Comments brownbat has made
Peak Oil
This is a bit off topic, but responds to something raised in the initial post, the idea that we are on the verge of running out of oil.
Nobel winning economist Gary Becker is skeptical of Peak Oil. While consensus is mixed, other commentators have speculated a retreat in oil prices over the next few years.
Just because a resource is non-renewable, it doesn't mean that a peak price situation is inevitable in the short term. Tungsten isn't renewable, and the world consumes tens of thousands of tons each year. It has unique properties in hardness at high temperatures, making substitutes far less viable than our current substitutes for oil (which are simply a little more expensive). All the same, I don't lose much sleep over peak tungsten.On 'Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster'--Not really, but this may be lesser of two evils posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses
Not the strongest argument...
"I have a rather personal peeve with people who vociferously criticize any attempt at a solution and yet propose nothing in its place."
Bad plans are bad plans, and if Kyoto is one, it should be outed as such. Your better argument is that Kyoto isn't so bad, despite my residual worries (that Kyoto just encourages relocation of carbon producing industries to emerging economies, leading to net increases in carbon output with no economic gain).
If this solution would actually be harmful, I think it's important for people to speak up, even if they haven't come up with the magic bullet on their own. You should take an implied alternative course of action as "let's wait to see what else we can come up with."
Wasted effort, when it wastes any resources which could fight other problems, is more harmful in the long run than no effort at all.On 'Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing'--Kyoto is only in its first phase posted 1 year, 5 months ago 16 Responses
Too Late?
There should be another post under "too late" for those that aren't concerned about Kyoto. It'd be nice to hear a response to the worry that the CO2 outputs over the last century have been so significant, and the likelihood of an environmental feedback loop so high, that even an immediate reduction to 0 carbon emissions would accomplish very little.
If this were the case, then one might argue we should exploit all the cheap energy we can as long as possible, turning that energy into worthwhile projects like levees for low lying coastal cities and on drought resistant crop research.
It'd be interesting to hear any response.On 'Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing'--Kyoto is only in its first phase posted 1 year, 5 months ago 16 Responses
Mandatory
Looks like he was just emphasizing that trading allows some to exceed their individual caps.
I can kinda see what you're going for, but you have to read McCain pretty uncharitably to make him look that confused. I was really hoping for more of a smoking gun here.On John McCain doesn't appear to understand his own emissions plan posted 1 year, 5 months ago 2 Responses
If climate mitigation was unnecessary...
"...even if it turned out that climate mitigation was unnecessary, we would still be in a better place as a global society by making the coming switch sooner rather than later."
That's not necessarily true, it depends on the costs of energy sources and the time value of money.
Might be true, just ain't necessarily so, depends on the numbers.
Might be oil saves you a dollar today, but switching to solar today saves you a dollar tomorrow. If climate mitigation was unnecessary, then save the dollar today, even if just to put it in the bank for a year and give the interest to your favorite charity.
Course, might be that oil saves you a dollar today, but solar saves you ten dollars next week. The ten dollars is almost certainly a better deal.On 'Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster'--Not really, but this may be lesser of two evils posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses