Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
m_jones
Trad climber
Carson City, NV
|
|
|
May 25, 2011 - 11:09pm PT
|
But what if you are wrong?
What if the green movement gets everything it wants and it is wrong.
We would be left with:
Clean air
Plentiful clean water
Ozone
Money stream would be diverted away from the mega wealthy.
Money power status quo broken up.
My great great grandchildren would have a nice, hopefully less crowded, place to live a great life.
What if the consume movement gets everything it wants and it is wrong.
Civilization on this planet ends as we know it.
I am conserving and hoping to be wrong.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 01:15am PT
|
Ed, wasn't the Antarctic ozone hole (caused by chlorofluorocarbons) first found by a satellite in a polar orbit, in the early 1980s? One of its sensors came up with readings way off its scale, which they at first thought was due to a faulty instrument. It took a while to figure out what was actually happening?
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 09:42am PT
|
Deferring to and accepting the scientific consensus, at least for now, how are we going to get down to the level of carbon emissions necessary?
Current world average carbon emissions are something like four metric tons of CO2 per person per year. US average is 20, or so, metric tons. According to at least some of the scientific community, we need to get down to less than three metric tons per person, with our current world population.
Of course the world population is growing, but has often been projected to level off at 9 billion people in 2050, up from almost 7 billion now. That projection has recently been revised upward to 10 billion in 2100, due to increased reproductive rates in Africa.
All people strive to better their lives. They want to eat better, provide better for their families and children, have decent housing, and if they can afford it, drive a car.
Cheap energy has in the past been a key element of prosperity. It's certainly a key element in keeping food inexpensive enough to feed many of the world's truly poor. As the world population grows and more people endeavor to prosper, how is it that we are going to get world average CO2 emissions down to less than three metric tons per person per year?
Even those enlightened, as presumably most climbers are, seem to have no ability to conserve. For example, check out this thread over on Mountain Project where people are not consuming fossil fuels to feed their families but are instead consuming lots and lots of fossil fuels just for fun. http://mountainproject.com/v/how-far-will-you-drive-for-a-weekend-climbing-trip/107145621
In that thread climbers are wearing their willingness to drive great distances to climb, and emit lots of CO2 in the process, like a badge of honor. Each one doing their best to outdo the next.
|
|
Stewart Johnson
climber
lake forest
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 10:08am PT
|
the weather now suggests global cooling!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 26, 2011 - 01:10pm PT
|
Ed, please. Don't confuse the opinionated with facts.
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 01:45pm PT
|
Ed, if you care to respond to my post on the previous page, I'm genuinely interested in how we can get world average per capita, and perhaps more importantly US average per capita, carbon emissions to less than three metric tons a year.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 02:26pm PT
|
The regulation of the market is the domain of national and international organizations.
And its study the domain of economists.
;-)
John
|
|
bergbryce
Mountain climber
South Lake Tahoe, CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 02:32pm PT
|
97% of the rare earth metals, rare earth magnets produce the highest fields and are an important component of efficient electrical motors
I was at a wedding recently and met a guy who works for a Canadian mining firm. He happened to be a rare earth metals specialist. I asked it it was true that China was producing basically all rare earth metals and if the quotas they initiated the past two years were a big deal. He said China does currently dominate the market and that the quotas were indeed a serious issue but that 3 new, very large rare earth mines (around the world) were coming on-line in 2012 and 2013 and China's domination in that field would be easing considerably.
However, China may still lead in cost given they have zero laws governing how the stuff is mined and the refining is done in Indonesia with even less oversight.
Cool thread, I might have to start paying attention to this one.
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 05:04pm PT
|
Following Ed's very broad outline of how to reduce CO2 emissions to below three metric tons per person per year perhaps we can also pivot to JEleazarian for some specifics on how, where, and who might be taxed to reduce emissions to the desired level?
It seems kind of like the problem of our deficit spending and national debt. People want the high level of services our federal government now provides, but no one wants to, nor can we continue to afford to, pay the growing interest on our ever increasing national debt.
So too, most want to enjoy the presumed benefits of sharply curbed CO2 emissions, but no one, seemingly, wants to pay significantly more for energy.
John and/or Ed, what national and international market regulations will reduce CO2 emissions to 3 metric tons per person per year? Please be as specific as possible so we get a sense of who will be impacted and it what way.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 05:19pm PT
|
Dropline,
If you decide that is the appropriate level, I think that "cap and trade" is the most efficient way to get there. It allows each business to determine just how much carbon to emit, without the central authority (government or supergovernment) trying to micromanage each firm.
Its downside is that it will amount to a massive tax increase, which will be contractionary. That's life, I'm afraid. If we want to reduce carbon emissions, we are, in effect, repairing a capital asset -- our environment. If I choose not to repair my roof, say, I may save money for a while, but if the roof is already leaking, it will probably cost me more in the long run to postpone the repair than it will to bite the bullet. We have the same choice here.
We can quibble over the appropriate level of reduction, if any, given all the options, but if we agree that we need to reduce it, we need to do so efficiently, and nothing beats cap and trade there. If we try to do it with taxes directly, we will hit and miss until we find the optimal tax rate. Until then, either emissions or economic disruption will be too great. In addition, this would be a real tax increase, and would be far more contractive than cap and trade. Under cap and trade, more money at least stays in the private economy.
I understand that orthodox conservative Republican thinking opposes cap and trade -- or anything else, it seems. I guess I'm an unorthodox conservative Republican.
John
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 05:27pm PT
|
Okay we can obviously make no progress with those who practice willfull self delusion. e.g. people who claim that those concered with global warming say it's "doomsday" if we don't stop ALL carbon emissions. Or people who say what 6 billion people do can't effect the climate (I guess even setting off 1000 nuclear bombs would somehow be resolved by nature/God). When someone says something that is obviously a lie and won't acknowledge it, there's not much hope.
I'd much rather deal with this intelligent question:
Current world average carbon emissions are something like four metric tons of CO2 per person per year. US average is 20, or so, metric tons. According to at least some of the scientific community, we need to get down to less than three metric tons per person, with our current world population.
As I've said up thread it's probably very easy to reduce your impact 40%. A full size SUV often gets about 16 mpg. You can get 28 mpg in a AWD car. Granted some people need a truck for towing or serious off roading, but there's lots of soccer moms driving SUVs because they are too vain to drive minivans. I was able to go from a truck based SUV to a Subaru (which is a LOT more fun to drive) and get to 99% of the places I want to go, and can hike or mtn bike anywhere else. The govt. can and does specify minimum mpg requirements and this is where the righties/libertarians get all self righteous, but it helps and drives innovation.
I'd like to get a plug in hybrid at some point. Emissions would be a fraction of what they are now for me.
I eat more fruits and veggies and less meat than I used to. It's healthier and uses far less resources.
I recycle. e.g. Recycling aluminium requires only 5% of the energy and produces only 5% of the CO2 emissions as compared with primary production.
I'm not where I need to be. But I have reduced a lot. Should I just give up because I'm not there all the way? Should we just give up because other people or countries aren't making an effort? I think we should do what we reasonably can. Americans/climbers should be leaders, not foot draggers.
Another area where opportunities lie not just for reducing global warming but for America's competitiveness and security is alternative energy. It seems the righties can't understand it is an investment in our future. Would you rather have American clean energy technology creating jobs and money for the US, or keep relying on middle east oil?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 05:29pm PT
|
The fet,
We can all try to act voluntarily, but the problem is that too many people will do nothing, hoping that others will do the reduction for them. That's the beauty of either cap and trade or discharge taxes. Under either system, products that emit more pay more, so there are no freeloaders.
John
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 05:33pm PT
|
John you are a RINO :-).
Cap and Trade was a republican idea. And a good one. Let the market sort out the most efficient/economic way to get reduced emissions.
Of course now that Dems want it, the Reps dislike it and call it Cap and Tax.
Same thing happened with the requirement to carry insurance in Obamacare. Republican idea. Once the Dems support it it's evil.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 05:37pm PT
|
John, I was just giving examples of ways to try to get to 3 tons per person.
I think we need a combination of voluntary action and govt. regulation.
We won't get to 3 tons per person unless/until we see dramatic effects of climate change. e.g. massive flooding and crop failure. (we are only seeing the beginnings of it now).
My hope is that we get to about 10 tons per person in the US in the next decade or two, and then new technology helps us get the rest of the way after that.
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 05:42pm PT
|
Ok. John, help me to understand better. Let's say I own a very large synthetic fertilizer company, one that makes all of the synthetic fertilizer in the world, which feeds 40% of the world's population, and my source of energy, as well as the hydrogen I need to make this fertilizer, is methane from natural gas.
How would cap and trade work for my company?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 05:52pm PT
|
Dropline,
Cap and trade works by having tradeable "emission certificates." Each certificate would allow its holder to emit a specific amount (for example, one ton) of carbon compounds into the atmosphere.
Your fertilizer manufacturer would then need to own enough emissions certificates to emit the carbon it plans to emit. It can either make no changes to its operations, and buy enough certificates to emit at that level, reduce its carbon emissions, and thereby need fewer certificates. If it chooses to get into a different line of business, or otherwise chooses to stop emitting, it can then sell the unneeded certificates to others.
The price of a carbon emissions certificate, if there is a transparent market for them, should equal the marginal cost of reducing carbon emissions.
Again, though, the trick is to determine the appropriate level of emissions. If we need three tons per capita to have no change, what would happen if we have instead, say, 3.1 tons? Would that be relatively benign, or would it be disastrous? If we have democracies, the political process will tell us what is worth it, and what isn't. One problem: those who benefit from carbon emissions reductions include people who don't vote, because they aren't born yet, so the system will be biased toward putting too much weight on avoiding the cost of mitigation, and not enough weight on the cost of delaying mitigation. I don't have an easy answer to that one.
John
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 05:52pm PT
|
The Fet
One problem is the carbon emissions of our government. I believe eight of the twenty ton average for Americans is attributed to government CO2 emissions: fire departments, police, military, regulatory agencies, congressional travel, and on and on and on.
One of the reasons our emissions are so much higher per capita than most of the rest of the world is our government services are far in excess of most of the rest of the world.
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 05:54pm PT
|
John, who issues the certificates? How do they originally enter circulation?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 06:09pm PT
|
The government would issue the certificates. They could be auctioned off (which would, of course, be a massive tax increase in and of itself), or they could be distributed for free, and then the profit from their sale or exchange would be income subject to taxation. (these options explain the "cap and tax" moniker). The government decides what the total emissions will be, and makes sure that only that number of certificates are issued.
John
|
|
Ashcroft
Trad climber
SLC, UT
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 06:40pm PT
|
John, who issues the certificates? How do they originally enter circulation?
Adding on to John's answer...
Emission allowance distribution can be done in different ways. They might be given away or might be auctioned. Last year's national climate legislation had some of both. Obviously, if allowances are to be given away, there will be big political battles about who they should be given to. That's a contentious debate, but it's the same debate you run into when you decide what to do with auction revenue (or taxes for that matter).
In any case, the government is in the role of deciding how to distribute something of value (allowances, auction revenue, or tax revenue). It might be distributed equally to every citizen, or preferentially given to those who are going to most adversely affected by transitioning away from carbon-intensive energy sources. Analysis of last year's climate legislation found that people at the lower end of the economic scale would actually come out ahead financially, but that's just one specific piece of legislation. Some other, hypothetical, program would have different numbers. In any case how allowances or revenue get distributed is an important political decision, but is mostly independent of the environmental benefit of the program.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!