Global Warming Policy Discussion

[Virus]

but how would we push alternative energy technology? Wouldn't it be more usefull to actually implement better guidelines and controlls of such projects. preventing the abuse of the system rather than stoping the system as a whole.

Here's the key thing; Market forces will get ya. There's no way around it. It doesn't matter what your opinions are or whether you like it or not, they'll get ya. It doesn't matter how good your intentions are, they'll get ya. You might think they won't get ya, you might think your too smart and your plan is too brilliant, but they'll get ya. There's no end of people who think market forces won't get them. They think everything's great, they're sitting back thinking they've given market forces the last laugh and boom..just when you least expect it, they get ya.

 

[DC]

Here's the key thing; Market forces will get ya. There's no way around it. It doesn't matter what your opinions are or whether you like it or not, they'll get ya. It doesn't matter how good your intentions are, they'll get ya. You might think they won't get ya, you might think your too smart and your plan is too brilliant, but they'll get ya. There's no end of people who think market forces won't get them. They think everything's great, they're sitting back thinking they've given market forces the last laugh and boom..just when you least expect it, they get ya.

what? i think the market forces are very important in combating AGW.
especially when it comes to efficiency for example. like Boeings Dreamliner and Airbus's A380. a huge increase in efficiency. and that only do to market forces. it seem to be the most important thing to the people that are actually buying airplanes of this size.

but as time is running out and fossil fuels are heavely profiting fromt taxbreaks and other things its important that we influence those market forces to get the needed changes faster.

this surely might create cases where it is abused. but is doing nothing the solution to it?
i doubt it very much.

but what do you mean with the market's going to get you? sounds like Alex Jones to mee.

 

[Peephole]

Here's the key thing; Market forces will get ya. There's no way around it. It doesn't matter what your opinions are or whether you like it or not, they'll get ya. It doesn't matter how good your intentions are, they'll get ya. You might think they won't get ya, you might think your too smart and your plan is too brilliant, but they'll get ya. There's no end of people who think market forces won't get them. They think everything's great, they're sitting back thinking they've given market forces the last laugh and boom..just when you least expect it, they get ya.

So what's your solution to bring down greenhouse gasses?

 

[spin0]

With all the topical questions avoided by Virus it seems that at least libertarian ideology has no proposals for actual solutions to the topic in question - only ideological spin. Don't think that will cut GHG emissions.

 

[a_unique_person]

Rich Western environmentalist idiots hurt the poor.



Brilliant. Nice one. Well done. If the Green establishment has any other ideas that starve to poor so rich, Western activists can feel good about themselves please let us know.

The question is, what policies would you advocate to resolve this issue of science.

 

[balrog666]

but how would we push alternative energy technology? Wouldn't it be more usefull to actually implement better guidelines and controlls of such projects. preventing the abuse of the system rather than stoping the system as a whole.

Offer incentives!! Offer incentives for meeting meaningful goals and let anyone complete for them who wants to do so - just like the Ansari Space X, Kremer, and Sikorsky prizes. You can even look at small competitions like the solar powered car meets, the fire-fighting robot competitions, et al. to the see rapid progress engendered by fun and games (and fame [among one's peers] and rewards).

So which approach has achieved better success so far and at much lower cost, politicians spending billions on subsidizing their corrupt cronies with tax dollars or unleashing the genius of ambitious and competitive human minds with fame, money, and abject encouragement?

Let's go further, suppose that the US gubmint offered a $10 billion dollar prize for a working and practical fusion power source (say Mr Fusion) or a high efficiency fuel cell, do you think that would get more people working on such projects than we have now? Which approach do you think would achieve success first?

 

[DC]

Offer incentives!! Offer incentives for meeting meaningful goals and let anyone complete for them who wants to do so - just like the Ansari Space X, Kremer, and Sikorsky prizes. You can even look at small competitions like the solar powered car meets, the fire-fighting robot competitions, et al. to the see rapid progress engendered by fun and games (and fame [among one's peers] and rewards).

So which approach has achieved better success so far and at much lower cost, politicians spending billions on subsidizing their corrupt cronies with tax dollars or unleashing the genius of ambitious and competitive human minds with fame, money, and abject encouragement?

Let's go further, suppose that the US gubmint offered a $10 billion dollar prize for a working and practical fusion power source (say Mr Fusion) or a high efficiency fuel cell, do you think that would get more people working on such projects than we have now? Which approach do you think would achieve success first?

well several counries in europe have such prices and also industries have such prices and those are great. Afaik even the german government has such proces with money from the public.
in the media you read over and over again about ideas and projects that have won prices etc. and are finding investors etc.
that is being done, but i agree that we maybe should put more such proces out. but i think also government projects are important.

and your price for a fusion reactor is too small. ITER has cost double already.

 

[DC]

one huge problem is fossil fuels often being "subsidised" in many countries. and its rather important because energy is important and fossil fuels are the most used energy. But when we want to meet our goals in mitigating AGW. then we now already have to offer subsidies to alternative fuels also. even more than fossil fuels. or end fossil fuel subsidies.

 

[WildCat]

It is possible to figure out various solutions to those problems, for example Brazil already has a sustainable biofuel economy.

No, it doesn't. Sugar cane can only be grown a few seasons on the poor soil, then it's slash and burn more forest to clear way for new sugar cane fuels. Once you start dumping fertilizer on fields to grow sugar cane you've lost the energy battle.

 

[Trakar]

No, it doesn't. Sugar cane can only be grown a few seasons on the poor soil, then it's slash and burn more forest to clear way for new sugar cane fuels. Once you start dumping fertilizer on fields to grow sugar cane you've lost the energy battle.

There are ways around this, but Brasil is not following such a course, and doesn't look like it has such intentions for the future.

 

[Trakar]

one huge problem is fossil fuels often being "subsidised" in many countries. and its rather important because energy is important and fossil fuels are the most used energy. But when we want to meet our goals in mitigating AGW. then we now already have to offer subsidies to alternative fuels also. even more than fossil fuels. or end fossil fuel subsidies.

Most subsides to current fossil fuel industries are mere profit-paddings, nice, but not essential to their operations nor record profits. The primary "level the playing-field" measure, is to see that all the externalities of coal, oil and gas are accounted for through carbon taxes.

 

[spin0]

No, it doesn't. Sugar cane can only be grown a few seasons on the poor soil, then it's slash and burn more forest to clear way for new sugar cane fuels. Once you start dumping fertilizer on fields to grow sugar cane you've lost the energy battle.

Last time I heard that claim it was incorrect: no evidence or just vague/speculative evidence to support it, and in conflict with actual data and research.

"Sugar cane can only be grown a few seasons on the poor soil"
Yet it's not grown on poor soil only few seasons.

"then it's slash and burn more forest to clear way for new sugar cane fuels"
Which forest?

Not Amazon rainforest, since 99,7% of sugarcane plantations are at least 2000 km away from Amazon rainforest on fertile lands :

(Besides, landowners in the Amazon must maintain 80% of the native forest on their land as a forest reserve protected by law.)

The wikiarticle I linked in my post you responded to has good info on enviromental impacts of biofuel production in Brazil. Please read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Environmental_effects

Regarding this concern, previous studies conducted in Brazil have shown there are 355 million ha of arable land in Brazil, of which only 72 million ha are in use.[138] Sugarcane is only taking 2% of arable land available,[83] of which ethanol production represented 55% in 2008.[75] Embrapa estimates that there is enough agricultural land available to increase at least 30 times the existing sugarcane plantation without endangering sensible ecosystems or taking land destined for food crops.[83] Most future growth is expected to take place on abandoned pasture lands, as it has been the historical trend in São Paulo state.[6][71][83][84] Also, productivity is expected to improve even further based on current biotechnology research, genetic improvement, and better agronomic practices, thus contributing to reduce land demand for future sugarcane cultures.[83][84] This trend is demonstrated by the increases in agricultural production that took place in São Paulo state between 1990 and 2004, where coffee, orange, sugarcane and other food crops were grown in an almost constant area.

Yes, it's sustainable. And there's plenty of room for growth without causing hunger or endangering ecosystems.

 

[DC]

Last time I heard that claim it was incorrect: no evidence or just vague/speculative evidence to support it, and in conflict with actual data and research.

"Sugar cane can only be grown a few seasons on the poor soil"
Yet it's not grown on poor soil only few seasons.

"then it's slash and burn more forest to clear way for new sugar cane fuels"
Which forest?

Not Amazon rainforest, since 99,7% of sugarcane plantations are at least 2000 km away from Amazon rainforest on fertile lands :
[qimg]http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/9329/biof1.jpg[/qimg]
(Besides, landowners in the Amazon must maintain 80% of the native forest on their land as a forest reserve protected by law.)

The wikiarticle I linked in my post you responded to has good info on enviromental impacts of biofuel production in Brazil. Please read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Environmental_effects



Yes, it's sustainable. And there's plenty of room for growth without causing hunger or endangering ecosystems.

nice post, didn't know that.

 

[DC]

Most subsides to current fossil fuel industries are mere profit-paddings, nice, but not essential to their operations nor record profits. The primary "level the playing-field" measure, is to see that all the externalities of coal, oil and gas are accounted for through carbon taxes.

very true, but what is the price for dumping CO2 into the atmosphere? and will US corporation financed Politicsters like Obama and co do this? can they do this against the will of their financiers?

 

[spin0]

There are ways around this, but Brasil is not following such a course, and doesn't look like it has such intentions for the future.

In addition to the points in my previous post Brazil has in fact introduced legislation and policies in order to keep biofuel production sustainable in the future. For example:

In order to guarantee a sustainable development of ethanol production, in September 2009 the government issued by decree a countrywide agroecological land use zoning to restrict sugarcane growth in or near environmentally sensitive areas such as the Pantanal wetlands, the Amazon Rainforest and the Upper Paraguay River Basin.[202][203][204] The installation of new ethanol production plants will not be permitted on these locations, and only existing plants and new ones with environmental licensed already approved before September 17, 2009, will be allowed to remain operating in these sensitive areas. According to the new criteria, 92.5% of the Brazilian territory is not suitable for sugarcane plantation. The government considers that the suitable areas are more than enough to meet the future demand for ethanol and sugar in the domestic and international markets foreseen for the next decades.[203][204]

 

[WildCat]

Last time I heard that claim it was incorrect: no evidence or just vague/speculative evidence to support it, and in conflict with actual data and research.

"Sugar cane can only be grown a few seasons on the poor soil"
Yet it's not grown on poor soil only few seasons.

"then it's slash and burn more forest to clear way for new sugar cane fuels"
Which forest?

Not Amazon rainforest, since 99,7% of sugarcane plantations are at least 2000 km away from Amazon rainforest on fertile lands :

(Besides, landowners in the Amazon must maintain 80% of the native forest on their land as a forest reserve protected by law.)

The wikiarticle I linked in my post you responded to has good info on enviromental impacts of biofuel production in Brazil. Please read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Environmental_effects



Yes, it's sustainable. And there's plenty of room for growth without causing hunger or endangering ecosystems.

Sorry, I'm extremely skeptical of the claims of the Brazilian government. These are the same people who can't even stop illegal logging - and it's pretty damned impossible to have illegal logging unless lots of government officials are paid to look the other way.

At any rate, Brazil can only meet its needs with sugar cane now because the country is poor and few people have cars. If they finally do become more prosperous (and Brazil was going to be "the next big thing" for 50 years now) they'll have to import oil.

Sure, Brazil claims to have cracked down on slave labor, slash and burn, and deforestation, we shall see.

 

[spin0]

Sorry, I'm extremely skeptical of the claims of the Brazilian government.

And I'm extremely skeptical of your claims for which you provided no evidence - only your opinion. And had you actually read the information I linked it's sources are not only Brazilian gov. but in addition different international studies and sources supporting the points I presented.

If your claim now is that those sources are wrong or lying I'd like to see the necessary evidence of that, in addition to evidence for your previous claims.

 

[WildCat]

And I'm extremely skeptical of your claims for which you provided no evidence - only your opinion. And had you actually read the information I linked it's sources are not only Brazilian gov. but in addition different international studies and sources supporting the points I presented.

If your claim now is that those sources are wrong or lying I'd like to see the necessary evidence of that, in addition to evidence for your previous claims.

The reality is that Brazil can't even stop illegal logging.

That should be a simple thing to solve, after all you can't hide a 40' log in a modified gas tank to smuggle it out, or build illegal logging roads without anyone noticing, or moving all the necessary massive equipment around in secret.

Illegal logging happens because the government officials tasked with stopping it are being paid off. And when the government is shown to be corrupt on this scale, well I'm certainly not going to accept their data at face value.

 

[DC]

The reality is that Brazil can't even stop illegal logging.

That should be a simple thing to solve, after all you can't hide a 40' log in a modified gas tank to smuggle it out, or build illegal logging roads without anyone noticing, or moving all the necessary massive equipment around in secret.

Illegal logging happens because the government officials tasked with stopping it are being paid off. And when the government is shown to be corrupt on this scale, well I'm certainly not going to accept their data at face value.

who's data were you taking at face value to make your earlier claim then?

 

[WildCat]

who's data were you taking at face value to make your earlier claim then?

Which earlier claim?