More from the delayer-1000 du jour
Why did Nature run Pielke’s pointless, misleading, embarrassing nonsense? 17
-
Posted 1:33 PM on 2 Apr 2008
by Joseph Romm -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Related Stories
The new Senate global warming deniers
EPA affirms California’s right to set tougher automobile emissions standards
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments View as Flat
manacker Posted 9:33 am
02 Apr 2008
Are "delayers" really bad?
Joseph Romm's critique of the Pielke et al paper misses a key point.
Pielke's paper simply states the case that it may be not as easy to stabilize CO2 emissions as we may have been led to believe, and that the technological advances that will be required to achieve this stabilization may take longer to achieve than has been optimistically assumed.
For this he is lumped together with "Bush/Lomborg/Gingrich" as a "delayer", with the implication that delaying action is tantamount to courting disaster for our planet.
The even more pertinent question should be raised: "why should we spend billions (or as many suggest hundreds of billions) of dollars and throw the whole world into a major recession in order to stabilize CO2 emissions (at an arbitrary level of 450 ppmv?) when we are not even certain that this will have any beneficial impact on the future of our planet?"
Let's look at what is going on out there in the real world (not the virtual reality of climate models) and ask some basic questions.
Is the global warming paradigm collapsing? (There has been no warming trend since 1998, despite steady increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations).
Are the hypotheses that "positive feedbacks" dominate, upon which the whole global warming scare is based, coming unraveled? (Latest satellite findings confirm earlier theories that natural weather processes automatically regulate temperatures to prevent runaway warming.)
Are some doomsayers becoming shriller and shriller in a "last ditch" attempt to keep the global warming hysteria alive? (Imminent computer-generated "tipping points" from which the planet will not be able to recover are being predicted, unless immediate actions are taken).
How many more years of flat temperature trends (or even cooling) will it take until the multibillion-dollar global warming bubble bursts?
Will this bring the dissolution of the IPCC and the collapse of the current boom in taxpayer-funded "climate research"?
Will there be a new "anthropogenic disaster" prediction to replace global warming when it dies?
Will we return to the "disastrous global cooling" scare of the 1970s, or will the new imminent man-made disaster be something other than climate-related?
These are interesting questions of our times (2008), which cast in doubt the sinister consequences of being a "delayer".
Max
Permalink
StillSkeptical Posted 12:58 pm
02 Apr 2008
Predictions
Yes
Yes
Yes
I give it one.
Yes, not a collapse though, and a whole lot more due dilligence.
Yes
Global Cooling. I wonder what the solution will be; and subsequently how humans will be causing the problem.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 1:20 pm
02 Apr 2008
First, delayer-boy
What's uncertain is whether "we" are spending billions of dollars. The global money system exists through ceaseless borrowing, and borrowing is actually the creation of money. So someone borrows a lot of money and gives world-society a technical upgrade. Instant catastrophe? Prove it!
What's also uncertain is whether any technical upgrade would "throw the whole world into a major recession." Delayer-boy has little concept of economics. The main causes of immediate economic stagnation at this late date in the history of capitalism are 1) the old one, the crisis of overproduction, in which capital is producing stuff nobody can afford to buy, because the economy is too toploaded (i.e. the richest 1% have too much of the total wealth and the masses have too little), and 2) the new one, in which the capitalist nation-state system destroys Earth's ecosystems to the point at which ecosystem damage interferes with the profit rate.
Delayer-boy ignores the statistics showing a real warming trend, and focus upon a time-period so short that it's irrelevant to the overall trend.
The obvious conclusions include, for instance, that the melting of the polar ice caps will decrease Earth's albedo, and that changes in oceanic temperatures will result in the untimely death of coral reefs. What are the unobvious ones?
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 1:32 pm
02 Apr 2008
Next, the "technology issue"
New energy technologies will, in themselves, do nothing to deal with the problem of abrupt climate change.
The only way that anything will be done is if the wells are capped and the mines are abandoned. It's that or nothing.
New energy technology may make life a little more convenient for the privileged few who can afford it. Period. New energy technology will do nothing for the bottom 40% of humanity who live on less than $2/day.
The debate about abrupt climate change is a debate about the ecosystem resilience of planet Earth in the face of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, the melting of the polar ice caps, the death of coral reefs, and so on. It's a debate about the role of the human race as a species of care-takers of Earth's ecosystems. It has nothing to do with whether the privileged classes will be able to run their toasters when the oil wells are capped.
The "energy technology" people start from the assumption that world-society is pumping and burning 85 million barrels of oil every day (accounting for a mere 36% of greenhouse gas emissions) to satisfy human energy needs. Wrong. Production under the conditions of capitalist world society is production for effective demand, demand backed by money. The energy production sector is damaging ecosystem integrity in order to make a buck. If we want to be ecosystem stewards, we need to move away from an economy that makes stuff to make a buck, toward an economy that does otherwise.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:15 pm
02 Apr 2008
Message to LegumeSam
Pardon the expression, LegumeSam, but you are (as your name implies) "full of beans".
First, your claim that 10 years is too short to make a trend, I can only add that 22 years (1976 to 1998) is only 2.2 times that long, and this period is being used to sell the whole AGW story.
Your statement "The energy production sector is damaging ecosystem integrity in order to make a buck" is totally contrived.
The question is not "whether any technical upgrade would `throw the whole world into a major recession'", it is whether we need to implement carbon cap and trade schemes or taxes to achieve this. I really do not think so. And I do not think you have brought me any evidence that this is the case.
We will have "technical upgrades" (because these make good economic sense as they always have in the past).
Draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes will neither reduce the world's "carbon footprint" nor resolve any "peak oil" problems. I have never heard of a case where a heavy tax has solved any problem. Have you?
Switching to alternate energy sources (domestic clean coal, nuclear, renewable sources and others) as imported oil becomes too expensive or geopolitically risky makes a lot of sense. But we do not need any carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes for this to happen.
You wrote: "New energy technologies will, in themselves, do nothing to deal with the problem of abrupt climate change." What problem? What abrupt climate change? Where is this and how do you document that it exists at all?
You closed with, "If we want to be ecosystem stewards, we need to move away from an economy that makes stuff to make a buck, toward an economy that does otherwise."
What do you mean by "otherwise"? Does this mean "move toward an economy that does not make stuff to make a buck or to make stuff that does not make a buck"?
What kind of an economy is that?
Who pays for the wages and salaries of the people who are "making the stuff"?
Taxes?
Who is paying the taxes?
Get real, LegumeSam. You need an economy to support all these good ideas, not on government regulation and taxes. Wake up to the real world out there.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 3:30 pm
02 Apr 2008
I have no intention of debating trolls
especially those whose posts are full of ad hominems and other sh*t.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:04 pm
02 Apr 2008
LegumeSam does not wish to debate
LegumeSam writes: "I have no intention of debating trolls, especially those whose posts are full of ad hominems and other sh*t."
Let's analyze this:
"Trolls"? Oh-oh, smells of ad hom put down. For shame!
"Other sh*t". Tsk, tsk. Such poor language!
To which ad homs was LS referring?
LegumeSam is full of "legumes", all right.
Rather than debating issues, LS prefers the fallacy of "ad hom attacks".
Makes sense. It avoids the real issues and is less likely to expose that there is no real argument than a real debate would.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:12 pm
02 Apr 2008
Embarrassing nonsense
One could ask, "Why did Gristmill run Joseph Romm's pointless, misleading, embarrassing nonsense?"
Duh!
Permalink
dobermanmacleod Posted 9:25 pm
02 Apr 2008
What a pointless tirade this Grist posting is
First, I apologize for being so harsh and negative, but I've never seen such a pointless tirade in Grist as this posting.
To summarize, the above post says that the report "Dangerous Assumptions" is pointless because:
- The report doesn't state a specific dangerous CO2 level.
- The report states the obvious that the IPCC issued conservative findings.
- The report never explains why the conservative IPCC findings divert attention from policies that could directly stimulate technological innovation.
Let me explain to Mr Romm:- Stating a specific dangerous CO2 level isn't necessary, but it is probably close to 350 ppm CO2 (per Dr James Hansen, NASA). Instead, as is conceeded by Mr Romm in the above point 2, it is obvious that the IPCC's findings were too conservative.
- Restating the obvious isn't a sin, but a necessary step in arguing that the IPCC's findings divert attention from policies that could directly stimulate technological innovation.
- The reason the IPCC's too conservative "divert attention from policies that could stimulate technology innovation," is because if a goal is underestimated, the steps necessary to reach that goal will be minimized.
The fundamental mistake Mr Romm makes in the above posting is to assume that the only steps necessary to avoid a climate catastrophe are emission reductions:"I know of no realistic person who thinks carbon dioxide emissions are goinf to do anything but grow." --Pete Geddes, executive vice president of the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
"I never believed we were going to be able to thwart global wrming through carbon restrictions. Carbon restriction requires nations to subvert shrt- and medterm goals for a long-term goal they've read about online, ant that's not going to work." --Gregory Benford, UC-Irvine physicist
"Processes that would normally regulate climate are being driven to amplify warming. Such feedbacks, as well as the inertia of the Earth system -- and that of our response -- make it doubtful that any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for carbon dieting will (work). What is needed is a fundamental cure." --Dr James Lovelock
I have a message specifically to Mr Romm:
"Those do gooder actions are not going to be able to turn the temperature tide, and even incremental political changes like reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mining alternative fuel sources are not forward-thinking enough." --Gregor Benford
No amount of table pounding is going to change the facts-the order of magnitude change is much greater than what the IPCC implied in their last report, and that plainly has misled policy-makers as to the steps necessary to avoid dangerous warming.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 1:27 am
03 Apr 2008
Um, with regard to "heavy taxes" ...
I can't resist a quick response to Manacker's following comment, which is staggering in its broad-brush breathlessness:
Um, well, Social Security taxes for one. They have protected a boatload of elderly and handicapped people in our country from the unmitigated abject poverty that they otherwise would have suffered through. Which was a very real problem for the elderly and handicapped in, oh, 1932 or so.
Or, if you prefer a response that's more friendly to the right-wing perspective: military taxes. It doesn't seem to me a wild stretch of the imagination to argue that military taxes helped us "solve" the "problem" of Adolf Hitler in the 1940's. For example.
(Of course, the current Imposter-in-Chief doesn't want to burden current taxpayers with the full cost of his war in Iraq by actually taxing us accordingly ... so we simply borrow the money from our children and grandchildren (thanks kids!) .... and neocons use the resulting bankruptcy of the U.S. Treasury as an excuse to roll back funding of that very tiny percentage that goes, or used to go, to environmental and social causes).
I saw an article this week that the GAO has discovered that 95 Pentagon projects have collectively overrun their budgets by $295 billion dollars. That's 295 BILLION. As they say, $295 billion here, $295 billion there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money ...
Permalink
pcarbo Posted 1:51 am
03 Apr 2008
Not a waste of Grist's space
Well that clearly an enlightening debate by Grist readers!
The main problem I have with that paper, like Mr. Romm, is the rather narrow-minded view that this word "technology" is our saviour and only saviour.
I think Mr. Romm is right to complain about this piece... we've become too accustomed to the garbage that falls under the manner of scientific writing, and as a result it diminishes the actual, well-thought-out scientific writing that doesn't get enough attention.
Let's all aspire to constructive, healthy debate. (To throw out a pie-in-the-sky aspiration.)
Peter
Permalink
lorna salzman Posted 3:43 am
03 Apr 2008
Has everyone given up?
Guys, April's Fool Day is over. Let's get real. You all propose solutions but lack evidence of workability.Some of you say reducing fossil fuel use is pointless. Some of you say eliminating all carbon fuels is a big part of the solution. Some of you say renewables and efficiency will solve the problem. Some of you say existing technology is the answer. Some of you say it isn't. This is getting a bit tiresome and leads me to wonder whether exhaling CO2 doesn't cause brain damage. Can we rewind the tape and get back to the basics?
Greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 at this time, are causing an increase in average global temperature. Existing CO2 from prior releases is irreversible today with existing technology, committing us to a certain increase in this temperature. Restricting future CO2 emissions (and other GHGs) will therefore act to restrain the future global temperature increase. The sooner we restrict energy demand, using a variety of tactics including price, rationing, and mandatory conservation measures, the more we reduce future emissions. Are we all together on this so far?
If so, then the debate SHIFTS to another topic: how and how soon can efficiency and renewable energy technologies come on line to fill the REDUCED future energy demand? The debate has mixed apples and oranges and it is time to focus on the first and most important challenge: reducing fossil fuel consumption. Those who deny that carbon taxes can do this are assuming that such taxes ALONE will do the trick. But no one said that carbon taxes were the only thing we need.They are among the FIRST things. Why are so many purportedly smart people diverting the debate away from the key point: the need to reduce energy demand. Are these people working secretly for the investor-owned utilities? Do they put economic growth above all other considerations? Are they making excuses for the coal utilities and mining industry? Please excuse me for perhaps appearing confused but I don't see a real debate going on about real issues. Can we refocus our astigmatic argument and agree to agree on the facts before we agree to disagree on speculations about future technology?
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:51 am
03 Apr 2008
Why is delaying a bad thing?
So far I have not seen any compelling arguments against "delaying" action until we can truly see whether or not the current (1998-2008) flat or even cooling temperature trend is the beginning of a longer term trend.
The "imminent disaster" and "tipping point" hysteria calls for immediate action. This alarmist position is based on the premise that "positive feedbacks" dominate the climate system.
New scientific findings show that strong "negative feedbacks" from clouds tend to regulate the climate system instead. These have been overlooked by the many climate model studies that show alarming projections.
These findings, plus the fact that temperatures have reached a plateau (or are even beginning to drop), would tell me, as a rational skeptic, that now is the time to first find out what is really going on before rushing to implement draconian measures that may not bring us any benefit at all, but will undoubtedly be very costly for everyone.
That is why I believe being a "delayer" may not be such a bad idea, after all. Let's get all the facts before we rush into action.
If anyone has any rational arguments against this position, I would be glad to hear them.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:09 am
03 Apr 2008
Taxes as solutions to problems
GonzoDon raised some interesting questions.
There have undoubtedly been periods in history where taxes were implemented to finance a specific solution or political course of action.
Forgetting the classical example of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire (both of which came about to a great extent due to taxes), one can look at U.S. history.
The first federal income tax was imposed in 1862 to finance the costs of the Civil War. It was repealed in 1872.
Shortly before WWI Congress reenacted a federal income tax, which was then increased to finance WWI. This one never got repealed.
During the Great Depression the top marginal tax rate was increased in an effort to "level" the wealth between rich and poor and to finance large public works projects to help reduce massive unemployment.
And during WWII the rates were increased again, this time to finance the costs of the war. Payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments were also implemented to accelerate tax revenue cash flow.
Since 1935, the Social Security "tax" is actually a federally mandated retirement savings plan or "social insurance program", covering the benefits for retirement, disability, survivorship, and death.
In 1965 Medicare and Medicaid were added to provide medical insurance coverage for seniors and indigent patients, and in 1972 the coverage was extended to ceratin disabled persons under the age of 65.
So yes, these "taxes" were all enacted to "solve a problem".
The gasoline "taxes" go toward financing the roadways, so are actually more of a "user's fee" than a real tax.
The proposed "carbon tax" would be a similar tax on all carbon-containing fossil fuels, but what would they, in fact, finance? And even more important, what "problem" would these taxes solve?
Cap and trade schemes are even less transparent. These caps supposedly generate a market value for carbon. It is clear who will pay for all of this (everyone). Who will be the beneficiary is a bit less apparent. These schemes will undoubtedly earn a lot of money for some individuals, companies, hedge funds and other money shufflers. Platitudes such as "the atmosphere is owned by all humanity" are being used to justify these schemes as a part of an "equitable, ethical and politically effective climate policy". The question must again be asked: what specific "problem" would these schemes solve?
GonzoDon is correct in his statement. The Civil War, WWI, the Great Depression,WWII, public health care for the elderly, the disabled and the indigent, building and maintaining the roadway network are all examples of real problems and issues that were "solved" by providing adequate financing through taxation.
In the case of a climate policy including carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes to "solve" global warming it is not evident:
· That global warming is indeed a real problem that needs to be "solved"
· That the proposed political action (tax or cap and trade) will have any net beneficial effect
To me that is the big difference.
Max
Permalink
stinkycheese Posted 4:51 am
04 Apr 2008
problem with delaying
Max wrote:
"That is why I believe being a "delayer" may not be such a bad idea, after all. Let's get all the facts before we rush into action."
Something that has never been explained to me is, even if you ignore the impacts associated global warming, why shouldn't we be stopping pollution? I'm not going to put on my tin foil hat and try to get all our fossil fuel power plants turned off tomorrow, but why shouldn't we be trying to move past the internal combustion engine and coal-fired power plants? "Maybe global warming is fake!" is too often used as a poor straw man to avoid talking about cutting pollution. Meanwhile, the Model T got the same mileage as my fiancee's 2001 Ford Focus, but hey, why innovate? Let's just stick with archaic technology, because obviously a high-pollution economy is preferable in every way to a lower-pollution economy. The more carbon monoxide, sulfur, and mercury we release in to the environment, the better off everyone becomes!
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:43 am
04 Apr 2008
Don't delay progress
Hey stinkycheese,
You are spot on.
I am certainly NOT in favor of being a "delayer" when it comes to:
· Improving energy efficiency in power generation (i.e. revamping or replacing old inefficient plants with newer plants)
· Reducing waste on all levels
· Reducing real air and water pollution (not CO2 emissions)
· Reducing dependency on imported oil coming from politically unstable regions
· Improving fuel efficiency of automobiles
· Developing new energy-efficient sources of automotive fuels
· Developing and installing more cost-effective renewable power generation sources
· Building more nuclear power plants, and ensuring these are safe, of course)
· Developing new fast breeder technology
· Developing nuclear fusion technology
· Etc.
But I am in favor of being a "delayer" when it comes to the implementation of draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes, which will cost everyone a lot of money and will make some people, organizations, hedge funds or money shufflers rich, but will accomplish none of the above.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:26 am
12 Apr 2008
Pollution
In the penultimate post above, Stinkycheese, raised some good points about the need to reduce pollution, and I agree. Hopefully, the move to greater efficiencies will have this effect at least in the developed World. In fact there have already been improvements made over the decades.
His analogy:
"Meanwhile, the Model T got the same mileage as my fiancee's 2001 Ford Focus, but hey, why innovate?"
is getting around a bit and is not a good one.
If his fiancee drove her Ford Focus at the speeds and acceleration rates of the Model T, she would probably get excellent mileages, not to mention lower pollution and safety etc.
I have a friend in Belgium who owns a model T, and laughed recently that he was going flat-out along a narrow road, when a farm tractor honked for him to allow passing.
yes progress has its compromises
Burn more coal in the poverty stricken countries to generate electricity would be a good idea to reduce environmental degradation by reducing wood fire and dung cooking and heating. Apparently millions die each year from such current practice
Permalink