Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 07:09pm PT
|
FortMental - People always come up with solutions to problems. Some can be
horrible and get you convicted of crimes against humanity while others get you a patent and you become a billionaire.
AP Finally Sees The Carbon Credit Scam
XIAOXI, China – The hydroelectric dam, a low wall of concrete slicing across
an old farming valley, is supposed to help a power company in distant
Germany contribute to saving the climate — while putting lucrative “carbon
credits” into the pockets of Chinese developers.
But in the end the new Xiaoxi dam does nothing to lower global-warming
emissions as advertised. And many of the 7,500 people displaced by the
project still seethe over losing their homes and farmland.
http://robertd.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/ap-finally-sees-the-carbon-credit-scam/
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
May 26, 2011 - 09:06pm PT
|
Well! This was a surprising read
...
Physicians and their senior patients who have typically chosen the path of whatever can be done must be done must reevaluate that behavior in light of the unfair economic burden it places on healthcare as a whole.
...
http://www.twotlj.org/G-3-44.html
Think this means letting nature run its course without huge spending
in the last years of life.
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
May 28, 2011 - 10:32am PT
|
So my hypothetical synthetic fertilizer company will have to compete in an open market to buy "emission allowances", the number of which will be limited by regulation. As the supply of emissions allowances will be fixed, and the demand ever growing, purchasing emissions credits will no doubt drive up my costs and in turn the price I must charge for fertilizer in order to remain a viable business.
By some estimates something like 40,000 people starve to death around the world every day now. That's 14 million plus a year. That number will go up considerably if undernourished people living marginal lifestyles effectively have to compete in a market with wealthy people to buy emissions allowances, or parts thereof. Really, in a cap and trade system, it seems poor people, trying to purchase food for their children, will have to compete with wealthy people buying a second Mercedes, or a bunch of valley climbers going on a road trip, for "emissions allowances". This hardly seems fair.
Perhaps additional death by starvation is the part of the goal. After all, it will slow down the population bomb. However, there must be a more humane way to euthanize the poor than death by cap and trade starvation.
Ed/John/Ashcroft, what say you?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 28, 2011 - 12:03pm PT
|
Dropline, While I don't have a real, detailed answer to your scenario, it's my belief that businesses and economies will indeed take a hit if we get serious about limiting carbon emissions.
That's where we are now--big business is fighting like all get out to avoid this problem. They want to rub their eyes and pretend that this dirty secret just isn't true--that human-created CO2 will in one way or another, be reduced.
There's no business to be done on a dead planet. -- Brower
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
May 28, 2011 - 12:29pm PT
|
Without going into the details of the efficacy of synthetic fertilizer, in my simple minded way I'll simply comment that virtually all prescriptions for alleviating starvation include making fertilizer less expensive rather than more.
I don't have a problem with carbon taxation or cap and trade as long these efforts are targeted at the most consumptive, meaning, us. On average, we Americans emit carbon into the atmosphere at 100-200 times the rate of your average undernourished poor person in the developing world. If you pit the poor, against the wealthy, in a financial competition for emissions allowances, the poor will certainly lose and many more will starve to death as a result, no matter the other variables or complexities.
That the poor have to compete with the wealthy for energy already is no reason to also make them compete for emissions allowances, especially given how little they emit per capita already.
For the purposes of argument I'm defining wealthy, in this case, as anyone who owns and operates a car.
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
May 28, 2011 - 12:36pm PT
|
As for balance, I don't have any sort of prescription myself.
However, given that human beings are, by nature, very self interested, and the likely political success of regulations which would promote mitigation at the level necessary, my personal view is that much more effort should be placed on geo-engineering solutions and adaptation.
That's not to say we should ignore mitigation. Again I'm all for curbing the excesses of those emitting the most. I just think we should also be very compassionate towards those emitting the least.
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
May 28, 2011 - 12:47pm PT
|
"My point about your fertilizer angle is that climate change has already become a larger negative affect on crop production than the positive affect of fertilizer... in the future the price of fertilizer will be irrelevant to crop production vs. climate change."
Ummm. Pardon me for saying so, but, bullsh#t.
Nitrogen, from fertilizer, is the limiting element in soil almost everywhere plants are grown. If you increase the cost of fertilizer, through cap and trade for instance, then food will invariably be more expensive as soon as you do so and more people will starve in short order.
Please cite the journal or other academic publication where the conclusion is made that worldwide the adverse impact of GW on crops exceeds the benefit of fertilizer and that in the future the price of fertilizer will be irrelevant vs climate change.
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
May 28, 2011 - 01:10pm PT
|
There are certainly other means of fertilizer production, all of them either much more expensive or entirely impractical.
Thanks for the citation and discussion. I'll be back.
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
May 28, 2011 - 01:17pm PT
|
Ed, without registered access to the article you cited, I can read only the abstract, so I'm limited to that and your excerpts. Pls post the article here or email it to me if you can.
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
May 28, 2011 - 01:27pm PT
|
Just rummaging around on the web I came across this, from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. While not a journal article it presents an informed and balanced view of synthetic fertilizer vs organic fertilizer, among other chemical vs organic crop production issues.
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000726/index.html
|
|
Ashcroft
Trad climber
SLC, UT
|
|
|
May 28, 2011 - 07:42pm PT
|
By some estimates something like 40,000 people starve to death around the world every day now. That's 14 million plus a year. That number will go up considerably if undernourished people living marginal lifestyles effectively have to compete in a market with wealthy people to buy emissions allowances, or parts thereof. Really, in a cap and trade system, it seems poor people, trying to purchase food for their children, will have to compete with wealthy people buying a second Mercedes, or a bunch of valley climbers going on a road trip, for "emissions allowances". This hardly seems fair.
Perhaps additional death by starvation is the part of the goal. After all, it will slow down the population bomb. However, there must be a more humane way to euthanize the poor than death by cap and trade starvation.
Dropline, I’m extremely skeptical of the premise of your question, which is that the price of fertilizer (particularly in the U.S.) is the reason that people are dieing of starvation. I suspect that the reasons for starvation around the world have a lot more to do with lack of infrastructure, government collapse, war, drought, fishery depletion, etc. If, however, it did turn out that raising the cost of fertilizer would adversely affect the poor, there are plenty of potential remedies. For example the program might exempt emissions from fertilizer plants, or fertilizer that is shipped to developing countries. Or you could take some of the revenue that comes from auctioning allowances and set up a special fund just for alleviating starvation. There is no reason that our hypothetical cap on greenhouse emissions needs to fall equally on the rich and the poor; if you don’t think it’s right to place an additional burden on the poor, simply don’t do it.
It’s deeply misguided to present mitigation of climate change as an alternative to helping the world’s poor. That’s a false choice. The poor are the ones who suffer most as agricultural zones shift, ocean chemistry changes, extreme weather events become more common, and sea level rises. One of the best things the developed world could do for the developing world would be to reduce its own prodigious consumption of fossil energy. A cap on emissions is the best way to do that, but other approaches (like taxes or technology mandates) could also work.
Finally, the suggestion that my real objective (or anyone else’s) is mass murder or genocide would be insulting if it weren’t so bizarre.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 28, 2011 - 09:54pm PT
|
Just data on world AG production. Unless they're lying seems we've got all the food needed for everyone who can pay.
Hmmmm, depending on what you mean, that is probably tautologically true. If only 50% can pay, well, I guess tough luck for everyone else.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 30, 2011 - 11:31am PT
|
The people who went camping in the Sierra's this weekend are all saying 'how do you like that global warming now?
Climate scientists are puzzled each day as the skies darken and the temperature drops. It gets cold and dark and that just feels, well, cold and dark.
"This goes against all our collected data, we just can't figure out this trending cold and darkness," said a leading scientist from IPCC.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 30, 2011 - 11:54am PT
|
Sierra's
Lol. Not just plural but possessive. No wonder he can't get the difference between climate and weather.
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 08:48am PT
|
"My point about your fertilizer angle is that climate change has already become a larger negative affect on crop production than the positive affect of fertilizer... in the future the price of fertilizer will be irrelevant to crop production vs. climate change."
Ed, the article you cite, which you also kindly provided via email, doesn't support your statement. The only references to fertilizer are C02 fertilization, meaning from an increase in atmospheric CO2. We're not talking about carbon dioxide fertilizer but rather nitrogen fertilizer.
In your remarks upthread it seems that you have mistaken CO2 fertilization from the atmopshere for nitrogen fertilization, for example when you mentioned C4 plants do not benefit from additional CO2 fertilization. C4 plants by the way respond very favorably to additional nitrogen ferilizer inputs.
As for the costs and availability of nitrogen sources that are competitive with synthetic nitrogen, perhaps you can provide a source.
Ashcroft, I was being facetious. It is interesting however that people not yet born in a distant future seem to be of more importance than people living right now. The most important thing to the people I'm talking about is not a storm or flood some years hence but whether or not they can eat and feed their families right now.
Rather than continue to make the argument myself that a carbon trading system, or any system that increases the cost of energy, will disproportionately affect the poor, there are others better informed and also more articulate than I. This was an interesting read for example.
http://catholicexchange.com/2011/01/18/146211/
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 31, 2011 - 10:58am PT
|
Hey CC, What do you make of this:
Record Heat Ends May, Starts June
I just wish we could joke about it.
repeat after me: weather is NOT climate...except when climate changers claim it is...
Wow Bookworm, you are so smart!
And funny!
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 11:13am PT
|
Yes, modern large scale farming already uses these fertilizers and extensively. That's not my point point however.
My point is that if you increase the cost of the inputs to make synthetic fertilizer either through a cap and trade system or taxation, then the cost of food will go up and people who are undernourished already will starve and perish in a short period of time. If I'm not mistaken Ed, your point is that more people will starve and perish, at some point in the future, if climate change is not adequately addressed.
The former seems much more certain than the latter.
Edited to add:
I agree wholeheartedly with your last two sentences above. These ends however require political will, and unfortunately the enduring problem of politics is that it is rarely rational.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!