Global Warming Deniers - What's wrong with conserving energy anyway?

[volatile]

This is something that a good few people have brought up in all the recent threads with our resident AGW-deniers (mhaze, TokenConservative, Dr. Imago etc.).

Even if man-made global warming isn't really happening, what exactly is wrong with cutting our use of fossil fuels (which are known to be both finite and polluting)? The pollution of air, rivers and soils is an objective an undeniable fact. It is similarly undeniable that our reserves of oil are finite.

We're all concentrating on the huge effects on climate here, but the benefits of cutting energy consumption are enormous even if anthropogenic global warming isn't a problem.

So, I ask: Global warming deniers - why are you opposed to environmentalist measures on principle, even of you doubt the extent of AGW? What's wrong with saving energy and cutting pollution, which is the short term goal of all environmentalist measures?

 

[Freethinker]

I doubt you will find anyone opposed to those things. It seems you are confusing opposition to Kyoto Treaty type unilateral restrictions on emissions with general energy conservation and efficiency improvements.

There are also some ridiculous policies being implemented to appease the GW gods that are bad in many ways. For example, the mandated fleet mileage increase requirements for automakers. This is not a practical number with current technology while maintaining any semblance of safety and utility, and there is nothing on the horizon that will enable us to meet these numbers . I'm all for any improvements that can be obtained, and I think strong encouragement for R&D is good, but picking numbers out of your butt and making them mandatory is a bad idea.

 

[volatile]

I see what you're saying, FT, but it seems that without these mandatory limits, there is little to no incentive for anything to change. Without these types of sticks and carrots, what's the drive for an individual company to change its approach?

Kyoto, though flawed in some respects, seems to be an attempt to level out the market-place such that those companies who do proceed with environmentally-competent practices are not set at a commercial disadvantage by those who choose not to. After all, if companies can just burn cheap, polluting fuel, it seems from experience that they will often continue to do so despite the obvious harm they propagate.

 

[Dr. Imago]

This is something that a good few people have brought up in all the recent threads with our resident AGW-deniers (mhaze, TokenConservative, Dr. Imago etc.).

I resent that categorization.

I am not a "denier" (whatever that means), first and foremost. For all I know, humans could be causing global warming through multiple different mechanisms. These need to be studied and objectified using rigorous scientific methods.

What I object to currently in this debate, and what I want evidence and data to unequivocally demonstrate, is that the micro-concentrations of CO2 we're discussing in the atmosphere clearly have a meaningful, measurable impact on the earth's mean temperature - and, make no mistakes, that's precisely what the assertion is by current pro-AGW camp. The fact is that this has neither been definitively proven, despite what people will tell you, in principle or in prospective observation.

As far as the rest of your post, I'm all about more effective and efficient technology. However, this has to come at the level of industry. I don't believe an individual can have a meaningful impact acting alone, and therefore should not bear the burden of change. Car companies already have technologies that can increase efficiencies of gas-burning vehicles at multiple different structural points within the entire vehicle (idle-stopping, decreasing number of firing pistons during cruising speed, braking energy-recovery technologies, etc.) that can be incorporated into a vehicle. But, these cost money. Soon, though, with the escalating cost of gasoline these technologies will become more feasible as the consumer market will migrate towards more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Long story short, economics prevails. And, when these technologies become economically feasible, they will blossom. Until then, no need to panic.

-Dr. Imago

 

[volatile]

One individual cannot, of course, have an effect. But lots and lots of individuals can.

What evidence do you require before you'll accept change is needed? And why not realise that even if GW isn't anthropogenic, fossil fuels are finite, and energy production is polluting. Cutting your individual energy use, and make your life "greener", makes the world a better place, global warming or not.

I guess the question is: if green behaviour is better by definition (if "green" is defined as reducing consumption and being more aware of the environmental impact of one's life given the finity and pollution of the alternatives), why does it even matter whether global warming is anthropogenic or not? Change is better anyway, even given what we know at the moment.

 

[BenBurch]

Of course there is nothing whatsoever wrong with conservation.

Especially as, GW or no GW the fossil fuels are finite and we are getting to where they are very, very expensive to extract!

And there are other benefits as CO2 is no the only pollutant burning fossil fuels adds to the atmosphere.

But I think the REAL answer, though energy efficiency should always be a goal, is to replace fossil fuels with nuclear-derived energy.

We can have our cake AND eat it too.

 

[mhaze]

One individual cannot, of course, have an effect. But lots and lots of individuals can.

What evidence do you require before you'll accept change is needed? And why not realise that even if GW isn't anthropogenic, fossil fuels are finite, and energy production is polluting. Cutting your individual energy use, and make your life "greener", makes the world a better place, global warming or not.

I guess the question is: if green behaviour is better by definition (if "green" is defined as reducing consumption and being more aware of the environmental impact of one's life given the finity and pollution of the alternatives), why does it even matter whether global warming is anthropogenic or not? Change is better anyway, even given what we know at the moment.

Well, let's go with the current popular idea that hybrid cars are good for a moment. Suppose you get a law passed that all vehicles in the USA must be hybrid Toyota Prius, and this is implemented. The number of vehicles stays the same as today.

You have only reduced USA total greenhouse gas emissions by less than 2 percent. Now that does not take into account the higher cost and higher GHG emissions during the manufacturing cycle and life cycle support of the hybrid car. This reduces the 2 percent further.

What is the point of "Breakeven", where the GHG emissions start to show a net gain with this fleet? Over 9 years. What happens at or about 9 years?

Your fleet is worn out, and you need a new one. What is the point of all this for a 1-2% GHG reduction anyway? Isn't this ridiculous?

So the argument of the OP - blithe, warm sounding generalities has no legs when examined.

 

[volatile]

I'm not asking about whether converting the US car fleet to Priuses is a good idea. That's for another thread I'm asking why people like you, unconvinced of the global warming science, seem to resist any and all environmental moves.

What's your alternative? Carry on as we are? Even if global warming isn't real or even isn't anthropogenic, CO2 is *still* polluting and oil is *still* finite. These are not up for debate, are they?

For example - what possible objections can you have to mandatory reductions in industrial emissions?

 

[casebro]

SOOo, the point of the OP is that here are POLITICAL reasonings behind the AGW hysteria?

Gee, who didn't say that?

I suspect we will find that there is no AGW once we okay/start building / actually get juice from, new nuclear plants.

I've looked into the charts and graphs. To me, the only salient point is that the Earth has gotten warmer- since the advent of the ubiquitous thermometer.

 

[Dr. Imago]

One individual cannot, of course, have an effect. But lots and lots of individuals can.

Spend a day with me in the hospital. You're assumption is (1) everyone is as educated, motivated, and erudite as yourself, and (2) they actually care about this issue as much as you do. I can dispel that notion in one day by introducing you to my patients and, more importantly, their familes. You want to see a slice of the "real America", just spend a day with me.

What evidence do you require before you'll accept change is needed? And why not realise that even if GW isn't anthropogenic, fossil fuels are finite, and energy production is polluting. Cutting your individual energy use, and make your life "greener", makes the world a better place, global warming or not.

I guess the question is: if green behaviour is better by definition (if "green" is defined as reducing consumption and being more aware of the environmental impact of one's life given the finity and pollution of the alternatives), why does it even matter whether global warming is anthropogenic or not? Change is better anyway, even given what we know at the moment.

Two conjoined problems here that necessarily need to be separated. First, fossil fuel burning causing global warming and what evidence is needed to prove this beyond all shadow of doubt. This is a debate that has been adequately hashed out on other threads, and anyone can reference those there.

Second, living "greener" making the world a better place. No arguments here. There was a study done after the "blackout" here in the northeast in the late summer of 2003 that showed a dramatic decrease in the particulate content of the air. Now, I just happened to be in New York City at the time doing a clinical rotation at a Cornell affiliate hospital and, trust me, it was a scary time (for many reasons, not the least of which was that we thought we were under another terrorist attack). But, I assure you no one stopped driving their cars around town. Likewise, the busses were running 2nd and 3rd routes to get people (who'd normally have taken the subway) around town. Amazingly, though, the pollution levels decreased almost instantaneously. Decreases in particulates was directly attributable to industrial power station emissions, not car or bus exhaust. The immediate answer to that problem is nuclear power, but that is incredibly controversial and fraught with it's own set of problems.

So, I guess my question is this: who's going to pay for "going green"? You and me? Corporations? And, what will the inevitable downside be to these new technologies? What you predict will happen 20 or 30 years from now is never what actually happens. Change tends to have a domino or ripple effect, and it is nearly impossible to know what the upside and downsides will be. Inevitably, there are always both.

-Dr. Imago

 

[volatile]

SOOo, the point of the OP is that here are POLITICAL reasonings behind the AGW hysteria?

Errr... no.

I've looked into the charts and graphs. To me, the only salient point is that the Earth has gotten warmer- since the advent of the ubiquitous thermometer.

You should probably look at climate science articles rather than things you read on the back of cornflake boxes. Nevertheless, even if you're right and climate change is not anthropogenic, please explain to me why reducing pollution and reducing the rate of consumption of finite resources (the short term aims of most green initiatives, in one way or another) is a bad thing?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by volatile One individual cannot, of course, have an effect. But lots and lots of individuals can.

What evidence do you require before you'll accept change is needed? And why not realise that even if GW isn't anthropogenic, fossil fuels are finite, and energy production is polluting. Cutting your individual energy use, and make your life "greener", makes the world a better place, global warming or not.

I guess the question is: if green behaviour is better by definition (if "green" is defined as reducing consumption and being more aware of the environmental impact of one's life given the finity and pollution of the alternatives), why does it even matter whether global warming is anthropogenic or not? Change is better anyway, even given what we know at the moment.

​

I'm not asking about whether converting the US car fleet to Priuses is a good idea. That's for another thread I'm asking why people like you, unconvinced of the global warming science, seem to resist any and all environmental moves.

What's your alternative? Carry on as we are? Even if global warming isn't real or even isn't anthropogenic, CO2 is *still* polluting and oil is *still* finite. These are not up for debate, are they?

For example - what possible objections can you have to mandatory reductions in industrial emissions?

Well, this is very simple. What I have done is take a blith, warm and fuzzy generality that you promulgated "green behavior" and then took one of it's suggested behavioral outcomes and examined it. The generality translates into a group of specific actions. Now you see, when we put some numbers to the hybrid car issue, it doesn't even support your warm, fuzzy generality.

Therein is the problem. You'd like to get agreement on your philosophical premise, but leave the details to others. Now you've moved to "reductions in industrial emissions".

So I would like to ask at this point: Do you want to discuss industrial emissions? If so, what type? That is a subject I have some familiarity with, by the way. Few environmentalists with their warm and fuzzy phrases have walked through a chemical refinery or any sort of petro plant. Fewer can name the parts of the machinery in front of their eyeballs, it is just one big mess of steel and pipes. As for the processes in those pipes, alternative processes, cost and reliability of each, potential hazards of each....

Excuse me if I happen to often have the impression that people are talking about things that they actually are totally clueless about.

 

[casebro]

Okay Volatile, what you are saying is that it is OK to use AGW hysteria as a lever to make changes in the way we individuals behave.

Ummm, if that isn't 'political', what is?

 

[volatile]

Okay Volatile, what you are saying is that it is OK to use AGW hysteria as a lever to make changes in the way we individuals behave.

Ummm, if that isn't 'political', what is?

Ummm... no, you buffoon.

I'm saying that the reduction in pollution and energy consumption is a good thing anyway (due to the finity of fossil fuels, for example), even if it does not necessarily cause long-term climate change.

Even if you don't accept the AGW hypothesis, why shouldn't you reduce your energy consumption, "carbon footprint" and all the rest anyway?

 

[mhaze]

Ummm... no, you buffoon.

I'm saying that the reduction in pollution and energy consumption is a good thing anyway (due to the finity of fossil fuels, for example), even if it does not necessarily cause long-term climate change.

Even if you don't accept the AGW hypothesis, why shouldn't you reduce your energy consumption, "carbon footprint" and all the rest anyway?

How about you change your lifestyle according to my wishes?

 

[volatile]

How about you change your lifestyle according to my wishes?

Seems like your wishes are destructive, selfish and short-sighted.

No thanks.

I'm taking you do not deny the finity of fossil fuels, or that particulate emissions are dangerous to human respiratory health, for example? What's there to oppose?

 

[volatile]

Therein is the problem. You'd like to get agreement on your philosophical premise, but leave the details to others. Now you've moved to "reductions in industrial emissions".

An agreement on the philosophical premise is a necessary precursor to working out exactly what's being discussed here.

I take it we have no disagreement on the finity of fossil fuels? As such, the reduction in consumption is necessary. You have no choice when it comes to pushing for more efficient energy consumption, or the use of alternative fuels, whether you agree in the AGW hypothesis or not. It's almost irrelevant. The steps we necessarily have to take to take into account the finity of fossil fuels will reduce our impact on the climate, if there is one, but even if there isn't, we need to take them anyway.

So I would like to ask at this point: Do you want to discuss industrial emissions? If so, what type? That is a subject I have some familiarity with, by the way. Few environmentalists with their warm and fuzzy phrases have walked through a chemical refinery or any sort of petro plant. Fewer can name the parts of the machinery in front of their eyeballs, it is just one big mess of steel and pipes. As for the processes in those pipes, alternative processes, cost and reliability of each, potential hazards of each....

Did I say these things were easy? It just seems that when you come out with phrases like " How about you change your lifestyle according to my wishes?", it seems as if you're against these types of change in principle, not just in practical terms.

Fossil fuels will run out. That's a given. Burning fossil fuels pollutes the air - as even Dr. Imago admits. That's also a given. So what exactly are your objections to doing the right thing, stopping being an ass, and repsecting your fellow man and your own damn short term future.

Whether or not AGW is happening or not is irrelevant to these discussions. The steps which would reduce the anthropogenic component of climate change, if there is one, also have immediate, measurable benefits even of you deny climate change.

 

[ddt]

I doubt you will find anyone opposed to those things. It seems you are confusing opposition to Kyoto Treaty type unilateral restrictions on emissions with general energy conservation and efficiency improvements.

What is "unilateral" about Kyoto? It was meant to be a global treaty, imposing emission limits on all countries. The only thing "unilateral" about it I can see is that the US unilaterally refused to sign it.

There are also some ridiculous policies being implemented to appease the GW gods that are bad in many ways. For example, the mandated fleet mileage increase requirements for automakers. This is not a practical number with current technology while maintaining any semblance of safety and utility,

Could you post some numbers on the mandated mileage - preferably in metric units? I remember that the oil crisis in the 70s led to a drive to more economical cars. Since then, cars have consistently gotten better in fuel usage, which unfortunately has been offset by more safety measures and (unneeded?) luxury. Of course, I look at this from a European perspective.

I agree fully with the OP that - AGW or not - energy conservation is a goal we should strive for in itself.

 

[Ziggurat]

I see what you're saying, FT, but it seems that without these mandatory limits, there is little to no incentive for anything to change. Without these types of sticks and carrots, what's the drive for an individual company to change its approach?

But there ARE incentives to increase efficiency. It's called money. Even "cheap" energy isn't free, and businesses are always interested in cutting costs where they can. There's a reason most industrial lighting has been fluorescent for a long time now, and it's not out of environmental awareness.

 

[Dr. Imago]

I'm taking you do not deny the finity of fossil fuels, or that particulate emissions are dangerous to human respiratory health, for example? What's there to oppose?

I agree. And, let's sanction homosexuals while we're at it because everyone implicitly knows that their lifestyle contributes to the AIDS epidemic.

You get it now? Voluntary or market-driven change is one thing. A mandate is another, especially when all the pieces to the puzzle aren't fitting together.

-Dr. Imago