Bush on Kyoto

[Grammatron]

There is a reason to give a scientist's opinion more weight regarding global warming: they generally have better arguments and better evidence.

That's all well and good, but a climatologist is not an economist and while he can suggest things that might affect climate he is not taking into account economics and geopolitical situation in the regions he wants to change.

 

[Orwell]

That's all well and good, but a climatologist is not an economist and while he can suggest things that might affect climate he is not taking into account economics and geopolitical situation in the regions he wants to change.

The economists probably know as much (or as little) as the climatologists about the economic and geopolitical effects of global warming. And I'm willing to bet you that there's no "economical consensus" regarding the short and long term effects of global warming on geopolitics and economics.

 

[Ziggurat]

perhaps I don't understand what you are saying.

Entirely possible. I'm not always as clear as I intend to be.

As I've already said, I think you are arguing that we don't know enough about the atmosphere to say whether or not humans are responsible for what some, many, think is evidence of a warming trend.

Not exactly. A better way to phrase this is we don't know how much of it is caused by CO2 (again, not the only source of either global climate change OR anthropogenic climate change), and we don't have good predictions for how much warming will occur in the future.

Then you appear to say that; in that case there is no point in attempting to do anything, since the costs are too great and we might achieve nothing.

No, that's not my point either. Rather, my point is that cutting CO2 emissions is certainly not the only possible response, and in the absence of any real debate, how can it be obviously the best one? And yet, it's treated as if cutting emissions is really the only question, and that if you don't support that, you support doing nothing. In this sense, there is no real debate going on at all about global warming: you're either pro-Kyoto-style emissions cuts, or you're considered to be someone who denies global warming completely or doesn't want to do anything about it. But those really aren't the only options.

As to what to do. That is fairly obvious, within the limits of practicality, if one thinks anything should be done.

No, actually, it's NOT obvious. That is entirely my point.

 

[Grammatron]

The economists probably know as much (or as little) as the climatologists about the economic and geopolitical effects of global warming.

How do you figure?

And I'm willing to bet you that there's no "economical consensus" regarding the short and long term effects of global warming on geopolitics and economics.

If that's the case, then it's up to people and politicians that represent them to decide on the right course of action.

 

[Orwell]

How do you figure?[/B]

Simply because no one can make predictions regarding geopolitics and economics with any accuracy!

If that's the case, then it's up to people and politicians that represent them to decide on the right course of action. [/B]

Yes, and if the politicians have any good sense, they will carefully consider the opinions of the people with the data i.e. the scientists.

 

[Orwell]

I remember reading about a little table created by Peter Medawar, were he compared economic predictions to weather predictions (by the way, the fact that weather predictions and economic predictions are compared is only a coincidence, it's only an example):

Weather: all variables are scalar i.e. measurable variables.
Economics: not all variables are scalar (how do you quantify consumer confidence?)

Weather: functional relations (i.e. the relations between temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, etc.) often exactly known
Economics: they are usually conjectural.

Weather: Uninfluenced by politics or fashion
Economics: influenced by both

Weather: wholly non-reflexive i.e. if you predict what the weather will be tomorrow, your prediction won't affect it.
Economics: highly reflexive i.e. your economic "prediction" can affect the way the economy behaves, changing the prediction or creating "self-fulfilling prophecies".

Anyway, I think that the predictive abilities of economic science shouldn't be taken too seriously...

 

[Elind]

No, actually, it's NOT obvious. That is entirely my point.

Other than reducing what we know are man made pollutants, including CO2, what do you think could be done, other than nothing?


The only none reduction suggestions I can recall are trapping and injecting CO2 into boreholes, which is still a form of reducing emissions, or seeding the Pacific with iron nutrients to cause algae blooms that will absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and drop it to the bottom in a more inert form. The latter sounds a lot like dicy tinkering to me.

 

[Grammatron]

Simply because no one can make predictions regarding geopolitics and economics with any accuracy!

Yet climate is easy to do?

Yes, and if the politicians have any good sense, they will carefully consider the opinions of the people with the data i.e. the scientists.

And the data from economists.

 

[Orwell]

Yet climate is easy to do?[/B]

Nobody said it was easy. But I am convinced that climatlogical models have merit. Accurate climate prediction is within the realm of possibility. Accurate economical and geopolitical prediction isn't.

And the data from economists. [/B]

What data?

 

[Grammatron]

Nobody said it was easy. But I am convinced that climatlogical models have merit. Accurate climate prediction is within the realm of possibility. Accurate economical and geopolitical prediction isn't.

Not true, you can have rather good economic trends for long term and you can have some conclusions based on variables, such as "If we need to cut down emissions in these areas, we'll have to relocate or shut down this plant which will affect jobs and economy of the Blah city." or some such statement.

 

[Orwell]

Not true, you can have rather good economic trends for long term and you can have some conclusions based on variables, such as "If we need to cut down emissions in these areas, we'll have to relocate or shut down this plant which will affect jobs and economy of the Blah city." or some such statement. [/B]

Most economic predictions are concerned with short term prospects. Also... Please refer back to the table on weather prediction vs. economic forecasting. Can economists disentangle the part of the economic prediction that is "self-fulfilling prophecy" from the part that isn't? I don't think that's possible.

Take what you said:
"If we need to cut down emissions in these areas, we'll have to relocate or shut down this plant which will affect jobs and economy of the Blah city."

To which it can be answered (as a silly example):
"But since we know that's going to happen anyway, why don't we encourage an electricity generating windmill factory to install itself in our city?"

 

[Ziggurat]

Other than reducing what we know are man made pollutants, including CO2, what do you think could be done, other than nothing?

First off, this isn't about pollution, as such. Lead, for example, is a pollutant. It has no effect on climate change, however. CO2 can affect climate change, but it is NOT a pollutant. Pollution and climate change are different issues.

As to your main question, the obvious alternative to reducing CO2 emissions is to figure out how to adapt. And if the global warming predictions are correct, we're going to have to do that to some extent anyways, because it's simply not going to be possible (short of nuclear war) to cut back on global emissions sufficiently to halt global warming completely. If the costs of further adaptation are less than the costs of slowing down global warming, then there's simply no reason to try to slow it down rather than adapt. But there is almost no debate about this alternative - hell, it seems not to even occur to most people that this IS an alternative.

 

[Grammatron]

Most economic predictions are concerned with short term prospects. Also... Please refer back to the table on weather prediction vs. economic forecasting. Can economists disentangle the part of the economic prediction that is "self-fulfilling prophecy" from the part that isn't? I don't think that's possible.

Take what you said:
"If we need to cut down emissions in these areas, we'll have to relocate or shut down this plant which will affect jobs and economy of the Blah city."

To which it can be answered (as a silly example):
"But since we know that's going to happen anyway, why don't we encourage an electricity generating windmill factory to install itself in our city?"

To which I give you another (silly) response:
"Because it will cost money to run that plant since windmill farms are not economically viable, and since most of the income our beloved Blah city enjoys come from the plant taxation and ecnomy generated by people having jobs there and business catoring to the people who work there and the plant itself, we can't afford to have them here."

 

[Orwell]

To which I give you another (silly) response:
"Because it will cost money to run that plant since windmill farms are not economically viable, and since most of the income our beloved Blah city enjoys come from the plant taxation and ecnomy generated by people having jobs there and business catoring to the people who work there and the plant itself, we can't afford to have them here."

You missed the point, which is not surprising. It was a silly example.
My point was that you are just looking at one side of the question. It is essentially impossible to know what the long term economical impact of environmental policies will be. You're not considering that, in all probability, there will also be "positive costs", or benefits to the economy from a decrease of emissions of global warming gasses. For instance: productivity improvements from a cleaner environment, innovation-stimulating effects of environmental regulations and reduced dependency on fossil fuels. And don’t forget the benefits that arise from avoiding big problems, like scarcer water resources, damages to human-built environment, extreme weather, coastal flooding due to sea-level rise, and human-health impacts. There's a pretty good chance that, all things considered and in the long run, it will be more expensive to do nothing.

 

[Elind]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

First off, this isn't about pollution, as such. Lead, for example, is a pollutant. It has no effect on climate change, however. CO2 can affect climate change, but it is NOT a pollutant. Pollution and climate change are different issues.

OK. My choice of words was shorthand, but you know that I meant "pollutants" that contribute, allegedly, to global warming.


As to your main question, the obvious alternative to reducing CO2 emissions is to figure out how to adapt. And if the global warming predictions are correct, we're going to have to do that to some extent anyways, because it's simply not going to be possible (short of nuclear war) to cut back on global emissions sufficiently to halt global warming completely. If the costs of further adaptation are less than the costs of slowing down global warming, then there's simply no reason to try to slow it down rather than adapt. But there is almost no debate about this alternative - hell, it seems not to even occur to most people that this IS an alternative.

Adapting is not a choice we can make. It is something we will be forced to do regardless.

Presumably you mean take steps now to mitigate the adaptation difficulty later? Like what? Forbid all new construction on land less than 30 feet above sea level and plan to evacuate them over the next 100 years or so? Compensate all those who own property there by granting them federal land stakes in South Dakota? Probably 90% of Floridians will qualify. Prepare to take in millions of refugees from countries that can't do that?

Somehow it seems to me that the cheapest method by far will be to actually diminish the effects to begin with, but one has to believe they are real to do that....so probably little will be done until it too late to do anything except to move house.

I'll advise my kids to buy in the mountains. That's my contribution to adaptation.

 

[Rob Lister]

Adapting is not a choice we can make. It is something we will be forced to do regardless.

Presumably you mean take steps now to mitigate the adaptation difficulty later? Like what? Forbid all new construction on land less than 30 feet above sea level and plan to evacuate them over the next 100 years or so? Compensate all those who own property there by granting them federal land stakes in South Dakota? Probably 90% of Floridians will qualify. Prepare to take in millions of refugees from countries that can't do that?

Somehow it seems to me that the cheapest method by far will be to actually diminish the effects to begin with, but one has to believe they are real to do that....so probably little will be done until it too late to do anything except to move house.

I'll advise my kids to buy in the mountains. That's my contribution to adaptation.

The 'adaptation' method has been discussed. It consists of helping third-world countries build the economies necessary to handle whatever difficulties arise from the climate change that may or may not take place, whatever the reason for that change, man-made or natural.

You cannot say that the cheapest method is diminishing the effects until you define an effective method. So far that has not been done. Kyoto certainly does not.

 

[Elind]

The 'adaptation' method has been discussed. It consists of helping third-world countries build the economies necessary to handle whatever difficulties arise from the climate change that may or may not take place, whatever the reason for that change, man-made or natural.

You cannot say that the cheapest method is diminishing the effects until you define an effective method. So far that has not been done. Kyoto certainly does not.

That definition of adaptation is a goal with or without global warming and I dare say has nothing to do with this issue. Do you think that we, in the West, can adapt without costs significant enough to mention in this context?

Kyoto is the only practical approach that I have seen, with the exception that I think it is worthless politics until it applies to everyone. If you want to keep the adaptation principle alive, then make it helping China and India, among others, adapt to Kyoto.

 

[Rob Lister]

That definition of adaptation is a goal with or without global warming and I dare say has nothing to do with this issue. Do you think that we, in the West, can adapt without costs significant enough to mention in this context?

Kyoto is the only practical approach that I have seen, with the exception that I think it is worthless politics until it applies to everyone. If you want to keep the adaptation principle alive, then make it helping China and India, among others, adapt to Kyoto.

Para1: It has everything to do with the issue but I'm not going to repost the explanations that have already been given in this thread.

Para2: An approach that cannot be implemented is not a practical approach. Additional, an approach that cannot be defined is not a practical approach. Kyoto, as defined, will have a negligible impact on AGW warming. What tiny impact it has will be very short-lived (<decade).

 

[a_unique_person]

The 'adaptation' method has been discussed. It consists of helping third-world countries build the economies necessary to handle whatever difficulties arise from the climate change that may or may not take place, whatever the reason for that change, man-made or natural.

You cannot say that the cheapest method is diminishing the effects until you define an effective method. So far that has not been done. Kyoto certainly does not.

You are engaging in wishful thinking again. 'Economies' are not magical, they cannot necessarily create the means to cope with climate change.

The fallacy I see in this thinking is the 'we're all doomed' one. 'Since we are all going to die, lets just die in an orgy of drug abuse' notion, and get it over and done with. That's fine for us, but not for the generations to follow.

We owe it to the future generations to pass on a world that is as good as we can pass on. We don't have to live with it, but they do.

Sure, fusion might work out one day, but that could be in 1,000 years, or 100. At the moment, no-one knows.

 

[Rob Lister]

You are engaging in wishful thinking again. 'Economies' are not magical, they cannot necessarily create the means to cope with climate change.

And you are engaging in a strawman. I never suggested economics was magic. I suggested that those with strong economies are better able to cope with possible warming than those with weak economies. Actually, Ziggurat detailed it quite well, but I bet you neglected to read those posts.

Heck, I believe you have made this very argument yourself, in past threads, by implying that the poorer nations will be the ones most impacted, or words to that effect. All you did was leave out the obvious, and possible, solution.