Comments View as Flat

1. 

   JMG Posted 2:50 pm
   12 Jan 2009

   Now, don't be shrill

   If the number of trees goes down, the price will go up and the market will create more and give us just as many as we like.

   The 5% Project Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.

   Permalink

2. 

   Green Granny Posted 9:17 pm
   12 Jan 2009

   lol JMG

   "We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi

   Permalink

3. 

   Pompey Road Posted 11:12 pm
   12 Jan 2009

   High and Dry:

   According to this train of thought those of us who live inland will also be in a good economic position when global warming raises sea level. We are in a good position here in Appalachia if only they would stop blowing the tops of mountains off. I am trying to determine the exact new sea level so I can speculate on some ocean front property.
   

   The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

   Permalink

4. 

   spaceshaper Posted 11:36 pm
   12 Jan 2009

   Climate and the steady state

   Romm is right to point out the fundamental foolishness of economic modeling based on future climate conditions that are not reliably steady-state. If anything he vastly understates the importance of climate instability to agricultural and economic futures.

   Agriculture hates climate instability. It's supremely important to farmers (as to any place-based human investment) that over time the temperature and rainfall at a particular piece of ground are reasonably season-by-season predictable. This is why we have almanacs, agricultural extension, heck even Stonehenge (read the beginning chapters of Steinbeck's 'East of Eden' for an account of the agricultural and social disaster resulting from a decade-long misreading of local climate conditions). If AGW continues unchecked it will be centuries before reference sources can again describe with authority the stable seasonal climate of (fill in the blank geographical location). Building a functional, sustainable agricultural policy is tough enough already - throw into the mix a climate topology which is not predictable from one decade to the next and any attempt at intelligent agricultural resource management goes completely out the window. If you think a little bio-fuel resource diversion has been a problem for world food production just wait to see what's coming.

   The need for steady-state predictability of local and regional climate conditions affects almost every other aspect of human development and resource management too, from the design of our homes to where we site our recreation facilities. Agriculture though is forever the broad base of the pyramid, the part which actually keeps us alive from day to day.

   But then, Mendelsohn is not here acting as an actual economist (Greek oikos + nomos, household + regulation, the thoughtful and proper disposition of our common resource). He's just saying he sees some short-term profit to be made. Suckas!

   The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

   Permalink

5. 

   amazingdrx Posted 12:17 am
   13 Jan 2009

   Chu's lab

   A "rad lab" (the new energy secretary's Lawrence Livermore) study says northern forests increase warming.  Might as well guzzle them in SUVs as biomass to fuel then put down parking lots and paint them white.

   Or maybe a genetically modified reflective grass could be planted?  Great golfing!  That'll be good for the canadian economy.

   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

   Permalink

6. 

   katakanadian Posted 4:36 am
   13 Jan 2009

   It's embarrassing

   ... anytime someone talks about how Canada will 'benefit' from climate change. Our own PM, Mr Harper-Bush, is a leading idiot. BC's lower mainland is currently drowning in the 'benefit' of climate change.

   Permalink