The Relevence of U.S. Politics in Facing AGW

[sunmaster14]

FTFY.

I see some deniers are banking on having delayed action for long enough to be able to stop outright denial and switch to the "it's too late/difficult to do anything about it" crap.

What exactly does "denier" refer to? It is somebody who denies that the global temperature is rising, or is it someone who denies that it's not that big a deal, or is it someone who denies that it's not worth trying to stop it, or is it someone who denies that it's not possible to stop it? Or is "denier" simply a catch-all phrase for somebody who doesn't agree with you?

 

[Trakar]

You ever heard of a levee or a dike? You could also move people inland from the coasts a bit. Rising ocean levels over a period of decades is hardly some intractable problem. Actually, the real estate market is telling us that it's not much of a problem at all.

I've purposely left this thread I started alone for a couple of days because I wanted to see what would happen. to say that I am shocked would be an understatement.

While I find most of the remarks being made to be on par with imhofe's congressional snowball, it is surprising that many of these are coming from posters that I have previously considered thoughtful, reasonable individuals more known for their well supported and compellingly evidenced stances. The positions Sunmaster is taking, have pleasantly surprised me, and I will take this into account in my future exchanges with him (as much as I can,...I'm only human1 ).

That said, while technology and engineering are the only adaptive tools we have, they are limited in what they can accomplish over the more or less 89k miles of tidal shoreline that the US possesses.

I am still tied up in some real life issues that are demanding most of my time through the next couple of weeks, I will try to work my way through the thread on a more regular basis and add at least a few comments until I get the opportunity to address issues more fully.

Please remember, however this is a political (public policy) thread, so arguments contesting or challenging the science of AGW are off-topic in this thread and such derails should be confined to the climate science thread. This thread is about what US public policy needs to be to deal with the threats that climate science has identified with regard to AGW and how we can mitigate and resolve those threats to our nation and its citizens. addressing global issues is somewhat unavoidable as our nation shares this planet with nearly 200 other nations and territories, but the main focus in this thread should be US public policy, and the politicians who will best implement and manage those public policies.

 

[xjx388]

FTFY.

I see some deniers are banking on having delayed action for long enough to be able to stop outright denial and switch to the "it's too late/difficult to do anything about it" crap.

The "vast majority," of scientists agree that climate change is occurring and that humans are responsible for most of it. They do not all agree on what exactly the consequences will be, a time frame for them or what we can actually do about it -apart from cutting emissions.

I do not deny climate change, I'm just pointing out the fact that we won't actually be able to do much about it because the people of the US (and most of the world) are not willing to pay the economic and social price that comes with cutting emissions to the levels necessary to make a significant impact. That's not denial, that's acceptance of reality.

Here's another way to frame the discussion: What are the real political policies that the US could possibly implement that will make a significant contribution to slowing CC?

 

[xjx388]

How come Germany was able to do it? And same with a number of other European countries? They still have a bit of a ways to go, but they are really far ahead of us.

What exactly have they done?

And China will soon start leapfrogging, with their new measures in place.

Not sure exactly what these measures are, since you don't cite them, but we'll see exactly how much they are able to do with their economy the way it is. I would assume that any such measures would mean a significant cut in manufacturing emissions which would be hard to accomplish with today's technology without also significantly cutting manufacturing capacity.

It certainly can be done, and there is probably a better than 50% chance that it will be. Especially with the magnitude of increasing technology. There is an excellent article from the blog "Wait But Why" that explains this very well*.

* I mean the ever-increasing levels of technologies.

It can be done but only at a very high economic and social cost. I need to see actual solutions from my politicians before I start taking any of them seriously on this issue.

 

[bit_pattern]

You ever heard of a levee or a dike? You could also move people inland from the coasts a bit. Rising ocean levels over a period of decades is hardly some intractable problem. Actually, the real estate market is telling us that it's not much of a problem at all.

Lol. How much do you think it will cost to move NYC inland "a bit"?

 

[bit_pattern]

Meanwhile, this just happened...

GLOBAL CARBON DIOXIDE emissions from the energy sector stalled in 2014 for the first time in 40 years, the International Energy Agency said on Friday. Unexpectedly the CO2 plateau came during a period of economic growth.

By far the main culprit in global warming, carbon dioxide emissions, stood at 32.3 billion tonnes in 2014, unchanged from the previous year, the IEA said.

"This is both a very welcome surprise and a significant one," IEA chief economist Fatih Birol said.

"It provides much-needed momentum to negotiators preparing to forge a global climate deal in Paris in December: for the first time, greenhouse gas emissions are decoupling from economic growth," he said in a statement.

"The preliminary IEA data suggest that efforts to mitigate climate change may be having a more pronounced effect on emissions than had previously been thought," it added.

The slowdown came thanks to "changing patterns of energy consumption in China and OECD countries", said the statement.

China, the world's top CO2 emitter, used more renewable energy in 2014 such as hydropower, solar and wind, while it burned less coal, the IEA said.

If America *doesn't* start taking serious action soon then it will be just another sign of their waning power as they once again get steamrolled by China.

 

[Aepervius]

Ah, a man after my own heart!



Check.



Check.

I saw some guy put it neatly the other day in terms of threat. He likened it to 10,000 airliners crashing every day. If that happened, I imagine air travel would be sorted pretty quickly. Asking the most-selfish generation in history to leave something for future generations is the problem.



Check.



Check-mate!

When global airlines are booking up expected sales of $5T in the next 19 years, I'm not seeing a lot of forward commitment.

Given there needs to be a massive reduction in fossil fuel use in the next ten or so years to deliver a rise of 2^o or less, I say there is zero chance of the rise being kept anywhere near 2^o.

The airline industry is increasingly trying to add or even completely replace various jet fuel with more economical alternative, or more carbon neutral alternative.

You might see this as marketing : http://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/re...lity/environmental-strategy-and-measures.html but they are indeed on the technical level investing to do it.

 

[sunmaster14]

Lol. How much do you think it will cost to move NYC inland "a bit"?

Most of Manhattan is many meters above sea level. See here:

I've got GoogleEarth running in another window on my machine as I write.
I will give the metric elevation of a few landmarks in Manhattan:

Central Park Reservoir 36 meters

Columbus Circle 21-22 meters

8th Ave & 53rd St. 18 meters

8th Ave & 47th St. 12 meters

8th Ave & 38th St. 10 meters

8th Ave and 31st St. 8 meters

8th Ave & 25th St. 6 meters

8th Ave & 20th St. 4 meters

Washington Square Park 6 meters

3rd Ave & E.14th Street 8 Meters

3rd Ave and E.24th Street 6 meters

3rd Ave & East38th St. 9 meters

3rd Ave & E.44th St. 11 meters

...

 

[bit_pattern]

Most of Manhattan is many meters above sea level. See here:

Yet the city spends millions of dollars a year trying to prevent flooding and was inundated under a tidal surge just a year or two back due to a mere foot of sea level rise. You should try to learn a thing or two about the challenges coastal cities are *already* facing

http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/45202.html

http://ss2.climatecentral.org/#

Glibly declaring that we can just move trillions of dollars worth of coastal infrastructure inland "a bit" demonstrates a laughably simplistic view of the world - which is kind of ironic coming from an oh-so serious economic conservative

 

[Trakar]

Most of Manhattan is many meters above sea level. See here:

so, are you saying that one heavily populated and expensively built-up island turning into lots of little islands over six or seven decades (with more to follow) won't cause any practical or economic problems or disruptions?

 

[bit_pattern]

so, are you saying that one heavily populated and expensively built-up island turning into lots of little islands over six or seven decades (with more to follow) won't cause any practical or economic problems or disruptions?

Hey! They can just move! I'm sure there's a bloke, with a truck, who can just haul all that valuable real estate and port infrastructure a few miles inland where there's all that unoccupied land that NY state is so famous for

 

[Beerina]

Complete.

Trantorization.

 

[bit_pattern]

Complete.

Trantorization.

Had to Google that, found this:

Wouldn't work.

You'll recall that the food/water/energy support of Trantor required the dedicated labor of hundreds of surrounding Earth-like worlds. We haven't even colonized our solar system yet.

Furthermore, the efficient elimination of the excess heat production from Trantor's global city required the use of technology which does not yet exist.

All of this is covered in "Prelude to Foundation".

I'm assuming you'd want this weird utopian vision to happen in a framework of perpetual economic growth too, right? How long do you think such a system would last before we run out of universe?

 

[sunmaster14]

so, are you saying that one heavily populated and expensively built-up island turning into lots of little islands over six or seven decades (with more to follow) won't cause any practical or economic problems or disruptions?

That's not what bit_pattern's link shows. The effect on Manhattan looks pretty modest to me.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yet the city spends millions of dollars a year trying to prevent flooding and was inundated under a tidal surge just a year or two back due to a mere foot of sea level rise.

That surge was caused by a direct hit by a hurricane at high tide. Pretty unlucky and unlikely event. Hardly catastrophic in the end as well. Things were back to normal within a week.

<snip>

Glibly declaring that we can just move trillions of dollars worth of coastal infrastructure inland "a bit" demonstrates a laughably simplistic view of the world - which is kind of ironic coming from an oh-so serious economic conservative

Well, the trillions of dollars is mostly the price of the land, which is only exorbitantly priced because it's on the water. Moving the coast in a few hundred meters is just going to make land that is currently trading at a discount more valuable as it gets closer to the water. Most buildings are depreciated over 40 years because that's their useful life without significant investment in repair and renovation. Same is true for roads and bridges and probably most infrastructure. So anything that exists now, and can be expected to exist for 40 years, will not be wasted at all.

 

[DavidJames]

That surge was caused by a direct hit by a hurricane at high tide. Pretty unlucky and unlikely event. Hardly catastrophic in the end as well. Things were back to normal within a week.



Well, the trillions of dollars is mostly the price of the land, which is only exorbitantly priced because it's on the water. Moving the coast in a few hundred meters is just going to make land that is currently trading at a discount more valuable as it gets closer to the water. Most buildings are depreciated over 40 years because that's their useful life without significant investment in repair and renovation. Same is true for roads and bridges and probably most infrastructure. So anything that exists now, and can be expected to exist for 40 years, will not be wasted at all.

LOL, good one. For a minute I thought you were serious.

 

[stevea]

The problem is that no candidate is actually running on a platform of real solutions to climate change.

Agreed.

And if they did, they couldn't be elected because most of the American public either doesn't believe it's as big a problem as some scientists say or climate change is very low on their agenda.

The reason there is no political solution on the table is that Greenies are closed minded ideologues who aren't interested in a practical solution. They can only accept that we all stop using fossil fuels immediately. That's unrealistic and politically impossible. It's basically the same reason Greenies were avidly anti-nuclear for decades. "The great is the enemy ..." type thinking.

Changing the earth's albedo, aka "solar radiation management" (a poor name) by various untested means, seems within the means of several large national economies. Doing so would require some relief from international treaties about purposeful climate or weather change.

I mean, seriously, is the global community actually going to be able to cut emissions by a big enough margin? Is everyone going to curtail the modern conveniences -cars, manufacturing, etc- enough to make a difference? I think not.

Agreed, and I can't exactly blame an indigent person who would prefer to have cooked food or a warm dwelling or transport to a better job from using the cheapest source of energy available to him. That's unrealistic. So "we all stop using fossil fuels" isn't a realistic option any time soon.

Even if Al Gore's lies and distortions came true, it wouldn't deter cold ppl from wanting to be warm (or cool) & dry, and trying to accomplish that by whatever means is at hand.

The real alternatives are that we fund the discovery of a cheaper, comparably dense & fungible energy source (including capital investment) so that no one will bother to use fossil fuels (potentially possible, but far from likely) - OR - we find a way to control the impact of fossil fuels on climate - for example change the albedo purposefully (seems fairly possible and practical).

 

[Upchurch]

Accept the inevitable. Seriously.

Accept plowing headlong into extinction?

 

[DavidJames]

The reason there is no political solution on the table is that Greenies are closed minded ideologues who aren't interested in a practical solution. They can only accept that we all stop using fossil fuels immediately. That's unrealistic and politically impossible.

It's also a strawman and doesn't represent any of the serious discussions anywhere on earth.

The reason there is no political solution is because one of the two political parties denies, in some fashion, the existence of GW. It's that simple.

Your Al Gore reference only goes to prove you aren't serious about this topic.

 

[xjx388]

It's also a strawman and doesn't represent any of the serious discussions anywhere on earth.

The reason there is no political solution is because one of the two political parties denies, in some fashion, the existence of GW. It's that simple.

That's only half the story. The other half is that the other party acknowledges the reality but actually proposes nothing to make significant enough changes. They won't even take the one step that the GOP is ready to run with and scientists agree is a part of the solution: Nuclear power. You can't blame the repubs on this one; dems are just as guilty of inaction.