correlation, but why does it get so little recognition in light of the fact that the sun drives all climate on earth?

Trying to comprehend the complex nature of global climate is already a tall order. Then trying to take a limited set of data in order to extract what temperatures will be like in one-hundred years is pushing knowledge into the realm of fiction. Adding what the effects will be, all on the basis of limited data, starts to look like fantasy. Creating climate policy on the basis of one gas (one which is not even toxic) begins to look rather narrow. One has to wonder if it will have no discernable effect except a financial one.

 

[Ed007Toronto]

Today is January 5 and it is raining in the city. No snow to this point. If it isn't global warming then something strange is going on.

 

[afransen TO]

Just El Nino... move along, nothing to see here.

 

[bizorky]

Today is January 5 and it is raining in the city. No snow to this point. If it isn't global warming then something strange is going on.

About 12,000 years ago the city was under a kilometre of ice. About 7,000 years ago it was under water. Some 2,500 years ago it probably was considerably warmer than today. Four-hundred years ago it was probably colder than most winters we ever experienced in our lifetimes. Climate is variable and always has been.

 

[SD2]

About 12,000 years ago the city was under a kilometre of ice. About 7,000 years ago it was under water. Some 2,500 years ago it probably was considerably warmer than today. Four-hundred years ago it was probably colder than most winters we ever experienced in our lifetimes. Climate is variable and always has been.

Bizorky, I can appreciate where you're coming from. The problem is, even if man-made GHG gases aren't contributing to the current problem we're having, it's not something we can be sure of.

The science supporting global warming due to man made GHGs is quite compelling. As you pointed out, there is also convincing evidence it might be due to the sun. But why take that chance? What benefit can there possibly be from the unnatural release of large quantities of GHGs into the atmosphere? There could be negative consequences we can't even forsee. With rapid development in countries around the world the release of such gases is going to get worse.

I don't see any rational reason why we shouldn't be trying to reduce the unnatural release of these gases into the atmosphere.

 

[papamanjr]

I think we should implement higher taxes on those who choose to live in areas that are now proven to be, with plenty of science behind it, highly susceptible to disasters. (such as those living on the fault lines of the west coast, those around costal areas - miami and the such, etc.)

because after the fact, when the world is rallying for fund raiser after fund raiser to help them out, we can at least say we told you so while blaming it on the weather.

of course, third world country residents would be exempt. (and of course, they're government officials would not.)