tzor wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Sure, air pollution is a major source of premature death in the United States. But you're just asserting that there's negligible damage from the global warming/ocean acidification/sea level rise/melting ice caps/stronger hurricanes in comparison to that air pollution without any evidence behind it.
Here you are quietly putting words in my mouth. I have never stated and never used the term "negligible" in terms of damage. But let's go through each one of your points carefully.
You said "the bulk of the savings" come from someplace other than the greenhouse gas emissions. This is directly refuted by pretty much everyone who studies this issue and accepts the consensus position on global warming. The problem is that you're denying that consensus position but shifting the goalposts and presenting it as a separate position that global warming isn't destructive. The point here is that I'm asking you to agree that
if you believed anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for the bulk of today's warming, you would also agree that it would represent a much bigger threat to society than the direct air pollution costs.
Global Warming: It appears that the actual effect of CO2 on global temperatures is one of many factors on global temperatures.
Yes. Climate science 101. Carbon dioxide is one of many greenhouse gases that affect Earth's temperature, and there are other factors that play a huge role in determining the balance of temperature, for example the amount of sunlight absorbed by the surface. Solar variability plays a role too (and of course the Sun's output is what provides almost all of the heat in the first place).
Most of these other factors are orders of magnitude greater but sometimes function on longer timescales.
Well, for example, water is directly responsible for the bulk of the fact that the Earth is not at an equilibrium temperature with solar radiation but is in fact much longer; it is the most dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. But that's a non sequitur. That doesn't mean that we can't increase the temperature of the planet by adding more carbon-based greenhouse gases. If you think that you've knocked down all of the evidence for anthropogenic global warming with a statement like this, then you just don't understand the basics.
I didn't look at your graph because it comes from the website of a guy who has an ad on the front page advertising his book about weather and bible prophecy. If you think that God is directly controlling our climate then we are not going to be able to have a discussion.
Ocean Acidification: This is a serious problem. (Of course, having large areas of oceans and bays without oxygen is even more serious.) Ironically, this is the one thing you never hear from people trying to make arguments for controlling CO2 emissions.
Uh, yes, I do. I hear this all the time. The fact that you're not paying attention to people talking about this issue does not mean it doesn't exist. I thought saxi already explained that.
Do you understand the concept of a cost-benefit analysis? It is not intellectually sufficient to say "well one thing does some bad things, another thing does some other bad things, so it's a wash." You have to actually weigh which of them is worse. And greenhouse gas emissions are going to kill far more whales than wind farms will. Tall buildings kill many more birds than wind turbines do but I don't see you advocating for us to stop building skyscrapers.
Perhaps we could dig a little deeper than the headline?
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
The lead author of that study has also said:
The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. "I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don't have to worry as much as some people have been making out," he says. "It should not take away from the concern about climate warming." As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear.
Essentially no one is in disagreement that increased warming is resulting in increased ice loss. This is entirely a debate about whether
as of 2008 there was enough snowfall to compensate for that or whether it will take a little more time, and this study is itself somewhat controversial in the community. Science doesn't work by you picking a study that comports with your worldview, it works by considering the literature as a whole. So before you make more comments like this, you should acquaint yourself with the literature on Antarctic ice as a whole and decide what the balance of evidence suggests.
Sound like too much work for you? Maybe it is. But there are climate scientists who actually do this and know what they are talking about. If you aren't willing to do the work to be one of them, then it's wisest not to try and contradict them.
stronger hurricanes: I can't seem to find any data more recent than 2012, but this appears to be a wives' tale. One possibility is more frequent tropical storms but this is harder to predict due to other short term variations in ocean temperatures in the areas where hurricanes form.
This was a comment made about what climate models predict for the future. There's pretty broad agreement that the strongest hurricanes will be more damaging in years to come. It is not a statement about what has already happened.
I am highly critical of a so called "revenue-neutral" carbon tax. I worry this would result in abuse. However, I'm not vehemently opposed to such a plan. The only real viable long term solution is through technology. Picking winners and losers only results in stagnant advances in technology. Remember that new "green" energy has to compete with "old" green energy and when the old is subsidized it may be hard for the new (and better) technology to compete withthe old.
I agree, we should be doing far less subsidizing of specific technologies than we are doing now. But all fuels are not on an even playing field right now because fossil fuels result in a gigantic public health externality and that is not priced into their current cost. The carbon tax levels out that playing field so that the best energy source wins out.
Most people don't talk about a "little part." (If you want to talk about a little part, what about a major infrastructure investment to have recharging stations on all of the interstate highways.) The problem is that you want to make broad changes that can literally cripple the economy.
Well yes, I am seeking a pretty substantial change to how we generate energy. I was talking about doing my little part to make that change happen.
As for "can literally cripple the economy;" I don't support policies that have a high likelihood of doing that. Read the links from my previous post, especially the one that shows that British Columbia has already implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax and their economy is doing just fine.
That doesn't solve the problem, it only shifts the problem elsewhere. Why do you think all the solar panels come from China? Because when China can skip all of the environmental regulations of the US and the EU, they can make the panels for far less. Raise the cost of manufacturing and that manufacturing will go to places with far lower environmental standards. You might even see the CO2 and pollution problem go UP as a result.
Actually, China has been
talking about carbon pricing for a pretty long time now. Don't trust them to do it? That's fair. The carbon tax should have a provision that places an import tariff on goods that come from countries without an equivalent carbon tax. This is permitted under WTO rules, and will be a pretty significant incentive for China to step up and do the same.
