Peak Oil News and Message Boards

rockdoc123 wrote:

To quibble about our EXACT degree of influence is not a productive exercise. And even more important to delay at this stage, our intervention is bordering on reckless given the potential impacts

I disagree. When you talk about intervention you likely aren't referring to individuals driving less or using electric cars instead of internal combustion driven vehicles. You are likely referring to all of the billions of dollars that will be spent on various climate abatement schemes. The estimate I am aware of is that by 2030 if all of these schemes were implemented it would cost about $300 billion per year. Now that is small in comparison to projected GDP for 2030 but the question that needs to be asked is what other issues could be easily solved (and measurable) with that same investment? Global poverty, hunger, lack of education and healthcare are things that should be at the top of the list. The success of such climate abatement schemes are completely predicated on the belief that man is responsible for warming to the degree the current IPPC models suggest (almost solely responsible). If those models are incorrect (and there is a lot of literature that suggests that is possible) then that money spent on abatement schemes is a very bad investment and a huge lost opportunity cost.

If it is in large part due to increased CO2 from whatever source, not contributing gigatons more CO2 seems like a logical response.

Flood control? Are you suggesting we shouldn't build dikes and other structures to control flooding because humans don't cause all floods? Tell that to the Dutch. Diseases that weren't human-caused? I suppose we shouldn't have spent billions developing vaccines and food safety programs, eh? Humans don't cause earthquakes and tsunamis, so forget about building codes and other responses. I't really not our fault and that money could be spent on new football stadiums or coastal developments for folks to enjoy.

rockdoc123 wrote:

If it is in large part due to increased CO2 from whatever source, not contributing gigatons more CO2 seems like a logical response.

one of the biggest debates in the literature is in regards to transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity. There are numerous papers that claim very low climate sensitivity (meaning CO2 may not be as great an influence as claimed) and there are many claiming high climate sensitivity. If shutting down CO2 emissions means people in third world countries cannot achieve a better lifestyle then one needs to be sure they are doing the right thing.

Flood control? Are you suggesting we shouldn't build dikes and other structures to control flooding because humans don't cause all floods? Tell that to the Dutch. Diseases that weren't human-caused? I suppose we shouldn't have spent billions developing vaccines and food safety programs, eh? Humans don't cause earthquakes and tsunamis, so forget about building codes and other responses. I't really not our fault and that money could be spent on new football stadiums or coastal developments for folks to enjoy.

did you even read what I wrote? None of what you mention falls into the realm of abatement schemes that are proposed but rather into adaptation. Adaptation is something different and would have to happen regardless of what causes climate change. And what I was saying is there are important issues that could be addressed ....poverty, hunger, lack of education and healthcare are what I mentioned, I did not suggest that money should be spent on frivolities. I think you have a problem with reading comprehension.

I always comprehend what you write, Roc, and often disagree. Adaptation and abatement are not mutually exclusive. Is eliminating causes/spread of disease adaptation or abatement? (e g... spraying for mosquito-born illness). Washing hands; adaptation or abatement?

As for "poverty, hunger, lack of education and healthcare", we can start with an economy that doesn't promote pumping wealth to the 1% and improving economic equity. Do you really think that monies not spent on limiting climate change is going to go to those other causes? Really?

Not sure how you propose to limit climate change by spraying for mosquitos or washing your hands.

onlooker wrote:I have to second what Ghung says. Are we going to continue living for today and for ourselves and the heck with how we leave the planet for future generations and what of the bounty of Earth we leave for them. Because it strikes at the heart of all these issues of limits and growth and sustainability.

GHung wrote:

onlooker wrote:I have to second what Ghung says. Are we going to continue living for today and for ourselves and the heck with how we leave the planet for future generations and what of the bounty of Earth we leave for them. Because it strikes at the heart of all these issues of limits and growth and sustainability.

What good does it do to bring current populations up to first-world economic, heath, and educational standards while leaving their children a planet depleted of resources, ecologically trashed, and deep into overshoot? The logic of that escapes me. There was a time when I thought we could do both, but there are too many (mainly 1st-world) people who want to bargain with reality, or rationalize their current behavior (see above). Few of those things will happen, whether or not we attempt to mitigate climate change.

dohboi wrote:Now the minimum basic responsibility is to not turn our heads away as the consequences start to hit more and more people harder and harder till we are all eventually washed away in 'the deluge.'