Why We Will Never Address Global Warming
I made the comment below recently in the discussion following an essay:
If you put it to a popular vote, and people learned that GHG emissions could be arrested (hypothetically) if they were willing to pay $7/gallon of gasoline, what percentage would vote for that? My guess is that it would be well less than 20%, implying that GW concerns will give way to economic concerns.
At one time I was really worried about Global Warming. And at the risk of starting another Global Warming debate here (one that I don’t have time to participate in), my position is that the scientific consensus backs the hypothesis that human activity is contributing to Global Warming. I am not an atmospheric scientist, so in this case I rely on the scientific consensus of the experts. This is the same standard I apply to other fields in which I lack expertise.
I understand that the scientific consensus is sometimes wrong. But that is the exception rather than the rule. I am familiar with the arguments against Global Warming, and I certainly don’t want to see debate quashed. For instance, Heading Out, one of the editors at The Oil Drum, doesn’t accept that humans are having any sort of meaningful contribution to Global Warming. Unfortunately, every time he tries to discuss his position, he is shouted down. See this thread for an example. I think it is unfortunate that the topic is often treated as something that can’t be discussed rationally.
So, if I accept the scientific consensus, then why am I no longer seriously worried? Because I have come to the realization that we are never going to pay the price that it would take to halt – much less reverse – Global Warming. This article reiterates my opening comment:
To work, carbon tax must sting
Most Canadians tell pollsters they’re concerned about climate change. Many insist they’d like to do something about it, and would even pay for measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
But propose actual cash amounts – 25 cents a litre on gasoline, perhaps, or a $10 daily commuter toll – and support evaporates.
“Once you put a price on it, people tend to think twice about it and say, `Maybe not,’” says Mario Canseco of Angus Reid Strategies, which surveyed about 3,700 Canadians on the issue last March.
The basic idea: Boosting the cost of anything containing carbon – the main greenhouse gas – would compel industries and consumers to seek cheaper alternatives. They’d switch to cleaner fuels or consume less – either by adopting more efficient technologies or simply reducing their activity. Presumably, the alternatives would be better for the environment.
The problem: No government appears willing to impose a cost high enough to actually change behaviour. And while several industry groups argue pricing carbon is a good idea, their enthusiasm is less than it seems.
And those excerpts explain the problem in a nutshell. I know that people aren’t willing to pay the price, even though they “want” something to be done about Global Warming. If it means higher prices or inconvenience, the Western World will wring hands and wish for something to be done, but that’s as far as it is going to go. Yes, I consider Global Warming to be a problem. But we simply aren’t going to address it, hence I can’t continue to be seriously worried about the impact it’s going to have. I can only try to react and position myself to prepare for what I think the consequences may be.
Personally, I favor mitigation, because it would also be mitigation for peak oil. I want to see us greatly slow the rate at which we are using up our fossil fuels. Of course one can make the argument that higher gas taxes in the U.S. aren’t going to stretch our fossil fuel supplies. The reasoning is that this will reduce demand in the U.S., which will lower worldwide prices and spur demand everywhere else. There may be some truth to that argument, but given that the U.S. is the largest user of crude oil, I think we need to get our own house in order before worrying about what China or India is doing. Besides, if we make our economy less dependent on oil – and as a result China uses more oil – isn’t that going to be China’s problem as supplies deplete?
Do you think there’s any chance that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could fly?
I.e. collect some number of dollars per tonne of carbon emissions and turn around and disburse the revenue to the citizens on a per-head basis (not unlike the Alaska Permanent Fund).
It could be truthfully sold as “not affecting the average person’s pocket book by one cent,” and since poor people spend less on carbon-intensive activities, on average, it makes an otherwise regressive tax progressive.
Do you think there’s any chance that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could fly?
I.e. collect some number of dollars per tonne of carbon emissions and turn around and disburse the revenue to the citizens on a per-head basis (not unlike the Alaska Permanent Fund).
It could be truthfully sold as “not affecting the average person’s pocket book by one cent,” and since poor people spend less on carbon-intensive activities, on average, it makes an otherwise regressive tax progressive.
Do you think there’s any chance that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could fly?
I.e. collect some number of dollars per tonne of carbon emissions and turn around and disburse the revenue to the citizens on a per-head basis (not unlike the Alaska Permanent Fund).
It could be truthfully sold as “not affecting the average person’s pocket book by one cent,” and since poor people spend less on carbon-intensive activities, on average, it makes an otherwise regressive tax progressive.
Do you think there’s any chance that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could fly?
I.e. collect some number of dollars per tonne of carbon emissions and turn around and disburse the revenue to the citizens on a per-head basis (not unlike the Alaska Permanent Fund).
It could be truthfully sold as “not affecting the average person’s pocket book by one cent,” and since poor people spend less on carbon-intensive activities, on average, it makes an otherwise regressive tax progressive.
Do you think there’s any chance that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could fly?
I.e. collect some number of dollars per tonne of carbon emissions and turn around and disburse the revenue to the citizens on a per-head basis (not unlike the Alaska Permanent Fund).
It could be truthfully sold as “not affecting the average person’s pocket book by one cent,” and since poor people spend less on carbon-intensive activities, on average, it makes an otherwise regressive tax progressive.
Do you think there’s any chance that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could fly?
I.e. collect some number of dollars per tonne of carbon emissions and turn around and disburse the revenue to the citizens on a per-head basis (not unlike the Alaska Permanent Fund).
It could be truthfully sold as “not affecting the average person’s pocket book by one cent,” and since poor people spend less on carbon-intensive activities, on average, it makes an otherwise regressive tax progressive.
Do you think there’s any chance that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could fly?
I.e. collect some number of dollars per tonne of carbon emissions and turn around and disburse the revenue to the citizens on a per-head basis (not unlike the Alaska Permanent Fund).
It could be truthfully sold as “not affecting the average person’s pocket book by one cent,” and since poor people spend less on carbon-intensive activities, on average, it makes an otherwise regressive tax progressive.
Do you think there’s any chance that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could fly?
I.e. collect some number of dollars per tonne of carbon emissions and turn around and disburse the revenue to the citizens on a per-head basis (not unlike the Alaska Permanent Fund).
It could be truthfully sold as “not affecting the average person’s pocket book by one cent,” and since poor people spend less on carbon-intensive activities, on average, it makes an otherwise regressive tax progressive.
Do you think there’s any chance that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could fly?
I.e. collect some number of dollars per tonne of carbon emissions and turn around and disburse the revenue to the citizens on a per-head basis (not unlike the Alaska Permanent Fund).
It could be truthfully sold as “not affecting the average person’s pocket book by one cent,” and since poor people spend less on carbon-intensive activities, on average, it makes an otherwise regressive tax progressive.
Do you think there’s any chance that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could fly?
I.e. collect some number of dollars per tonne of carbon emissions and turn around and disburse the revenue to the citizens on a per-head basis (not unlike the Alaska Permanent Fund).
It could be truthfully sold as “not affecting the average person’s pocket book by one cent,” and since poor people spend less on carbon-intensive activities, on average, it makes an otherwise regressive tax progressive.
I can see them doing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but I am not sure it will have a sufficient impact on changing behaviors. If you apply a carbon tax on something and then turn around and give that money back to people, they’ll just continue to spend it on those carbon intensive products. While not everyone will do this, enough will to make this not all that effective IMHO. This is why I prefer a cap-and-trade scheme. Problem with that is we have to figure out how much to cap and how to allocate the credits which is not such an easy task.
I can see them doing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but I am not sure it will have a sufficient impact on changing behaviors. If you apply a carbon tax on something and then turn around and give that money back to people, they’ll just continue to spend it on those carbon intensive products. While not everyone will do this, enough will to make this not all that effective IMHO. This is why I prefer a cap-and-trade scheme. Problem with that is we have to figure out how much to cap and how to allocate the credits which is not such an easy task.
I can see them doing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but I am not sure it will have a sufficient impact on changing behaviors. If you apply a carbon tax on something and then turn around and give that money back to people, they’ll just continue to spend it on those carbon intensive products. While not everyone will do this, enough will to make this not all that effective IMHO. This is why I prefer a cap-and-trade scheme. Problem with that is we have to figure out how much to cap and how to allocate the credits which is not such an easy task.
I can see them doing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but I am not sure it will have a sufficient impact on changing behaviors. If you apply a carbon tax on something and then turn around and give that money back to people, they’ll just continue to spend it on those carbon intensive products. While not everyone will do this, enough will to make this not all that effective IMHO. This is why I prefer a cap-and-trade scheme. Problem with that is we have to figure out how much to cap and how to allocate the credits which is not such an easy task.
I can see them doing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but I am not sure it will have a sufficient impact on changing behaviors. If you apply a carbon tax on something and then turn around and give that money back to people, they’ll just continue to spend it on those carbon intensive products. While not everyone will do this, enough will to make this not all that effective IMHO. This is why I prefer a cap-and-trade scheme. Problem with that is we have to figure out how much to cap and how to allocate the credits which is not such an easy task.
I can see them doing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but I am not sure it will have a sufficient impact on changing behaviors. If you apply a carbon tax on something and then turn around and give that money back to people, they’ll just continue to spend it on those carbon intensive products. While not everyone will do this, enough will to make this not all that effective IMHO. This is why I prefer a cap-and-trade scheme. Problem with that is we have to figure out how much to cap and how to allocate the credits which is not such an easy task.
I can see them doing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but I am not sure it will have a sufficient impact on changing behaviors. If you apply a carbon tax on something and then turn around and give that money back to people, they’ll just continue to spend it on those carbon intensive products. While not everyone will do this, enough will to make this not all that effective IMHO. This is why I prefer a cap-and-trade scheme. Problem with that is we have to figure out how much to cap and how to allocate the credits which is not such an easy task.
I can see them doing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but I am not sure it will have a sufficient impact on changing behaviors. If you apply a carbon tax on something and then turn around and give that money back to people, they’ll just continue to spend it on those carbon intensive products. While not everyone will do this, enough will to make this not all that effective IMHO. This is why I prefer a cap-and-trade scheme. Problem with that is we have to figure out how much to cap and how to allocate the credits which is not such an easy task.
I can see them doing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but I am not sure it will have a sufficient impact on changing behaviors. If you apply a carbon tax on something and then turn around and give that money back to people, they’ll just continue to spend it on those carbon intensive products. While not everyone will do this, enough will to make this not all that effective IMHO. This is why I prefer a cap-and-trade scheme. Problem with that is we have to figure out how much to cap and how to allocate the credits which is not such an easy task.
I can see them doing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but I am not sure it will have a sufficient impact on changing behaviors. If you apply a carbon tax on something and then turn around and give that money back to people, they’ll just continue to spend it on those carbon intensive products. While not everyone will do this, enough will to make this not all that effective IMHO. This is why I prefer a cap-and-trade scheme. Problem with that is we have to figure out how much to cap and how to allocate the credits which is not such an easy task.
Robert,
Here’s why you shouldn’t overly worry about global warming:
The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.
In the past four billion years, the earth’s temperature has been both colder and warmer than it is now. During the next five billion years (or at least until the Sun turns into a red giant), the earth’s temperature will be both colder and warmer than it is now.
The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.
Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)
Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?
I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.
Robert,
Here’s why you shouldn’t overly worry about global warming:
The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.
In the past four billion years, the earth’s temperature has been both colder and warmer than it is now. During the next five billion years (or at least until the Sun turns into a red giant), the earth’s temperature will be both colder and warmer than it is now.
The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.
Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)
Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?
I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.
Robert,
Here’s why you shouldn’t overly worry about global warming:
The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.
In the past four billion years, the earth’s temperature has been both colder and warmer than it is now. During the next five billion years (or at least until the Sun turns into a red giant), the earth’s temperature will be both colder and warmer than it is now.
The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.
Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)
Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?
I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.
Robert,
Here’s why you shouldn’t overly worry about global warming:
The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.
In the past four billion years, the earth’s temperature has been both colder and warmer than it is now. During the next five billion years (or at least until the Sun turns into a red giant), the earth’s temperature will be both colder and warmer than it is now.
The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.
Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)
Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?
I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.
Robert,
Here’s why you shouldn’t overly worry about global warming:
The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.
In the past four billion years, the earth’s temperature has been both colder and warmer than it is now. During the next five billion years (or at least until the Sun turns into a red giant), the earth’s temperature will be both colder and warmer than it is now.
The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.
Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)
Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?
I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.
Robert,
Here’s why you shouldn’t overly worry about global warming:
The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.
In the past four billion years, the earth’s temperature has been both colder and warmer than it is now. During the next five billion years (or at least until the Sun turns into a red giant), the earth’s temperature will be both colder and warmer than it is now.
The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.
Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)
Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?
I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.
Robert,
Here’s why you shouldn’t overly worry about global warming:
The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.
In the past four billion years, the earth’s temperature has been both colder and warmer than it is now. During the next five billion years (or at least until the Sun turns into a red giant), the earth’s temperature will be both colder and warmer than it is now.
The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.
Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)
Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?
I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.
Robert,
Here’s why you shouldn’t overly worry about global warming:
The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.
In the past four billion years, the earth’s temperature has been both colder and warmer than it is now. During the next five billion years (or at least until the Sun turns into a red giant), the earth’s temperature will be both colder and warmer than it is now.
The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.
Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)
Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?
I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.
Robert,
Here’s why you shouldn’t overly worry about global warming:
The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.
In the past four billion years, the earth’s temperature has been both colder and warmer than it is now. During the next five billion years (or at least until the Sun turns into a red giant), the earth’s temperature will be both colder and warmer than it is now.
The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.
Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)
Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?
I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.
Robert,
Here’s why you shouldn’t overly worry about global warming:
The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.
In the past four billion years, the earth’s temperature has been both colder and warmer than it is now. During the next five billion years (or at least until the Sun turns into a red giant), the earth’s temperature will be both colder and warmer than it is now.
The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.
Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)
Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?
I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.
What about the risk of catastrophic or runaway warming? If positive feedback loops kick in, we could see profound changes in the climate, leading to massive global biological changes. With a large enough increase in mean temperature (say, if most tropical forest burns or dies and lots of methane clathrates melt), it is plausible that conditions could become impossible for human civilization to survive within.
What about the risk of catastrophic or runaway warming? If positive feedback loops kick in, we could see profound changes in the climate, leading to massive global biological changes. With a large enough increase in mean temperature (say, if most tropical forest burns or dies and lots of methane clathrates melt), it is plausible that conditions could become impossible for human civilization to survive within.
What about the risk of catastrophic or runaway warming? If positive feedback loops kick in, we could see profound changes in the climate, leading to massive global biological changes. With a large enough increase in mean temperature (say, if most tropical forest burns or dies and lots of methane clathrates melt), it is plausible that conditions could become impossible for human civilization to survive within.
What about the risk of catastrophic or runaway warming? If positive feedback loops kick in, we could see profound changes in the climate, leading to massive global biological changes. With a large enough increase in mean temperature (say, if most tropical forest burns or dies and lots of methane clathrates melt), it is plausible that conditions could become impossible for human civilization to survive within.
What about the risk of catastrophic or runaway warming? If positive feedback loops kick in, we could see profound changes in the climate, leading to massive global biological changes. With a large enough increase in mean temperature (say, if most tropical forest burns or dies and lots of methane clathrates melt), it is plausible that conditions could become impossible for human civilization to survive within.
What about the risk of catastrophic or runaway warming? If positive feedback loops kick in, we could see profound changes in the climate, leading to massive global biological changes. With a large enough increase in mean temperature (say, if most tropical forest burns or dies and lots of methane clathrates melt), it is plausible that conditions could become impossible for human civilization to survive within.
What about the risk of catastrophic or runaway warming? If positive feedback loops kick in, we could see profound changes in the climate, leading to massive global biological changes. With a large enough increase in mean temperature (say, if most tropical forest burns or dies and lots of methane clathrates melt), it is plausible that conditions could become impossible for human civilization to survive within.
What about the risk of catastrophic or runaway warming? If positive feedback loops kick in, we could see profound changes in the climate, leading to massive global biological changes. With a large enough increase in mean temperature (say, if most tropical forest burns or dies and lots of methane clathrates melt), it is plausible that conditions could become impossible for human civilization to survive within.
What about the risk of catastrophic or runaway warming? If positive feedback loops kick in, we could see profound changes in the climate, leading to massive global biological changes. With a large enough increase in mean temperature (say, if most tropical forest burns or dies and lots of methane clathrates melt), it is plausible that conditions could become impossible for human civilization to survive within.
What about the risk of catastrophic or runaway warming? If positive feedback loops kick in, we could see profound changes in the climate, leading to massive global biological changes. With a large enough increase in mean temperature (say, if most tropical forest burns or dies and lots of methane clathrates melt), it is plausible that conditions could become impossible for human civilization to survive within.
Personally, I favor mitigation, because it would also be mitigation for peak oil. I want to see us greatly slow the rate at which we are using up our fossil fuels.
You have an interesting definition of mitigation. Most often, I see that term used in this context alongside the word “adaptation”. That is, asserting that we should simply continue with business as usual, maybe conserving energy where it’s clearly a (short term) economic win, but otherwise not changing our energy consumption habits.
The assumption is that is costs more to reduce our energy consumption than it would cost to deal with the consequences of it. This position is goofy on both ends, IMO: reducing fossil energy use can be an engine for economic growth, whereas relocation a large fraction of both the world’s population and the world’s agriculture seems like one of the most expensive things we could do. But I digress…
Your use of “mitigation” sounds like a strategy to address/prevent/minimize global warming. That’s great, but it leaves me wondering: if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
Within the Synthesis Report for the Fourth Assessement Report of the IPCC, the danger of catastrophic or runaway climate change is acknowledged:
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.” (p.20)
Personally, I favor mitigation, because it would also be mitigation for peak oil. I want to see us greatly slow the rate at which we are using up our fossil fuels.
You have an interesting definition of mitigation. Most often, I see that term used in this context alongside the word “adaptation”. That is, asserting that we should simply continue with business as usual, maybe conserving energy where it’s clearly a (short term) economic win, but otherwise not changing our energy consumption habits.
The assumption is that is costs more to reduce our energy consumption than it would cost to deal with the consequences of it. This position is goofy on both ends, IMO: reducing fossil energy use can be an engine for economic growth, whereas relocation a large fraction of both the world’s population and the world’s agriculture seems like one of the most expensive things we could do. But I digress…
Your use of “mitigation” sounds like a strategy to address/prevent/minimize global warming. That’s great, but it leaves me wondering: if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
Within the Synthesis Report for the Fourth Assessement Report of the IPCC, the danger of catastrophic or runaway climate change is acknowledged:
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.” (p.20)
Personally, I favor mitigation, because it would also be mitigation for peak oil. I want to see us greatly slow the rate at which we are using up our fossil fuels.
You have an interesting definition of mitigation. Most often, I see that term used in this context alongside the word “adaptation”. That is, asserting that we should simply continue with business as usual, maybe conserving energy where it’s clearly a (short term) economic win, but otherwise not changing our energy consumption habits.
The assumption is that is costs more to reduce our energy consumption than it would cost to deal with the consequences of it. This position is goofy on both ends, IMO: reducing fossil energy use can be an engine for economic growth, whereas relocation a large fraction of both the world’s population and the world’s agriculture seems like one of the most expensive things we could do. But I digress…
Your use of “mitigation” sounds like a strategy to address/prevent/minimize global warming. That’s great, but it leaves me wondering: if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
Within the Synthesis Report for the Fourth Assessement Report of the IPCC, the danger of catastrophic or runaway climate change is acknowledged:
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.” (p.20)
Personally, I favor mitigation, because it would also be mitigation for peak oil. I want to see us greatly slow the rate at which we are using up our fossil fuels.
You have an interesting definition of mitigation. Most often, I see that term used in this context alongside the word “adaptation”. That is, asserting that we should simply continue with business as usual, maybe conserving energy where it’s clearly a (short term) economic win, but otherwise not changing our energy consumption habits.
The assumption is that is costs more to reduce our energy consumption than it would cost to deal with the consequences of it. This position is goofy on both ends, IMO: reducing fossil energy use can be an engine for economic growth, whereas relocation a large fraction of both the world’s population and the world’s agriculture seems like one of the most expensive things we could do. But I digress…
Your use of “mitigation” sounds like a strategy to address/prevent/minimize global warming. That’s great, but it leaves me wondering: if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
Within the Synthesis Report for the Fourth Assessement Report of the IPCC, the danger of catastrophic or runaway climate change is acknowledged:
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.” (p.20)
Personally, I favor mitigation, because it would also be mitigation for peak oil. I want to see us greatly slow the rate at which we are using up our fossil fuels.
You have an interesting definition of mitigation. Most often, I see that term used in this context alongside the word “adaptation”. That is, asserting that we should simply continue with business as usual, maybe conserving energy where it’s clearly a (short term) economic win, but otherwise not changing our energy consumption habits.
The assumption is that is costs more to reduce our energy consumption than it would cost to deal with the consequences of it. This position is goofy on both ends, IMO: reducing fossil energy use can be an engine for economic growth, whereas relocation a large fraction of both the world’s population and the world’s agriculture seems like one of the most expensive things we could do. But I digress…
Your use of “mitigation” sounds like a strategy to address/prevent/minimize global warming. That’s great, but it leaves me wondering: if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
Within the Synthesis Report for the Fourth Assessement Report of the IPCC, the danger of catastrophic or runaway climate change is acknowledged:
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.” (p.20)
Personally, I favor mitigation, because it would also be mitigation for peak oil. I want to see us greatly slow the rate at which we are using up our fossil fuels.
You have an interesting definition of mitigation. Most often, I see that term used in this context alongside the word “adaptation”. That is, asserting that we should simply continue with business as usual, maybe conserving energy where it’s clearly a (short term) economic win, but otherwise not changing our energy consumption habits.
The assumption is that is costs more to reduce our energy consumption than it would cost to deal with the consequences of it. This position is goofy on both ends, IMO: reducing fossil energy use can be an engine for economic growth, whereas relocation a large fraction of both the world’s population and the world’s agriculture seems like one of the most expensive things we could do. But I digress…
Your use of “mitigation” sounds like a strategy to address/prevent/minimize global warming. That’s great, but it leaves me wondering: if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
Within the Synthesis Report for the Fourth Assessement Report of the IPCC, the danger of catastrophic or runaway climate change is acknowledged:
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.” (p.20)
Personally, I favor mitigation, because it would also be mitigation for peak oil. I want to see us greatly slow the rate at which we are using up our fossil fuels.
You have an interesting definition of mitigation. Most often, I see that term used in this context alongside the word “adaptation”. That is, asserting that we should simply continue with business as usual, maybe conserving energy where it’s clearly a (short term) economic win, but otherwise not changing our energy consumption habits.
The assumption is that is costs more to reduce our energy consumption than it would cost to deal with the consequences of it. This position is goofy on both ends, IMO: reducing fossil energy use can be an engine for economic growth, whereas relocation a large fraction of both the world’s population and the world’s agriculture seems like one of the most expensive things we could do. But I digress…
Your use of “mitigation” sounds like a strategy to address/prevent/minimize global warming. That’s great, but it leaves me wondering: if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
Within the Synthesis Report for the Fourth Assessement Report of the IPCC, the danger of catastrophic or runaway climate change is acknowledged:
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.” (p.20)
Personally, I favor mitigation, because it would also be mitigation for peak oil. I want to see us greatly slow the rate at which we are using up our fossil fuels.
You have an interesting definition of mitigation. Most often, I see that term used in this context alongside the word “adaptation”. That is, asserting that we should simply continue with business as usual, maybe conserving energy where it’s clearly a (short term) economic win, but otherwise not changing our energy consumption habits.
The assumption is that is costs more to reduce our energy consumption than it would cost to deal with the consequences of it. This position is goofy on both ends, IMO: reducing fossil energy use can be an engine for economic growth, whereas relocation a large fraction of both the world’s population and the world’s agriculture seems like one of the most expensive things we could do. But I digress…
Your use of “mitigation” sounds like a strategy to address/prevent/minimize global warming. That’s great, but it leaves me wondering: if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
Within the Synthesis Report for the Fourth Assessement Report of the IPCC, the danger of catastrophic or runaway climate change is acknowledged:
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.” (p.20)
Personally, I favor mitigation, because it would also be mitigation for peak oil. I want to see us greatly slow the rate at which we are using up our fossil fuels.
You have an interesting definition of mitigation. Most often, I see that term used in this context alongside the word “adaptation”. That is, asserting that we should simply continue with business as usual, maybe conserving energy where it’s clearly a (short term) economic win, but otherwise not changing our energy consumption habits.
The assumption is that is costs more to reduce our energy consumption than it would cost to deal with the consequences of it. This position is goofy on both ends, IMO: reducing fossil energy use can be an engine for economic growth, whereas relocation a large fraction of both the world’s population and the world’s agriculture seems like one of the most expensive things we could do. But I digress…
Your use of “mitigation” sounds like a strategy to address/prevent/minimize global warming. That’s great, but it leaves me wondering: if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
Within the Synthesis Report for the Fourth Assessement Report of the IPCC, the danger of catastrophic or runaway climate change is acknowledged:
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.” (p.20)
Personally, I favor mitigation, because it would also be mitigation for peak oil. I want to see us greatly slow the rate at which we are using up our fossil fuels.
You have an interesting definition of mitigation. Most often, I see that term used in this context alongside the word “adaptation”. That is, asserting that we should simply continue with business as usual, maybe conserving energy where it’s clearly a (short term) economic win, but otherwise not changing our energy consumption habits.
The assumption is that is costs more to reduce our energy consumption than it would cost to deal with the consequences of it. This position is goofy on both ends, IMO: reducing fossil energy use can be an engine for economic growth, whereas relocation a large fraction of both the world’s population and the world’s agriculture seems like one of the most expensive things we could do. But I digress…
Your use of “mitigation” sounds like a strategy to address/prevent/minimize global warming. That’s great, but it leaves me wondering: if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
Within the Synthesis Report for the Fourth Assessement Report of the IPCC, the danger of catastrophic or runaway climate change is acknowledged:
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.” (p.20)
“The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.”
There is no evidence that the Earth is a self-correcting system. It’s just a network, not even an example evolutionary formed life (which also is not universally “self-correcting”)
“The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.”
This is a non-sequitor. Are humans contributing to climate change? The consensus is yes. Does climate change have negative implications (economic) for a large portion of the world’s population. Yes. Is it incredibly expensive to reduce green house gas emissions? Not relative to first world incomes.
“Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)”
The city where you are didn’t exist 12,000 years ago. Or if it did, it was something that could be rebuilt quickly. Do you have any idea how much capital stock is at risk due to global warming? It is not something you can just write off.
“Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?”
It’s the “right” temperature because we developed are infrastructure around it. And the rest of course is non-sequitor.
“I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.”
While there is no certainty, it does seem as if we are already contributing to “the great geological and astronomical cycles of the Earth”.
“The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.”
There is no evidence that the Earth is a self-correcting system. It’s just a network, not even an example evolutionary formed life (which also is not universally “self-correcting”)
“The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.”
This is a non-sequitor. Are humans contributing to climate change? The consensus is yes. Does climate change have negative implications (economic) for a large portion of the world’s population. Yes. Is it incredibly expensive to reduce green house gas emissions? Not relative to first world incomes.
“Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)”
The city where you are didn’t exist 12,000 years ago. Or if it did, it was something that could be rebuilt quickly. Do you have any idea how much capital stock is at risk due to global warming? It is not something you can just write off.
“Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?”
It’s the “right” temperature because we developed are infrastructure around it. And the rest of course is non-sequitor.
“I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.”
While there is no certainty, it does seem as if we are already contributing to “the great geological and astronomical cycles of the Earth”.
“The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.”
There is no evidence that the Earth is a self-correcting system. It’s just a network, not even an example evolutionary formed life (which also is not universally “self-correcting”)
“The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.”
This is a non-sequitor. Are humans contributing to climate change? The consensus is yes. Does climate change have negative implications (economic) for a large portion of the world’s population. Yes. Is it incredibly expensive to reduce green house gas emissions? Not relative to first world incomes.
“Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)”
The city where you are didn’t exist 12,000 years ago. Or if it did, it was something that could be rebuilt quickly. Do you have any idea how much capital stock is at risk due to global warming? It is not something you can just write off.
“Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?”
It’s the “right” temperature because we developed are infrastructure around it. And the rest of course is non-sequitor.
“I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.”
While there is no certainty, it does seem as if we are already contributing to “the great geological and astronomical cycles of the Earth”.
“The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.”
There is no evidence that the Earth is a self-correcting system. It’s just a network, not even an example evolutionary formed life (which also is not universally “self-correcting”)
“The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.”
This is a non-sequitor. Are humans contributing to climate change? The consensus is yes. Does climate change have negative implications (economic) for a large portion of the world’s population. Yes. Is it incredibly expensive to reduce green house gas emissions? Not relative to first world incomes.
“Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)”
The city where you are didn’t exist 12,000 years ago. Or if it did, it was something that could be rebuilt quickly. Do you have any idea how much capital stock is at risk due to global warming? It is not something you can just write off.
“Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?”
It’s the “right” temperature because we developed are infrastructure around it. And the rest of course is non-sequitor.
“I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.”
While there is no certainty, it does seem as if we are already contributing to “the great geological and astronomical cycles of the Earth”.
“The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.”
There is no evidence that the Earth is a self-correcting system. It’s just a network, not even an example evolutionary formed life (which also is not universally “self-correcting”)
“The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.”
This is a non-sequitor. Are humans contributing to climate change? The consensus is yes. Does climate change have negative implications (economic) for a large portion of the world’s population. Yes. Is it incredibly expensive to reduce green house gas emissions? Not relative to first world incomes.
“Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)”
The city where you are didn’t exist 12,000 years ago. Or if it did, it was something that could be rebuilt quickly. Do you have any idea how much capital stock is at risk due to global warming? It is not something you can just write off.
“Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?”
It’s the “right” temperature because we developed are infrastructure around it. And the rest of course is non-sequitor.
“I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.”
While there is no certainty, it does seem as if we are already contributing to “the great geological and astronomical cycles of the Earth”.
“The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.”
There is no evidence that the Earth is a self-correcting system. It’s just a network, not even an example evolutionary formed life (which also is not universally “self-correcting”)
“The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.”
This is a non-sequitor. Are humans contributing to climate change? The consensus is yes. Does climate change have negative implications (economic) for a large portion of the world’s population. Yes. Is it incredibly expensive to reduce green house gas emissions? Not relative to first world incomes.
“Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)”
The city where you are didn’t exist 12,000 years ago. Or if it did, it was something that could be rebuilt quickly. Do you have any idea how much capital stock is at risk due to global warming? It is not something you can just write off.
“Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?”
It’s the “right” temperature because we developed are infrastructure around it. And the rest of course is non-sequitor.
“I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.”
While there is no certainty, it does seem as if we are already contributing to “the great geological and astronomical cycles of the Earth”.
“The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.”
There is no evidence that the Earth is a self-correcting system. It’s just a network, not even an example evolutionary formed life (which also is not universally “self-correcting”)
“The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.”
This is a non-sequitor. Are humans contributing to climate change? The consensus is yes. Does climate change have negative implications (economic) for a large portion of the world’s population. Yes. Is it incredibly expensive to reduce green house gas emissions? Not relative to first world incomes.
“Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)”
The city where you are didn’t exist 12,000 years ago. Or if it did, it was something that could be rebuilt quickly. Do you have any idea how much capital stock is at risk due to global warming? It is not something you can just write off.
“Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?”
It’s the “right” temperature because we developed are infrastructure around it. And the rest of course is non-sequitor.
“I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.”
While there is no certainty, it does seem as if we are already contributing to “the great geological and astronomical cycles of the Earth”.
“The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.”
There is no evidence that the Earth is a self-correcting system. It’s just a network, not even an example evolutionary formed life (which also is not universally “self-correcting”)
“The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.”
This is a non-sequitor. Are humans contributing to climate change? The consensus is yes. Does climate change have negative implications (economic) for a large portion of the world’s population. Yes. Is it incredibly expensive to reduce green house gas emissions? Not relative to first world incomes.
“Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)”
The city where you are didn’t exist 12,000 years ago. Or if it did, it was something that could be rebuilt quickly. Do you have any idea how much capital stock is at risk due to global warming? It is not something you can just write off.
“Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?”
It’s the “right” temperature because we developed are infrastructure around it. And the rest of course is non-sequitor.
“I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.”
While there is no certainty, it does seem as if we are already contributing to “the great geological and astronomical cycles of the Earth”.
“The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.”
There is no evidence that the Earth is a self-correcting system. It’s just a network, not even an example evolutionary formed life (which also is not universally “self-correcting”)
“The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.”
This is a non-sequitor. Are humans contributing to climate change? The consensus is yes. Does climate change have negative implications (economic) for a large portion of the world’s population. Yes. Is it incredibly expensive to reduce green house gas emissions? Not relative to first world incomes.
“Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)”
The city where you are didn’t exist 12,000 years ago. Or if it did, it was something that could be rebuilt quickly. Do you have any idea how much capital stock is at risk due to global warming? It is not something you can just write off.
“Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?”
It’s the “right” temperature because we developed are infrastructure around it. And the rest of course is non-sequitor.
“I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.”
While there is no certainty, it does seem as if we are already contributing to “the great geological and astronomical cycles of the Earth”.
“The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.”
There is no evidence that the Earth is a self-correcting system. It’s just a network, not even an example evolutionary formed life (which also is not universally “self-correcting”)
“The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.”
This is a non-sequitor. Are humans contributing to climate change? The consensus is yes. Does climate change have negative implications (economic) for a large portion of the world’s population. Yes. Is it incredibly expensive to reduce green house gas emissions? Not relative to first world incomes.
“Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)”
The city where you are didn’t exist 12,000 years ago. Or if it did, it was something that could be rebuilt quickly. Do you have any idea how much capital stock is at risk due to global warming? It is not something you can just write off.
“Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?”
It’s the “right” temperature because we developed are infrastructure around it. And the rest of course is non-sequitor.
“I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.”
While there is no certainty, it does seem as if we are already contributing to “the great geological and astronomical cycles of the Earth”.
if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
I think we will conserve as prices continue to increase. But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources. The first part is inevitable, I believe. The second part could be spurred on with specific energy policies.
if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
I think we will conserve as prices continue to increase. But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources. The first part is inevitable, I believe. The second part could be spurred on with specific energy policies.
if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
I think we will conserve as prices continue to increase. But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources. The first part is inevitable, I believe. The second part could be spurred on with specific energy policies.
if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
I think we will conserve as prices continue to increase. But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources. The first part is inevitable, I believe. The second part could be spurred on with specific energy policies.
if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
I think we will conserve as prices continue to increase. But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources. The first part is inevitable, I believe. The second part could be spurred on with specific energy policies.
if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
I think we will conserve as prices continue to increase. But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources. The first part is inevitable, I believe. The second part could be spurred on with specific energy policies.
if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
I think we will conserve as prices continue to increase. But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources. The first part is inevitable, I believe. The second part could be spurred on with specific energy policies.
if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
I think we will conserve as prices continue to increase. But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources. The first part is inevitable, I believe. The second part could be spurred on with specific energy policies.
if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
I think we will conserve as prices continue to increase. But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources. The first part is inevitable, I believe. The second part could be spurred on with specific energy policies.
if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
I think we will conserve as prices continue to increase. But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources. The first part is inevitable, I believe. The second part could be spurred on with specific energy policies.
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.”
This also raises the question of what is considered successful adaptation.
Currently, we have something like 1/4 of the planet living in abject poverty and misery, and something like 1/4 living higher on the hog than human beings ever have historically.
Does successful adaptation require that we not allow these ratios to get any worse? Or is it measured by the level of affluence that the elite enjoy? Is adaptation successful if we manage to retain a high-tech infrastructure? What about democracy?
Many of the moderate GW scenarios involve things that will put a great deal of stress on civilization and culture, and force us to spend alot of time and energy running faster just to stay in place (e.g. building seawalls to protect our cities).
There’s an enormous range of possible human conditions. I have no doubt that some human beings will survive even the worst GW nightmare scenario. I have little doubt that, under merely moderate scenarios, we can at least retain high tech transportation, health care and communication for, say, 1% (or even 5%) of the global population.
The most important question, I think, when discussing adaptation vs. prevention is, “what kind of world do you want to live in?”
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.”
This also raises the question of what is considered successful adaptation.
Currently, we have something like 1/4 of the planet living in abject poverty and misery, and something like 1/4 living higher on the hog than human beings ever have historically.
Does successful adaptation require that we not allow these ratios to get any worse? Or is it measured by the level of affluence that the elite enjoy? Is adaptation successful if we manage to retain a high-tech infrastructure? What about democracy?
Many of the moderate GW scenarios involve things that will put a great deal of stress on civilization and culture, and force us to spend alot of time and energy running faster just to stay in place (e.g. building seawalls to protect our cities).
There’s an enormous range of possible human conditions. I have no doubt that some human beings will survive even the worst GW nightmare scenario. I have little doubt that, under merely moderate scenarios, we can at least retain high tech transportation, health care and communication for, say, 1% (or even 5%) of the global population.
The most important question, I think, when discussing adaptation vs. prevention is, “what kind of world do you want to live in?”
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.”
This also raises the question of what is considered successful adaptation.
Currently, we have something like 1/4 of the planet living in abject poverty and misery, and something like 1/4 living higher on the hog than human beings ever have historically.
Does successful adaptation require that we not allow these ratios to get any worse? Or is it measured by the level of affluence that the elite enjoy? Is adaptation successful if we manage to retain a high-tech infrastructure? What about democracy?
Many of the moderate GW scenarios involve things that will put a great deal of stress on civilization and culture, and force us to spend alot of time and energy running faster just to stay in place (e.g. building seawalls to protect our cities).
There’s an enormous range of possible human conditions. I have no doubt that some human beings will survive even the worst GW nightmare scenario. I have little doubt that, under merely moderate scenarios, we can at least retain high tech transportation, health care and communication for, say, 1% (or even 5%) of the global population.
The most important question, I think, when discussing adaptation vs. prevention is, “what kind of world do you want to live in?”
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.”
This also raises the question of what is considered successful adaptation.
Currently, we have something like 1/4 of the planet living in abject poverty and misery, and something like 1/4 living higher on the hog than human beings ever have historically.
Does successful adaptation require that we not allow these ratios to get any worse? Or is it measured by the level of affluence that the elite enjoy? Is adaptation successful if we manage to retain a high-tech infrastructure? What about democracy?
Many of the moderate GW scenarios involve things that will put a great deal of stress on civilization and culture, and force us to spend alot of time and energy running faster just to stay in place (e.g. building seawalls to protect our cities).
There’s an enormous range of possible human conditions. I have no doubt that some human beings will survive even the worst GW nightmare scenario. I have little doubt that, under merely moderate scenarios, we can at least retain high tech transportation, health care and communication for, say, 1% (or even 5%) of the global population.
The most important question, I think, when discussing adaptation vs. prevention is, “what kind of world do you want to live in?”
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.”
This also raises the question of what is considered successful adaptation.
Currently, we have something like 1/4 of the planet living in abject poverty and misery, and something like 1/4 living higher on the hog than human beings ever have historically.
Does successful adaptation require that we not allow these ratios to get any worse? Or is it measured by the level of affluence that the elite enjoy? Is adaptation successful if we manage to retain a high-tech infrastructure? What about democracy?
Many of the moderate GW scenarios involve things that will put a great deal of stress on civilization and culture, and force us to spend alot of time and energy running faster just to stay in place (e.g. building seawalls to protect our cities).
There’s an enormous range of possible human conditions. I have no doubt that some human beings will survive even the worst GW nightmare scenario. I have little doubt that, under merely moderate scenarios, we can at least retain high tech transportation, health care and communication for, say, 1% (or even 5%) of the global population.
The most important question, I think, when discussing adaptation vs. prevention is, “what kind of world do you want to live in?”
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.”
This also raises the question of what is considered successful adaptation.
Currently, we have something like 1/4 of the planet living in abject poverty and misery, and something like 1/4 living higher on the hog than human beings ever have historically.
Does successful adaptation require that we not allow these ratios to get any worse? Or is it measured by the level of affluence that the elite enjoy? Is adaptation successful if we manage to retain a high-tech infrastructure? What about democracy?
Many of the moderate GW scenarios involve things that will put a great deal of stress on civilization and culture, and force us to spend alot of time and energy running faster just to stay in place (e.g. building seawalls to protect our cities).
There’s an enormous range of possible human conditions. I have no doubt that some human beings will survive even the worst GW nightmare scenario. I have little doubt that, under merely moderate scenarios, we can at least retain high tech transportation, health care and communication for, say, 1% (or even 5%) of the global population.
The most important question, I think, when discussing adaptation vs. prevention is, “what kind of world do you want to live in?”
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.”
This also raises the question of what is considered successful adaptation.
Currently, we have something like 1/4 of the planet living in abject poverty and misery, and something like 1/4 living higher on the hog than human beings ever have historically.
Does successful adaptation require that we not allow these ratios to get any worse? Or is it measured by the level of affluence that the elite enjoy? Is adaptation successful if we manage to retain a high-tech infrastructure? What about democracy?
Many of the moderate GW scenarios involve things that will put a great deal of stress on civilization and culture, and force us to spend alot of time and energy running faster just to stay in place (e.g. building seawalls to protect our cities).
There’s an enormous range of possible human conditions. I have no doubt that some human beings will survive even the worst GW nightmare scenario. I have little doubt that, under merely moderate scenarios, we can at least retain high tech transportation, health care and communication for, say, 1% (or even 5%) of the global population.
The most important question, I think, when discussing adaptation vs. prevention is, “what kind of world do you want to live in?”
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.”
This also raises the question of what is considered successful adaptation.
Currently, we have something like 1/4 of the planet living in abject poverty and misery, and something like 1/4 living higher on the hog than human beings ever have historically.
Does successful adaptation require that we not allow these ratios to get any worse? Or is it measured by the level of affluence that the elite enjoy? Is adaptation successful if we manage to retain a high-tech infrastructure? What about democracy?
Many of the moderate GW scenarios involve things that will put a great deal of stress on civilization and culture, and force us to spend alot of time and energy running faster just to stay in place (e.g. building seawalls to protect our cities).
There’s an enormous range of possible human conditions. I have no doubt that some human beings will survive even the worst GW nightmare scenario. I have little doubt that, under merely moderate scenarios, we can at least retain high tech transportation, health care and communication for, say, 1% (or even 5%) of the global population.
The most important question, I think, when discussing adaptation vs. prevention is, “what kind of world do you want to live in?”
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.”
This also raises the question of what is considered successful adaptation.
Currently, we have something like 1/4 of the planet living in abject poverty and misery, and something like 1/4 living higher on the hog than human beings ever have historically.
Does successful adaptation require that we not allow these ratios to get any worse? Or is it measured by the level of affluence that the elite enjoy? Is adaptation successful if we manage to retain a high-tech infrastructure? What about democracy?
Many of the moderate GW scenarios involve things that will put a great deal of stress on civilization and culture, and force us to spend alot of time and energy running faster just to stay in place (e.g. building seawalls to protect our cities).
There’s an enormous range of possible human conditions. I have no doubt that some human beings will survive even the worst GW nightmare scenario. I have little doubt that, under merely moderate scenarios, we can at least retain high tech transportation, health care and communication for, say, 1% (or even 5%) of the global population.
The most important question, I think, when discussing adaptation vs. prevention is, “what kind of world do you want to live in?”
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.”
This also raises the question of what is considered successful adaptation.
Currently, we have something like 1/4 of the planet living in abject poverty and misery, and something like 1/4 living higher on the hog than human beings ever have historically.
Does successful adaptation require that we not allow these ratios to get any worse? Or is it measured by the level of affluence that the elite enjoy? Is adaptation successful if we manage to retain a high-tech infrastructure? What about democracy?
Many of the moderate GW scenarios involve things that will put a great deal of stress on civilization and culture, and force us to spend alot of time and energy running faster just to stay in place (e.g. building seawalls to protect our cities).
There’s an enormous range of possible human conditions. I have no doubt that some human beings will survive even the worst GW nightmare scenario. I have little doubt that, under merely moderate scenarios, we can at least retain high tech transportation, health care and communication for, say, 1% (or even 5%) of the global population.
The most important question, I think, when discussing adaptation vs. prevention is, “what kind of world do you want to live in?”
But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources.
I would state this a little differently: I would say that we must fail to move to less sustainable transportation sources. In other words, we must avoid CTL, tar sands, and stupid (i.e. most) biofuels.
There isn’t enough oil left to take us to really high CO2 levels. It’s coal that will kill us, which is why Architecture 2030 is focusing on radically reducing building energy consumption. But if we start using coal in our cars, then we’re screwed that way too.
Looked at this way, the possibilities are somewhat more positive. We don’t have to voluntarily stop burning so much oil for transportation. That will happen anyway. We simply have to choose to NOT substitute higher carbon density sources for our declining oil supply. We just barely might be that smart as a species. Or at least I think so on a good day.
But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources.
I would state this a little differently: I would say that we must fail to move to less sustainable transportation sources. In other words, we must avoid CTL, tar sands, and stupid (i.e. most) biofuels.
There isn’t enough oil left to take us to really high CO2 levels. It’s coal that will kill us, which is why Architecture 2030 is focusing on radically reducing building energy consumption. But if we start using coal in our cars, then we’re screwed that way too.
Looked at this way, the possibilities are somewhat more positive. We don’t have to voluntarily stop burning so much oil for transportation. That will happen anyway. We simply have to choose to NOT substitute higher carbon density sources for our declining oil supply. We just barely might be that smart as a species. Or at least I think so on a good day.
But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources.
I would state this a little differently: I would say that we must fail to move to less sustainable transportation sources. In other words, we must avoid CTL, tar sands, and stupid (i.e. most) biofuels.
There isn’t enough oil left to take us to really high CO2 levels. It’s coal that will kill us, which is why Architecture 2030 is focusing on radically reducing building energy consumption. But if we start using coal in our cars, then we’re screwed that way too.
Looked at this way, the possibilities are somewhat more positive. We don’t have to voluntarily stop burning so much oil for transportation. That will happen anyway. We simply have to choose to NOT substitute higher carbon density sources for our declining oil supply. We just barely might be that smart as a species. Or at least I think so on a good day.
But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources.
I would state this a little differently: I would say that we must fail to move to less sustainable transportation sources. In other words, we must avoid CTL, tar sands, and stupid (i.e. most) biofuels.
There isn’t enough oil left to take us to really high CO2 levels. It’s coal that will kill us, which is why Architecture 2030 is focusing on radically reducing building energy consumption. But if we start using coal in our cars, then we’re screwed that way too.
Looked at this way, the possibilities are somewhat more positive. We don’t have to voluntarily stop burning so much oil for transportation. That will happen anyway. We simply have to choose to NOT substitute higher carbon density sources for our declining oil supply. We just barely might be that smart as a species. Or at least I think so on a good day.
But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources.
I would state this a little differently: I would say that we must fail to move to less sustainable transportation sources. In other words, we must avoid CTL, tar sands, and stupid (i.e. most) biofuels.
There isn’t enough oil left to take us to really high CO2 levels. It’s coal that will kill us, which is why Architecture 2030 is focusing on radically reducing building energy consumption. But if we start using coal in our cars, then we’re screwed that way too.
Looked at this way, the possibilities are somewhat more positive. We don’t have to voluntarily stop burning so much oil for transportation. That will happen anyway. We simply have to choose to NOT substitute higher carbon density sources for our declining oil supply. We just barely might be that smart as a species. Or at least I think so on a good day.
But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources.
I would state this a little differently: I would say that we must fail to move to less sustainable transportation sources. In other words, we must avoid CTL, tar sands, and stupid (i.e. most) biofuels.
There isn’t enough oil left to take us to really high CO2 levels. It’s coal that will kill us, which is why Architecture 2030 is focusing on radically reducing building energy consumption. But if we start using coal in our cars, then we’re screwed that way too.
Looked at this way, the possibilities are somewhat more positive. We don’t have to voluntarily stop burning so much oil for transportation. That will happen anyway. We simply have to choose to NOT substitute higher carbon density sources for our declining oil supply. We just barely might be that smart as a species. Or at least I think so on a good day.
But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources.
I would state this a little differently: I would say that we must fail to move to less sustainable transportation sources. In other words, we must avoid CTL, tar sands, and stupid (i.e. most) biofuels.
There isn’t enough oil left to take us to really high CO2 levels. It’s coal that will kill us, which is why Architecture 2030 is focusing on radically reducing building energy consumption. But if we start using coal in our cars, then we’re screwed that way too.
Looked at this way, the possibilities are somewhat more positive. We don’t have to voluntarily stop burning so much oil for transportation. That will happen anyway. We simply have to choose to NOT substitute higher carbon density sources for our declining oil supply. We just barely might be that smart as a species. Or at least I think so on a good day.
But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources.
I would state this a little differently: I would say that we must fail to move to less sustainable transportation sources. In other words, we must avoid CTL, tar sands, and stupid (i.e. most) biofuels.
There isn’t enough oil left to take us to really high CO2 levels. It’s coal that will kill us, which is why Architecture 2030 is focusing on radically reducing building energy consumption. But if we start using coal in our cars, then we’re screwed that way too.
Looked at this way, the possibilities are somewhat more positive. We don’t have to voluntarily stop burning so much oil for transportation. That will happen anyway. We simply have to choose to NOT substitute higher carbon density sources for our declining oil supply. We just barely might be that smart as a species. Or at least I think so on a good day.
But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources.
I would state this a little differently: I would say that we must fail to move to less sustainable transportation sources. In other words, we must avoid CTL, tar sands, and stupid (i.e. most) biofuels.
There isn’t enough oil left to take us to really high CO2 levels. It’s coal that will kill us, which is why Architecture 2030 is focusing on radically reducing building energy consumption. But if we start using coal in our cars, then we’re screwed that way too.
Looked at this way, the possibilities are somewhat more positive. We don’t have to voluntarily stop burning so much oil for transportation. That will happen anyway. We simply have to choose to NOT substitute higher carbon density sources for our declining oil supply. We just barely might be that smart as a species. Or at least I think so on a good day.
But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources.
I would state this a little differently: I would say that we must fail to move to less sustainable transportation sources. In other words, we must avoid CTL, tar sands, and stupid (i.e. most) biofuels.
There isn’t enough oil left to take us to really high CO2 levels. It’s coal that will kill us, which is why Architecture 2030 is focusing on radically reducing building energy consumption. But if we start using coal in our cars, then we’re screwed that way too.
Looked at this way, the possibilities are somewhat more positive. We don’t have to voluntarily stop burning so much oil for transportation. That will happen anyway. We simply have to choose to NOT substitute higher carbon density sources for our declining oil supply. We just barely might be that smart as a species. Or at least I think so on a good day.
I’ve been sitting on a pretty good link and essay:
Uncertainty and Action on Climate Change
Beyond that though, I’d summarize Robert’s argument as “people are dumb” and continue with the standard rejoinder “but they aren’t that dumb.”
People will avoid thinking about AGW if it does not hit them on the head. If it hits them on the head, they’ll act.
So really this is about how apparent and emotionally powerful “first effects” prove to be. It is similar to Peak Oil in that regard.
I’ve been sitting on a pretty good link and essay:
Uncertainty and Action on Climate Change
Beyond that though, I’d summarize Robert’s argument as “people are dumb” and continue with the standard rejoinder “but they aren’t that dumb.”
People will avoid thinking about AGW if it does not hit them on the head. If it hits them on the head, they’ll act.
So really this is about how apparent and emotionally powerful “first effects” prove to be. It is similar to Peak Oil in that regard.
I’ve been sitting on a pretty good link and essay:
Uncertainty and Action on Climate Change
Beyond that though, I’d summarize Robert’s argument as “people are dumb” and continue with the standard rejoinder “but they aren’t that dumb.”
People will avoid thinking about AGW if it does not hit them on the head. If it hits them on the head, they’ll act.
So really this is about how apparent and emotionally powerful “first effects” prove to be. It is similar to Peak Oil in that regard.
I’ve been sitting on a pretty good link and essay:
Uncertainty and Action on Climate Change
Beyond that though, I’d summarize Robert’s argument as “people are dumb” and continue with the standard rejoinder “but they aren’t that dumb.”
People will avoid thinking about AGW if it does not hit them on the head. If it hits them on the head, they’ll act.
So really this is about how apparent and emotionally powerful “first effects” prove to be. It is similar to Peak Oil in that regard.
I’ve been sitting on a pretty good link and essay:
Uncertainty and Action on Climate Change
Beyond that though, I’d summarize Robert’s argument as “people are dumb” and continue with the standard rejoinder “but they aren’t that dumb.”
People will avoid thinking about AGW if it does not hit them on the head. If it hits them on the head, they’ll act.
So really this is about how apparent and emotionally powerful “first effects” prove to be. It is similar to Peak Oil in that regard.
I’ve been sitting on a pretty good link and essay:
Uncertainty and Action on Climate Change
Beyond that though, I’d summarize Robert’s argument as “people are dumb” and continue with the standard rejoinder “but they aren’t that dumb.”
People will avoid thinking about AGW if it does not hit them on the head. If it hits them on the head, they’ll act.
So really this is about how apparent and emotionally powerful “first effects” prove to be. It is similar to Peak Oil in that regard.
I’ve been sitting on a pretty good link and essay:
Uncertainty and Action on Climate Change
Beyond that though, I’d summarize Robert’s argument as “people are dumb” and continue with the standard rejoinder “but they aren’t that dumb.”
People will avoid thinking about AGW if it does not hit them on the head. If it hits them on the head, they’ll act.
So really this is about how apparent and emotionally powerful “first effects” prove to be. It is similar to Peak Oil in that regard.
I’ve been sitting on a pretty good link and essay:
Uncertainty and Action on Climate Change
Beyond that though, I’d summarize Robert’s argument as “people are dumb” and continue with the standard rejoinder “but they aren’t that dumb.”
People will avoid thinking about AGW if it does not hit them on the head. If it hits them on the head, they’ll act.
So really this is about how apparent and emotionally powerful “first effects” prove to be. It is similar to Peak Oil in that regard.
I’ve been sitting on a pretty good link and essay:
Uncertainty and Action on Climate Change
Beyond that though, I’d summarize Robert’s argument as “people are dumb” and continue with the standard rejoinder “but they aren’t that dumb.”
People will avoid thinking about AGW if it does not hit them on the head. If it hits them on the head, they’ll act.
So really this is about how apparent and emotionally powerful “first effects” prove to be. It is similar to Peak Oil in that regard.
I’ve been sitting on a pretty good link and essay:
Uncertainty and Action on Climate Change
Beyond that though, I’d summarize Robert’s argument as “people are dumb” and continue with the standard rejoinder “but they aren’t that dumb.”
People will avoid thinking about AGW if it does not hit them on the head. If it hits them on the head, they’ll act.
So really this is about how apparent and emotionally powerful “first effects” prove to be. It is similar to Peak Oil in that regard.
Oh, and obviously “partial action” does make outcomes “less bad” than no action.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
Oh, and obviously “partial action” does make outcomes “less bad” than no action.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
Oh, and obviously “partial action” does make outcomes “less bad” than no action.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
Oh, and obviously “partial action” does make outcomes “less bad” than no action.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
Oh, and obviously “partial action” does make outcomes “less bad” than no action.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
Oh, and obviously “partial action” does make outcomes “less bad” than no action.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
Oh, and obviously “partial action” does make outcomes “less bad” than no action.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
Oh, and obviously “partial action” does make outcomes “less bad” than no action.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
Oh, and obviously “partial action” does make outcomes “less bad” than no action.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
Oh, and obviously “partial action” does make outcomes “less bad” than no action.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
And despite years of fretting and the Kyoto Protocol and all of the words and effort that have gone into action, has there been any measurable tailing off of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
It’s not that people are dumb. That’s not the point. The point is that they don’t see any immediate consequences, and they know that action is going to cost them money. So, they figure “Let’s just wait and see what happens.”
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
And despite years of fretting and the Kyoto Protocol and all of the words and effort that have gone into action, has there been any measurable tailing off of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
It’s not that people are dumb. That’s not the point. The point is that they don’t see any immediate consequences, and they know that action is going to cost them money. So, they figure “Let’s just wait and see what happens.”
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
And despite years of fretting and the Kyoto Protocol and all of the words and effort that have gone into action, has there been any measurable tailing off of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
It’s not that people are dumb. That’s not the point. The point is that they don’t see any immediate consequences, and they know that action is going to cost them money. So, they figure “Let’s just wait and see what happens.”
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
And despite years of fretting and the Kyoto Protocol and all of the words and effort that have gone into action, has there been any measurable tailing off of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
It’s not that people are dumb. That’s not the point. The point is that they don’t see any immediate consequences, and they know that action is going to cost them money. So, they figure “Let’s just wait and see what happens.”
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
And despite years of fretting and the Kyoto Protocol and all of the words and effort that have gone into action, has there been any measurable tailing off of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
It’s not that people are dumb. That’s not the point. The point is that they don’t see any immediate consequences, and they know that action is going to cost them money. So, they figure “Let’s just wait and see what happens.”
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
And despite years of fretting and the Kyoto Protocol and all of the words and effort that have gone into action, has there been any measurable tailing off of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
It’s not that people are dumb. That’s not the point. The point is that they don’t see any immediate consequences, and they know that action is going to cost them money. So, they figure “Let’s just wait and see what happens.”
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
And despite years of fretting and the Kyoto Protocol and all of the words and effort that have gone into action, has there been any measurable tailing off of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
It’s not that people are dumb. That’s not the point. The point is that they don’t see any immediate consequences, and they know that action is going to cost them money. So, they figure “Let’s just wait and see what happens.”
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
And despite years of fretting and the Kyoto Protocol and all of the words and effort that have gone into action, has there been any measurable tailing off of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
It’s not that people are dumb. That’s not the point. The point is that they don’t see any immediate consequences, and they know that action is going to cost them money. So, they figure “Let’s just wait and see what happens.”
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
And despite years of fretting and the Kyoto Protocol and all of the words and effort that have gone into action, has there been any measurable tailing off of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
It’s not that people are dumb. That’s not the point. The point is that they don’t see any immediate consequences, and they know that action is going to cost them money. So, they figure “Let’s just wait and see what happens.”
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
And despite years of fretting and the Kyoto Protocol and all of the words and effort that have gone into action, has there been any measurable tailing off of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
It’s not that people are dumb. That’s not the point. The point is that they don’t see any immediate consequences, and they know that action is going to cost them money. So, they figure “Let’s just wait and see what happens.”
And by immediate consequences, what I really mean is “If I cut my CO2 emissions today, what impact will it have?” That’s the point I think people come to when they know that mitigation is going to cost them some money.
And by immediate consequences, what I really mean is “If I cut my CO2 emissions today, what impact will it have?” That’s the point I think people come to when they know that mitigation is going to cost them some money.
And by immediate consequences, what I really mean is “If I cut my CO2 emissions today, what impact will it have?” That’s the point I think people come to when they know that mitigation is going to cost them some money.
And by immediate consequences, what I really mean is “If I cut my CO2 emissions today, what impact will it have?” That’s the point I think people come to when they know that mitigation is going to cost them some money.
And by immediate consequences, what I really mean is “If I cut my CO2 emissions today, what impact will it have?” That’s the point I think people come to when they know that mitigation is going to cost them some money.
And by immediate consequences, what I really mean is “If I cut my CO2 emissions today, what impact will it have?” That’s the point I think people come to when they know that mitigation is going to cost them some money.
And by immediate consequences, what I really mean is “If I cut my CO2 emissions today, what impact will it have?” That’s the point I think people come to when they know that mitigation is going to cost them some money.
And by immediate consequences, what I really mean is “If I cut my CO2 emissions today, what impact will it have?” That’s the point I think people come to when they know that mitigation is going to cost them some money.
And by immediate consequences, what I really mean is “If I cut my CO2 emissions today, what impact will it have?” That’s the point I think people come to when they know that mitigation is going to cost them some money.
And by immediate consequences, what I really mean is “If I cut my CO2 emissions today, what impact will it have?” That’s the point I think people come to when they know that mitigation is going to cost them some money.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in [Western] Europe and Japan.
Actions there are driven primarily by the fact they are major energy importers. Even without GW/PO they have incentives to reduce their energy usage.
Many Americans are still operating under the delusion that there are gobs of energy lurking just under the topsoil. (For Canadians this is actually the case – for now.) It’s hard for most people to make a sacrifice for non-tangible benefit that may not ever be realized. That’s why GW/PO mitigation probably won’t happen in time, despite the fact that it is technically possible.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in [Western] Europe and Japan.
Actions there are driven primarily by the fact they are major energy importers. Even without GW/PO they have incentives to reduce their energy usage.
Many Americans are still operating under the delusion that there are gobs of energy lurking just under the topsoil. (For Canadians this is actually the case – for now.) It’s hard for most people to make a sacrifice for non-tangible benefit that may not ever be realized. That’s why GW/PO mitigation probably won’t happen in time, despite the fact that it is technically possible.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in [Western] Europe and Japan.
Actions there are driven primarily by the fact they are major energy importers. Even without GW/PO they have incentives to reduce their energy usage.
Many Americans are still operating under the delusion that there are gobs of energy lurking just under the topsoil. (For Canadians this is actually the case – for now.) It’s hard for most people to make a sacrifice for non-tangible benefit that may not ever be realized. That’s why GW/PO mitigation probably won’t happen in time, despite the fact that it is technically possible.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in [Western] Europe and Japan.
Actions there are driven primarily by the fact they are major energy importers. Even without GW/PO they have incentives to reduce their energy usage.
Many Americans are still operating under the delusion that there are gobs of energy lurking just under the topsoil. (For Canadians this is actually the case – for now.) It’s hard for most people to make a sacrifice for non-tangible benefit that may not ever be realized. That’s why GW/PO mitigation probably won’t happen in time, despite the fact that it is technically possible.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in [Western] Europe and Japan.
Actions there are driven primarily by the fact they are major energy importers. Even without GW/PO they have incentives to reduce their energy usage.
Many Americans are still operating under the delusion that there are gobs of energy lurking just under the topsoil. (For Canadians this is actually the case – for now.) It’s hard for most people to make a sacrifice for non-tangible benefit that may not ever be realized. That’s why GW/PO mitigation probably won’t happen in time, despite the fact that it is technically possible.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in [Western] Europe and Japan.
Actions there are driven primarily by the fact they are major energy importers. Even without GW/PO they have incentives to reduce their energy usage.
Many Americans are still operating under the delusion that there are gobs of energy lurking just under the topsoil. (For Canadians this is actually the case – for now.) It’s hard for most people to make a sacrifice for non-tangible benefit that may not ever be realized. That’s why GW/PO mitigation probably won’t happen in time, despite the fact that it is technically possible.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in [Western] Europe and Japan.
Actions there are driven primarily by the fact they are major energy importers. Even without GW/PO they have incentives to reduce their energy usage.
Many Americans are still operating under the delusion that there are gobs of energy lurking just under the topsoil. (For Canadians this is actually the case – for now.) It’s hard for most people to make a sacrifice for non-tangible benefit that may not ever be realized. That’s why GW/PO mitigation probably won’t happen in time, despite the fact that it is technically possible.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in [Western] Europe and Japan.
Actions there are driven primarily by the fact they are major energy importers. Even without GW/PO they have incentives to reduce their energy usage.
Many Americans are still operating under the delusion that there are gobs of energy lurking just under the topsoil. (For Canadians this is actually the case – for now.) It’s hard for most people to make a sacrifice for non-tangible benefit that may not ever be realized. That’s why GW/PO mitigation probably won’t happen in time, despite the fact that it is technically possible.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in [Western] Europe and Japan.
Actions there are driven primarily by the fact they are major energy importers. Even without GW/PO they have incentives to reduce their energy usage.
Many Americans are still operating under the delusion that there are gobs of energy lurking just under the topsoil. (For Canadians this is actually the case – for now.) It’s hard for most people to make a sacrifice for non-tangible benefit that may not ever be realized. That’s why GW/PO mitigation probably won’t happen in time, despite the fact that it is technically possible.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in [Western] Europe and Japan.
Actions there are driven primarily by the fact they are major energy importers. Even without GW/PO they have incentives to reduce their energy usage.
Many Americans are still operating under the delusion that there are gobs of energy lurking just under the topsoil. (For Canadians this is actually the case – for now.) It’s hard for most people to make a sacrifice for non-tangible benefit that may not ever be realized. That’s why GW/PO mitigation probably won’t happen in time, despite the fact that it is technically possible.
I like to quote the stand-up economist, who condenses “people act at the margin” to mean “people are dumb, but not that dumb.”
On your first paragraph, I think we have talked before about what is necessary for “good news.” Is it sufficient that CO2 is not as bad as it might have been? Or is it necessary that by 2007 (oops!) I mean 2008 we have turned the corner?
Maybe it’s because I’m a cynic, or confused in my optimsim/pessimism, but I take this news as good:
59 Coal Plants Cancelled or Shelved in 2007
That’s evidence that we aren’t in a static world, or on a preordained trajectory.
Put another way, is there a better answer to those cancellations than “we arne’t that dumb?”
I like to quote the stand-up economist, who condenses “people act at the margin” to mean “people are dumb, but not that dumb.”
On your first paragraph, I think we have talked before about what is necessary for “good news.” Is it sufficient that CO2 is not as bad as it might have been? Or is it necessary that by 2007 (oops!) I mean 2008 we have turned the corner?
Maybe it’s because I’m a cynic, or confused in my optimsim/pessimism, but I take this news as good:
59 Coal Plants Cancelled or Shelved in 2007
That’s evidence that we aren’t in a static world, or on a preordained trajectory.
Put another way, is there a better answer to those cancellations than “we arne’t that dumb?”
I like to quote the stand-up economist, who condenses “people act at the margin” to mean “people are dumb, but not that dumb.”
On your first paragraph, I think we have talked before about what is necessary for “good news.” Is it sufficient that CO2 is not as bad as it might have been? Or is it necessary that by 2007 (oops!) I mean 2008 we have turned the corner?
Maybe it’s because I’m a cynic, or confused in my optimsim/pessimism, but I take this news as good:
59 Coal Plants Cancelled or Shelved in 2007
That’s evidence that we aren’t in a static world, or on a preordained trajectory.
Put another way, is there a better answer to those cancellations than “we arne’t that dumb?”
I like to quote the stand-up economist, who condenses “people act at the margin” to mean “people are dumb, but not that dumb.”
On your first paragraph, I think we have talked before about what is necessary for “good news.” Is it sufficient that CO2 is not as bad as it might have been? Or is it necessary that by 2007 (oops!) I mean 2008 we have turned the corner?
Maybe it’s because I’m a cynic, or confused in my optimsim/pessimism, but I take this news as good:
59 Coal Plants Cancelled or Shelved in 2007
That’s evidence that we aren’t in a static world, or on a preordained trajectory.
Put another way, is there a better answer to those cancellations than “we arne’t that dumb?”
I like to quote the stand-up economist, who condenses “people act at the margin” to mean “people are dumb, but not that dumb.”
On your first paragraph, I think we have talked before about what is necessary for “good news.” Is it sufficient that CO2 is not as bad as it might have been? Or is it necessary that by 2007 (oops!) I mean 2008 we have turned the corner?
Maybe it’s because I’m a cynic, or confused in my optimsim/pessimism, but I take this news as good:
59 Coal Plants Cancelled or Shelved in 2007
That’s evidence that we aren’t in a static world, or on a preordained trajectory.
Put another way, is there a better answer to those cancellations than “we arne’t that dumb?”
I like to quote the stand-up economist, who condenses “people act at the margin” to mean “people are dumb, but not that dumb.”
On your first paragraph, I think we have talked before about what is necessary for “good news.” Is it sufficient that CO2 is not as bad as it might have been? Or is it necessary that by 2007 (oops!) I mean 2008 we have turned the corner?
Maybe it’s because I’m a cynic, or confused in my optimsim/pessimism, but I take this news as good:
59 Coal Plants Cancelled or Shelved in 2007
That’s evidence that we aren’t in a static world, or on a preordained trajectory.
Put another way, is there a better answer to those cancellations than “we arne’t that dumb?”
I like to quote the stand-up economist, who condenses “people act at the margin” to mean “people are dumb, but not that dumb.”
On your first paragraph, I think we have talked before about what is necessary for “good news.” Is it sufficient that CO2 is not as bad as it might have been? Or is it necessary that by 2007 (oops!) I mean 2008 we have turned the corner?
Maybe it’s because I’m a cynic, or confused in my optimsim/pessimism, but I take this news as good:
59 Coal Plants Cancelled or Shelved in 2007
That’s evidence that we aren’t in a static world, or on a preordained trajectory.
Put another way, is there a better answer to those cancellations than “we arne’t that dumb?”
I like to quote the stand-up economist, who condenses “people act at the margin” to mean “people are dumb, but not that dumb.”
On your first paragraph, I think we have talked before about what is necessary for “good news.” Is it sufficient that CO2 is not as bad as it might have been? Or is it necessary that by 2007 (oops!) I mean 2008 we have turned the corner?
Maybe it’s because I’m a cynic, or confused in my optimsim/pessimism, but I take this news as good:
59 Coal Plants Cancelled or Shelved in 2007
That’s evidence that we aren’t in a static world, or on a preordained trajectory.
Put another way, is there a better answer to those cancellations than “we arne’t that dumb?”
I like to quote the stand-up economist, who condenses “people act at the margin” to mean “people are dumb, but not that dumb.”
On your first paragraph, I think we have talked before about what is necessary for “good news.” Is it sufficient that CO2 is not as bad as it might have been? Or is it necessary that by 2007 (oops!) I mean 2008 we have turned the corner?
Maybe it’s because I’m a cynic, or confused in my optimsim/pessimism, but I take this news as good:
59 Coal Plants Cancelled or Shelved in 2007
That’s evidence that we aren’t in a static world, or on a preordained trajectory.
Put another way, is there a better answer to those cancellations than “we arne’t that dumb?”
I like to quote the stand-up economist, who condenses “people act at the margin” to mean “people are dumb, but not that dumb.”
On your first paragraph, I think we have talked before about what is necessary for “good news.” Is it sufficient that CO2 is not as bad as it might have been? Or is it necessary that by 2007 (oops!) I mean 2008 we have turned the corner?
Maybe it’s because I’m a cynic, or confused in my optimsim/pessimism, but I take this news as good:
59 Coal Plants Cancelled or Shelved in 2007
That’s evidence that we aren’t in a static world, or on a preordained trajectory.
Put another way, is there a better answer to those cancellations than “we arne’t that dumb?”
FWIW,
Mankiw’s Principles
#1. People face tradeoffs.
#2. The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
#5. Trade can make everyone better off.
#6. Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.
#7. Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes.
#8. A country’s standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services.
#9. Prices rise when the government prints too much money.
#10. Society faces a short-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.
Stand-up Economist’s Translations
#1. Choices are bad.
#2. Choices are really bad.
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
#5. Trade can make everyone worse off.
#6. Governments are stupid.
#7. Governments aren’t that stupid.
#8. Blah blah blah.
#9. Blah blah blah.
#10. Blah blah blah.
FWIW,
Mankiw’s Principles
#1. People face tradeoffs.
#2. The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
#5. Trade can make everyone better off.
#6. Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.
#7. Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes.
#8. A country’s standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services.
#9. Prices rise when the government prints too much money.
#10. Society faces a short-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.
Stand-up Economist’s Translations
#1. Choices are bad.
#2. Choices are really bad.
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
#5. Trade can make everyone worse off.
#6. Governments are stupid.
#7. Governments aren’t that stupid.
#8. Blah blah blah.
#9. Blah blah blah.
#10. Blah blah blah.
FWIW,
Mankiw’s Principles
#1. People face tradeoffs.
#2. The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
#5. Trade can make everyone better off.
#6. Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.
#7. Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes.
#8. A country’s standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services.
#9. Prices rise when the government prints too much money.
#10. Society faces a short-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.
Stand-up Economist’s Translations
#1. Choices are bad.
#2. Choices are really bad.
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
#5. Trade can make everyone worse off.
#6. Governments are stupid.
#7. Governments aren’t that stupid.
#8. Blah blah blah.
#9. Blah blah blah.
#10. Blah blah blah.
FWIW,
Mankiw’s Principles
#1. People face tradeoffs.
#2. The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
#5. Trade can make everyone better off.
#6. Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.
#7. Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes.
#8. A country’s standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services.
#9. Prices rise when the government prints too much money.
#10. Society faces a short-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.
Stand-up Economist’s Translations
#1. Choices are bad.
#2. Choices are really bad.
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
#5. Trade can make everyone worse off.
#6. Governments are stupid.
#7. Governments aren’t that stupid.
#8. Blah blah blah.
#9. Blah blah blah.
#10. Blah blah blah.
FWIW,
Mankiw’s Principles
#1. People face tradeoffs.
#2. The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
#5. Trade can make everyone better off.
#6. Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.
#7. Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes.
#8. A country’s standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services.
#9. Prices rise when the government prints too much money.
#10. Society faces a short-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.
Stand-up Economist’s Translations
#1. Choices are bad.
#2. Choices are really bad.
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
#5. Trade can make everyone worse off.
#6. Governments are stupid.
#7. Governments aren’t that stupid.
#8. Blah blah blah.
#9. Blah blah blah.
#10. Blah blah blah.
FWIW,
Mankiw’s Principles
#1. People face tradeoffs.
#2. The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
#5. Trade can make everyone better off.
#6. Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.
#7. Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes.
#8. A country’s standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services.
#9. Prices rise when the government prints too much money.
#10. Society faces a short-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.
Stand-up Economist’s Translations
#1. Choices are bad.
#2. Choices are really bad.
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
#5. Trade can make everyone worse off.
#6. Governments are stupid.
#7. Governments aren’t that stupid.
#8. Blah blah blah.
#9. Blah blah blah.
#10. Blah blah blah.
FWIW,
Mankiw’s Principles
#1. People face tradeoffs.
#2. The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
#5. Trade can make everyone better off.
#6. Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.
#7. Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes.
#8. A country’s standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services.
#9. Prices rise when the government prints too much money.
#10. Society faces a short-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.
Stand-up Economist’s Translations
#1. Choices are bad.
#2. Choices are really bad.
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
#5. Trade can make everyone worse off.
#6. Governments are stupid.
#7. Governments aren’t that stupid.
#8. Blah blah blah.
#9. Blah blah blah.
#10. Blah blah blah.
FWIW,
Mankiw’s Principles
#1. People face tradeoffs.
#2. The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
#5. Trade can make everyone better off.
#6. Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.
#7. Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes.
#8. A country’s standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services.
#9. Prices rise when the government prints too much money.
#10. Society faces a short-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.
Stand-up Economist’s Translations
#1. Choices are bad.
#2. Choices are really bad.
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
#5. Trade can make everyone worse off.
#6. Governments are stupid.
#7. Governments aren’t that stupid.
#8. Blah blah blah.
#9. Blah blah blah.
#10. Blah blah blah.
FWIW,
Mankiw’s Principles
#1. People face tradeoffs.
#2. The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
#5. Trade can make everyone better off.
#6. Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.
#7. Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes.
#8. A country’s standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services.
#9. Prices rise when the government prints too much money.
#10. Society faces a short-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.
Stand-up Economist’s Translations
#1. Choices are bad.
#2. Choices are really bad.
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
#5. Trade can make everyone worse off.
#6. Governments are stupid.
#7. Governments aren’t that stupid.
#8. Blah blah blah.
#9. Blah blah blah.
#10. Blah blah blah.
FWIW,
Mankiw’s Principles
#1. People face tradeoffs.
#2. The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
#5. Trade can make everyone better off.
#6. Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.
#7. Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes.
#8. A country’s standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services.
#9. Prices rise when the government prints too much money.
#10. Society faces a short-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.
Stand-up Economist’s Translations
#1. Choices are bad.
#2. Choices are really bad.
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
#5. Trade can make everyone worse off.
#6. Governments are stupid.
#7. Governments aren’t that stupid.
#8. Blah blah blah.
#9. Blah blah blah.
#10. Blah blah blah.
One of the problems, I think, with a carbon tax is that it is seen as an “artificial” price increase whereas if you have a price increase because of market forces (i.e. speculators), it somehow more acceptable. This leads me to a couple thoughts. First is figure out some way to take all of the external costs of carbon emissions and apply them to the businesses that emit carbon or encourage carbon emission. Yes, this would mean that automobiles would get a huge surcharge which may or may not be a better solution than a carbon reclamation tax on gasoline.
The second thought is that all of the green groups out there concerned about carbon emissions should start playing in the speculators market raising the price of oil. Probably wouldn’t happen because too many of the members count on their cars to get them from where they live to places where there aren’t many people and making that trip more expensive would not be welcome.
On the thought of carbon taxes being revenue neutral, I’m not sure that’s the way you want to go. You want to give people an incentive to purchase alternatives to carbon producing processes. You want the cost of carbon production visible. Sort of like the nutritional information labels on the side of a box of food. Maybe there should be an energy label stating average number of miles traveled between manufacture and delivery resulting in so many pounds of carbon produced etc. etc.. Probably have as much effect as the nutritional labels and the surgeons warning on cigarettes but, it would be interesting.
One of the problems, I think, with a carbon tax is that it is seen as an “artificial” price increase whereas if you have a price increase because of market forces (i.e. speculators), it somehow more acceptable. This leads me to a couple thoughts. First is figure out some way to take all of the external costs of carbon emissions and apply them to the businesses that emit carbon or encourage carbon emission. Yes, this would mean that automobiles would get a huge surcharge which may or may not be a better solution than a carbon reclamation tax on gasoline.
The second thought is that all of the green groups out there concerned about carbon emissions should start playing in the speculators market raising the price of oil. Probably wouldn’t happen because too many of the members count on their cars to get them from where they live to places where there aren’t many people and making that trip more expensive would not be welcome.
On the thought of carbon taxes being revenue neutral, I’m not sure that’s the way you want to go. You want to give people an incentive to purchase alternatives to carbon producing processes. You want the cost of carbon production visible. Sort of like the nutritional information labels on the side of a box of food. Maybe there should be an energy label stating average number of miles traveled between manufacture and delivery resulting in so many pounds of carbon produced etc. etc.. Probably have as much effect as the nutritional labels and the surgeons warning on cigarettes but, it would be interesting.
One of the problems, I think, with a carbon tax is that it is seen as an “artificial” price increase whereas if you have a price increase because of market forces (i.e. speculators), it somehow more acceptable. This leads me to a couple thoughts. First is figure out some way to take all of the external costs of carbon emissions and apply them to the businesses that emit carbon or encourage carbon emission. Yes, this would mean that automobiles would get a huge surcharge which may or may not be a better solution than a carbon reclamation tax on gasoline.
The second thought is that all of the green groups out there concerned about carbon emissions should start playing in the speculators market raising the price of oil. Probably wouldn’t happen because too many of the members count on their cars to get them from where they live to places where there aren’t many people and making that trip more expensive would not be welcome.
On the thought of carbon taxes being revenue neutral, I’m not sure that’s the way you want to go. You want to give people an incentive to purchase alternatives to carbon producing processes. You want the cost of carbon production visible. Sort of like the nutritional information labels on the side of a box of food. Maybe there should be an energy label stating average number of miles traveled between manufacture and delivery resulting in so many pounds of carbon produced etc. etc.. Probably have as much effect as the nutritional labels and the surgeons warning on cigarettes but, it would be interesting.
One of the problems, I think, with a carbon tax is that it is seen as an “artificial” price increase whereas if you have a price increase because of market forces (i.e. speculators), it somehow more acceptable. This leads me to a couple thoughts. First is figure out some way to take all of the external costs of carbon emissions and apply them to the businesses that emit carbon or encourage carbon emission. Yes, this would mean that automobiles would get a huge surcharge which may or may not be a better solution than a carbon reclamation tax on gasoline.
The second thought is that all of the green groups out there concerned about carbon emissions should start playing in the speculators market raising the price of oil. Probably wouldn’t happen because too many of the members count on their cars to get them from where they live to places where there aren’t many people and making that trip more expensive would not be welcome.
On the thought of carbon taxes being revenue neutral, I’m not sure that’s the way you want to go. You want to give people an incentive to purchase alternatives to carbon producing processes. You want the cost of carbon production visible. Sort of like the nutritional information labels on the side of a box of food. Maybe there should be an energy label stating average number of miles traveled between manufacture and delivery resulting in so many pounds of carbon produced etc. etc.. Probably have as much effect as the nutritional labels and the surgeons warning on cigarettes but, it would be interesting.
One of the problems, I think, with a carbon tax is that it is seen as an “artificial” price increase whereas if you have a price increase because of market forces (i.e. speculators), it somehow more acceptable. This leads me to a couple thoughts. First is figure out some way to take all of the external costs of carbon emissions and apply them to the businesses that emit carbon or encourage carbon emission. Yes, this would mean that automobiles would get a huge surcharge which may or may not be a better solution than a carbon reclamation tax on gasoline.
The second thought is that all of the green groups out there concerned about carbon emissions should start playing in the speculators market raising the price of oil. Probably wouldn’t happen because too many of the members count on their cars to get them from where they live to places where there aren’t many people and making that trip more expensive would not be welcome.
On the thought of carbon taxes being revenue neutral, I’m not sure that’s the way you want to go. You want to give people an incentive to purchase alternatives to carbon producing processes. You want the cost of carbon production visible. Sort of like the nutritional information labels on the side of a box of food. Maybe there should be an energy label stating average number of miles traveled between manufacture and delivery resulting in so many pounds of carbon produced etc. etc.. Probably have as much effect as the nutritional labels and the surgeons warning on cigarettes but, it would be interesting.
One of the problems, I think, with a carbon tax is that it is seen as an “artificial” price increase whereas if you have a price increase because of market forces (i.e. speculators), it somehow more acceptable. This leads me to a couple thoughts. First is figure out some way to take all of the external costs of carbon emissions and apply them to the businesses that emit carbon or encourage carbon emission. Yes, this would mean that automobiles would get a huge surcharge which may or may not be a better solution than a carbon reclamation tax on gasoline.
The second thought is that all of the green groups out there concerned about carbon emissions should start playing in the speculators market raising the price of oil. Probably wouldn’t happen because too many of the members count on their cars to get them from where they live to places where there aren’t many people and making that trip more expensive would not be welcome.
On the thought of carbon taxes being revenue neutral, I’m not sure that’s the way you want to go. You want to give people an incentive to purchase alternatives to carbon producing processes. You want the cost of carbon production visible. Sort of like the nutritional information labels on the side of a box of food. Maybe there should be an energy label stating average number of miles traveled between manufacture and delivery resulting in so many pounds of carbon produced etc. etc.. Probably have as much effect as the nutritional labels and the surgeons warning on cigarettes but, it would be interesting.
One of the problems, I think, with a carbon tax is that it is seen as an “artificial” price increase whereas if you have a price increase because of market forces (i.e. speculators), it somehow more acceptable. This leads me to a couple thoughts. First is figure out some way to take all of the external costs of carbon emissions and apply them to the businesses that emit carbon or encourage carbon emission. Yes, this would mean that automobiles would get a huge surcharge which may or may not be a better solution than a carbon reclamation tax on gasoline.
The second thought is that all of the green groups out there concerned about carbon emissions should start playing in the speculators market raising the price of oil. Probably wouldn’t happen because too many of the members count on their cars to get them from where they live to places where there aren’t many people and making that trip more expensive would not be welcome.
On the thought of carbon taxes being revenue neutral, I’m not sure that’s the way you want to go. You want to give people an incentive to purchase alternatives to carbon producing processes. You want the cost of carbon production visible. Sort of like the nutritional information labels on the side of a box of food. Maybe there should be an energy label stating average number of miles traveled between manufacture and delivery resulting in so many pounds of carbon produced etc. etc.. Probably have as much effect as the nutritional labels and the surgeons warning on cigarettes but, it would be interesting.
One of the problems, I think, with a carbon tax is that it is seen as an “artificial” price increase whereas if you have a price increase because of market forces (i.e. speculators), it somehow more acceptable. This leads me to a couple thoughts. First is figure out some way to take all of the external costs of carbon emissions and apply them to the businesses that emit carbon or encourage carbon emission. Yes, this would mean that automobiles would get a huge surcharge which may or may not be a better solution than a carbon reclamation tax on gasoline.
The second thought is that all of the green groups out there concerned about carbon emissions should start playing in the speculators market raising the price of oil. Probably wouldn’t happen because too many of the members count on their cars to get them from where they live to places where there aren’t many people and making that trip more expensive would not be welcome.
On the thought of carbon taxes being revenue neutral, I’m not sure that’s the way you want to go. You want to give people an incentive to purchase alternatives to carbon producing processes. You want the cost of carbon production visible. Sort of like the nutritional information labels on the side of a box of food. Maybe there should be an energy label stating average number of miles traveled between manufacture and delivery resulting in so many pounds of carbon produced etc. etc.. Probably have as much effect as the nutritional labels and the surgeons warning on cigarettes but, it would be interesting.
One of the problems, I think, with a carbon tax is that it is seen as an “artificial” price increase whereas if you have a price increase because of market forces (i.e. speculators), it somehow more acceptable. This leads me to a couple thoughts. First is figure out some way to take all of the external costs of carbon emissions and apply them to the businesses that emit carbon or encourage carbon emission. Yes, this would mean that automobiles would get a huge surcharge which may or may not be a better solution than a carbon reclamation tax on gasoline.
The second thought is that all of the green groups out there concerned about carbon emissions should start playing in the speculators market raising the price of oil. Probably wouldn’t happen because too many of the members count on their cars to get them from where they live to places where there aren’t many people and making that trip more expensive would not be welcome.
On the thought of carbon taxes being revenue neutral, I’m not sure that’s the way you want to go. You want to give people an incentive to purchase alternatives to carbon producing processes. You want the cost of carbon production visible. Sort of like the nutritional information labels on the side of a box of food. Maybe there should be an energy label stating average number of miles traveled between manufacture and delivery resulting in so many pounds of carbon produced etc. etc.. Probably have as much effect as the nutritional labels and the surgeons warning on cigarettes but, it would be interesting.
One of the problems, I think, with a carbon tax is that it is seen as an “artificial” price increase whereas if you have a price increase because of market forces (i.e. speculators), it somehow more acceptable. This leads me to a couple thoughts. First is figure out some way to take all of the external costs of carbon emissions and apply them to the businesses that emit carbon or encourage carbon emission. Yes, this would mean that automobiles would get a huge surcharge which may or may not be a better solution than a carbon reclamation tax on gasoline.
The second thought is that all of the green groups out there concerned about carbon emissions should start playing in the speculators market raising the price of oil. Probably wouldn’t happen because too many of the members count on their cars to get them from where they live to places where there aren’t many people and making that trip more expensive would not be welcome.
On the thought of carbon taxes being revenue neutral, I’m not sure that’s the way you want to go. You want to give people an incentive to purchase alternatives to carbon producing processes. You want the cost of carbon production visible. Sort of like the nutritional information labels on the side of a box of food. Maybe there should be an energy label stating average number of miles traveled between manufacture and delivery resulting in so many pounds of carbon produced etc. etc.. Probably have as much effect as the nutritional labels and the surgeons warning on cigarettes but, it would be interesting.
One more thought. If you want a really cheap hit on reducing energy use, turn off outdoor lighting and if you can’t turn it off, reduce the power used and limit the hours of operation (turn off parking lot lights one hour after store closes).
The last time I looked, we were wasting something on the order of like $15 or $20 billion worth of electricity a year with bad outdoor lighting. converting to fully shielded fixtures running at half the intensity would provide better quality lighting but also lower energy usage.
The psychological win for doing this is that it preps people to think about ways they can cut back energy use. Things like compact fluorescent light bulbs, better insulation etc.
Just a thought
One more thought. If you want a really cheap hit on reducing energy use, turn off outdoor lighting and if you can’t turn it off, reduce the power used and limit the hours of operation (turn off parking lot lights one hour after store closes).
The last time I looked, we were wasting something on the order of like $15 or $20 billion worth of electricity a year with bad outdoor lighting. converting to fully shielded fixtures running at half the intensity would provide better quality lighting but also lower energy usage.
The psychological win for doing this is that it preps people to think about ways they can cut back energy use. Things like compact fluorescent light bulbs, better insulation etc.
Just a thought
One more thought. If you want a really cheap hit on reducing energy use, turn off outdoor lighting and if you can’t turn it off, reduce the power used and limit the hours of operation (turn off parking lot lights one hour after store closes).
The last time I looked, we were wasting something on the order of like $15 or $20 billion worth of electricity a year with bad outdoor lighting. converting to fully shielded fixtures running at half the intensity would provide better quality lighting but also lower energy usage.
The psychological win for doing this is that it preps people to think about ways they can cut back energy use. Things like compact fluorescent light bulbs, better insulation etc.
Just a thought
One more thought. If you want a really cheap hit on reducing energy use, turn off outdoor lighting and if you can’t turn it off, reduce the power used and limit the hours of operation (turn off parking lot lights one hour after store closes).
The last time I looked, we were wasting something on the order of like $15 or $20 billion worth of electricity a year with bad outdoor lighting. converting to fully shielded fixtures running at half the intensity would provide better quality lighting but also lower energy usage.
The psychological win for doing this is that it preps people to think about ways they can cut back energy use. Things like compact fluorescent light bulbs, better insulation etc.
Just a thought
One more thought. If you want a really cheap hit on reducing energy use, turn off outdoor lighting and if you can’t turn it off, reduce the power used and limit the hours of operation (turn off parking lot lights one hour after store closes).
The last time I looked, we were wasting something on the order of like $15 or $20 billion worth of electricity a year with bad outdoor lighting. converting to fully shielded fixtures running at half the intensity would provide better quality lighting but also lower energy usage.
The psychological win for doing this is that it preps people to think about ways they can cut back energy use. Things like compact fluorescent light bulbs, better insulation etc.
Just a thought
One more thought. If you want a really cheap hit on reducing energy use, turn off outdoor lighting and if you can’t turn it off, reduce the power used and limit the hours of operation (turn off parking lot lights one hour after store closes).
The last time I looked, we were wasting something on the order of like $15 or $20 billion worth of electricity a year with bad outdoor lighting. converting to fully shielded fixtures running at half the intensity would provide better quality lighting but also lower energy usage.
The psychological win for doing this is that it preps people to think about ways they can cut back energy use. Things like compact fluorescent light bulbs, better insulation etc.
Just a thought
One more thought. If you want a really cheap hit on reducing energy use, turn off outdoor lighting and if you can’t turn it off, reduce the power used and limit the hours of operation (turn off parking lot lights one hour after store closes).
The last time I looked, we were wasting something on the order of like $15 or $20 billion worth of electricity a year with bad outdoor lighting. converting to fully shielded fixtures running at half the intensity would provide better quality lighting but also lower energy usage.
The psychological win for doing this is that it preps people to think about ways they can cut back energy use. Things like compact fluorescent light bulbs, better insulation etc.
Just a thought
One more thought. If you want a really cheap hit on reducing energy use, turn off outdoor lighting and if you can’t turn it off, reduce the power used and limit the hours of operation (turn off parking lot lights one hour after store closes).
The last time I looked, we were wasting something on the order of like $15 or $20 billion worth of electricity a year with bad outdoor lighting. converting to fully shielded fixtures running at half the intensity would provide better quality lighting but also lower energy usage.
The psychological win for doing this is that it preps people to think about ways they can cut back energy use. Things like compact fluorescent light bulbs, better insulation etc.
Just a thought
One more thought. If you want a really cheap hit on reducing energy use, turn off outdoor lighting and if you can’t turn it off, reduce the power used and limit the hours of operation (turn off parking lot lights one hour after store closes).
The last time I looked, we were wasting something on the order of like $15 or $20 billion worth of electricity a year with bad outdoor lighting. converting to fully shielded fixtures running at half the intensity would provide better quality lighting but also lower energy usage.
The psychological win for doing this is that it preps people to think about ways they can cut back energy use. Things like compact fluorescent light bulbs, better insulation etc.
Just a thought
One more thought. If you want a really cheap hit on reducing energy use, turn off outdoor lighting and if you can’t turn it off, reduce the power used and limit the hours of operation (turn off parking lot lights one hour after store closes).
The last time I looked, we were wasting something on the order of like $15 or $20 billion worth of electricity a year with bad outdoor lighting. converting to fully shielded fixtures running at half the intensity would provide better quality lighting but also lower energy usage.
The psychological win for doing this is that it preps people to think about ways they can cut back energy use. Things like compact fluorescent light bulbs, better insulation etc.
Just a thought
Well, you could try telling them what it will cost to not fix it, in terms of remediation efforts for e.g. rising sea levels. The problem is, we’re all too good at ignoring costs that are “down the road” (just look at Social Security and Medicare). Or you can focus on the short term cost of resource depletion, e.g. we are paying beaucoup money to foreign oil states, we should pay ourselves via taxes instead.
Well, you could try telling them what it will cost to not fix it, in terms of remediation efforts for e.g. rising sea levels. The problem is, we’re all too good at ignoring costs that are “down the road” (just look at Social Security and Medicare). Or you can focus on the short term cost of resource depletion, e.g. we are paying beaucoup money to foreign oil states, we should pay ourselves via taxes instead.
Well, you could try telling them what it will cost to not fix it, in terms of remediation efforts for e.g. rising sea levels. The problem is, we’re all too good at ignoring costs that are “down the road” (just look at Social Security and Medicare). Or you can focus on the short term cost of resource depletion, e.g. we are paying beaucoup money to foreign oil states, we should pay ourselves via taxes instead.
Well, you could try telling them what it will cost to not fix it, in terms of remediation efforts for e.g. rising sea levels. The problem is, we’re all too good at ignoring costs that are “down the road” (just look at Social Security and Medicare). Or you can focus on the short term cost of resource depletion, e.g. we are paying beaucoup money to foreign oil states, we should pay ourselves via taxes instead.
Well, you could try telling them what it will cost to not fix it, in terms of remediation efforts for e.g. rising sea levels. The problem is, we’re all too good at ignoring costs that are “down the road” (just look at Social Security and Medicare). Or you can focus on the short term cost of resource depletion, e.g. we are paying beaucoup money to foreign oil states, we should pay ourselves via taxes instead.
Well, you could try telling them what it will cost to not fix it, in terms of remediation efforts for e.g. rising sea levels. The problem is, we’re all too good at ignoring costs that are “down the road” (just look at Social Security and Medicare). Or you can focus on the short term cost of resource depletion, e.g. we are paying beaucoup money to foreign oil states, we should pay ourselves via taxes instead.
Well, you could try telling them what it will cost to not fix it, in terms of remediation efforts for e.g. rising sea levels. The problem is, we’re all too good at ignoring costs that are “down the road” (just look at Social Security and Medicare). Or you can focus on the short term cost of resource depletion, e.g. we are paying beaucoup money to foreign oil states, we should pay ourselves via taxes instead.
Well, you could try telling them what it will cost to not fix it, in terms of remediation efforts for e.g. rising sea levels. The problem is, we’re all too good at ignoring costs that are “down the road” (just look at Social Security and Medicare). Or you can focus on the short term cost of resource depletion, e.g. we are paying beaucoup money to foreign oil states, we should pay ourselves via taxes instead.
Well, you could try telling them what it will cost to not fix it, in terms of remediation efforts for e.g. rising sea levels. The problem is, we’re all too good at ignoring costs that are “down the road” (just look at Social Security and Medicare). Or you can focus on the short term cost of resource depletion, e.g. we are paying beaucoup money to foreign oil states, we should pay ourselves via taxes instead.
Well, you could try telling them what it will cost to not fix it, in terms of remediation efforts for e.g. rising sea levels. The problem is, we’re all too good at ignoring costs that are “down the road” (just look at Social Security and Medicare). Or you can focus on the short term cost of resource depletion, e.g. we are paying beaucoup money to foreign oil states, we should pay ourselves via taxes instead.
You know, I probably sound like I’m not being serious with that “people are dumb” stuff, but consider.
The stand-up economist’s items 3 and 4:
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
Map into Mankiw’s items 3 and 4:
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
Those rules expand thus:
# Rational People Think at the Margin.
A rational decision-maker takes action if and only if the marginal benefit of the action exceeds the marginal cost.
# People Respond to Incentives.
Behavior changes when costs or benefits change.
Right there we are into GW decision-making. Robert worries that people will not see marginal benefits for marginal costs. And rightly so. There is little marginal affect apparent to the man in the street.
Which is why we rationally argue for incentives to drive the behavior home.
It is not a coincidence that Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, author of the Econ 101 text and that 10-item list, is also founder of “The Pigou Club.”
Check out his club manifesto there, and observe carbon dioxide on the list.
You know, I probably sound like I’m not being serious with that “people are dumb” stuff, but consider.
The stand-up economist’s items 3 and 4:
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
Map into Mankiw’s items 3 and 4:
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
Those rules expand thus:
# Rational People Think at the Margin.
A rational decision-maker takes action if and only if the marginal benefit of the action exceeds the marginal cost.
# People Respond to Incentives.
Behavior changes when costs or benefits change.
Right there we are into GW decision-making. Robert worries that people will not see marginal benefits for marginal costs. And rightly so. There is little marginal affect apparent to the man in the street.
Which is why we rationally argue for incentives to drive the behavior home.
It is not a coincidence that Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, author of the Econ 101 text and that 10-item list, is also founder of “The Pigou Club.”
Check out his club manifesto there, and observe carbon dioxide on the list.
You know, I probably sound like I’m not being serious with that “people are dumb” stuff, but consider.
The stand-up economist’s items 3 and 4:
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
Map into Mankiw’s items 3 and 4:
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
Those rules expand thus:
# Rational People Think at the Margin.
A rational decision-maker takes action if and only if the marginal benefit of the action exceeds the marginal cost.
# People Respond to Incentives.
Behavior changes when costs or benefits change.
Right there we are into GW decision-making. Robert worries that people will not see marginal benefits for marginal costs. And rightly so. There is little marginal affect apparent to the man in the street.
Which is why we rationally argue for incentives to drive the behavior home.
It is not a coincidence that Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, author of the Econ 101 text and that 10-item list, is also founder of “The Pigou Club.”
Check out his club manifesto there, and observe carbon dioxide on the list.
You know, I probably sound like I’m not being serious with that “people are dumb” stuff, but consider.
The stand-up economist’s items 3 and 4:
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
Map into Mankiw’s items 3 and 4:
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
Those rules expand thus:
# Rational People Think at the Margin.
A rational decision-maker takes action if and only if the marginal benefit of the action exceeds the marginal cost.
# People Respond to Incentives.
Behavior changes when costs or benefits change.
Right there we are into GW decision-making. Robert worries that people will not see marginal benefits for marginal costs. And rightly so. There is little marginal affect apparent to the man in the street.
Which is why we rationally argue for incentives to drive the behavior home.
It is not a coincidence that Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, author of the Econ 101 text and that 10-item list, is also founder of “The Pigou Club.”
Check out his club manifesto there, and observe carbon dioxide on the list.
You know, I probably sound like I’m not being serious with that “people are dumb” stuff, but consider.
The stand-up economist’s items 3 and 4:
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
Map into Mankiw’s items 3 and 4:
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
Those rules expand thus:
# Rational People Think at the Margin.
A rational decision-maker takes action if and only if the marginal benefit of the action exceeds the marginal cost.
# People Respond to Incentives.
Behavior changes when costs or benefits change.
Right there we are into GW decision-making. Robert worries that people will not see marginal benefits for marginal costs. And rightly so. There is little marginal affect apparent to the man in the street.
Which is why we rationally argue for incentives to drive the behavior home.
It is not a coincidence that Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, author of the Econ 101 text and that 10-item list, is also founder of “The Pigou Club.”
Check out his club manifesto there, and observe carbon dioxide on the list.
You know, I probably sound like I’m not being serious with that “people are dumb” stuff, but consider.
The stand-up economist’s items 3 and 4:
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
Map into Mankiw’s items 3 and 4:
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
Those rules expand thus:
# Rational People Think at the Margin.
A rational decision-maker takes action if and only if the marginal benefit of the action exceeds the marginal cost.
# People Respond to Incentives.
Behavior changes when costs or benefits change.
Right there we are into GW decision-making. Robert worries that people will not see marginal benefits for marginal costs. And rightly so. There is little marginal affect apparent to the man in the street.
Which is why we rationally argue for incentives to drive the behavior home.
It is not a coincidence that Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, author of the Econ 101 text and that 10-item list, is also founder of “The Pigou Club.”
Check out his club manifesto there, and observe carbon dioxide on the list.
You know, I probably sound like I’m not being serious with that “people are dumb” stuff, but consider.
The stand-up economist’s items 3 and 4:
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
Map into Mankiw’s items 3 and 4:
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
Those rules expand thus:
# Rational People Think at the Margin.
A rational decision-maker takes action if and only if the marginal benefit of the action exceeds the marginal cost.
# People Respond to Incentives.
Behavior changes when costs or benefits change.
Right there we are into GW decision-making. Robert worries that people will not see marginal benefits for marginal costs. And rightly so. There is little marginal affect apparent to the man in the street.
Which is why we rationally argue for incentives to drive the behavior home.
It is not a coincidence that Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, author of the Econ 101 text and that 10-item list, is also founder of “The Pigou Club.”
Check out his club manifesto there, and observe carbon dioxide on the list.
You know, I probably sound like I’m not being serious with that “people are dumb” stuff, but consider.
The stand-up economist’s items 3 and 4:
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
Map into Mankiw’s items 3 and 4:
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
Those rules expand thus:
# Rational People Think at the Margin.
A rational decision-maker takes action if and only if the marginal benefit of the action exceeds the marginal cost.
# People Respond to Incentives.
Behavior changes when costs or benefits change.
Right there we are into GW decision-making. Robert worries that people will not see marginal benefits for marginal costs. And rightly so. There is little marginal affect apparent to the man in the street.
Which is why we rationally argue for incentives to drive the behavior home.
It is not a coincidence that Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, author of the Econ 101 text and that 10-item list, is also founder of “The Pigou Club.”
Check out his club manifesto there, and observe carbon dioxide on the list.
You know, I probably sound like I’m not being serious with that “people are dumb” stuff, but consider.
The stand-up economist’s items 3 and 4:
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
Map into Mankiw’s items 3 and 4:
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
Those rules expand thus:
# Rational People Think at the Margin.
A rational decision-maker takes action if and only if the marginal benefit of the action exceeds the marginal cost.
# People Respond to Incentives.
Behavior changes when costs or benefits change.
Right there we are into GW decision-making. Robert worries that people will not see marginal benefits for marginal costs. And rightly so. There is little marginal affect apparent to the man in the street.
Which is why we rationally argue for incentives to drive the behavior home.
It is not a coincidence that Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, author of the Econ 101 text and that 10-item list, is also founder of “The Pigou Club.”
Check out his club manifesto there, and observe carbon dioxide on the list.
You know, I probably sound like I’m not being serious with that “people are dumb” stuff, but consider.
The stand-up economist’s items 3 and 4:
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
Map into Mankiw’s items 3 and 4:
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
Those rules expand thus:
# Rational People Think at the Margin.
A rational decision-maker takes action if and only if the marginal benefit of the action exceeds the marginal cost.
# People Respond to Incentives.
Behavior changes when costs or benefits change.
Right there we are into GW decision-making. Robert worries that people will not see marginal benefits for marginal costs. And rightly so. There is little marginal affect apparent to the man in the street.
Which is why we rationally argue for incentives to drive the behavior home.
It is not a coincidence that Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, author of the Econ 101 text and that 10-item list, is also founder of “The Pigou Club.”
Check out his club manifesto there, and observe carbon dioxide on the list.
To be sure, concerns about Global Warming due to rising CO2 emission are serious. But, go to any Ice Age website, and check out the previous 400,000 years. We are on the cusp of another Ice Age, if past patterns prevail. Indeed, past pstterns indicate we are at an apex in temperatures right now.
An Ice Age would be a lot worse than Global Warming! And, we ran into Ice Ages, despite some previous epochs having far higher CO2 levels than now.
Those with children might want to assemble some land in cities just south of the equator. The southern half of the globe does not freeze up, and the equator is the warmest place.
Forget Canada.
In practice, however, I think we should radically curtail consumption of fossil oil, for environmental and political reasons. Pollution is bad, lowers the quality of life, hurts property values, shortens lives.
Buying trillions of dollars in oil from the most repressive brutal backward Thug States is not my idea of a foreign policy.
So, let’s go solar, geothermal, nukes, wind and PHEVs!
To be sure, concerns about Global Warming due to rising CO2 emission are serious. But, go to any Ice Age website, and check out the previous 400,000 years. We are on the cusp of another Ice Age, if past patterns prevail. Indeed, past pstterns indicate we are at an apex in temperatures right now.
An Ice Age would be a lot worse than Global Warming! And, we ran into Ice Ages, despite some previous epochs having far higher CO2 levels than now.
Those with children might want to assemble some land in cities just south of the equator. The southern half of the globe does not freeze up, and the equator is the warmest place.
Forget Canada.
In practice, however, I think we should radically curtail consumption of fossil oil, for environmental and political reasons. Pollution is bad, lowers the quality of life, hurts property values, shortens lives.
Buying trillions of dollars in oil from the most repressive brutal backward Thug States is not my idea of a foreign policy.
So, let’s go solar, geothermal, nukes, wind and PHEVs!
To be sure, concerns about Global Warming due to rising CO2 emission are serious. But, go to any Ice Age website, and check out the previous 400,000 years. We are on the cusp of another Ice Age, if past patterns prevail. Indeed, past pstterns indicate we are at an apex in temperatures right now.
An Ice Age would be a lot worse than Global Warming! And, we ran into Ice Ages, despite some previous epochs having far higher CO2 levels than now.
Those with children might want to assemble some land in cities just south of the equator. The southern half of the globe does not freeze up, and the equator is the warmest place.
Forget Canada.
In practice, however, I think we should radically curtail consumption of fossil oil, for environmental and political reasons. Pollution is bad, lowers the quality of life, hurts property values, shortens lives.
Buying trillions of dollars in oil from the most repressive brutal backward Thug States is not my idea of a foreign policy.
So, let’s go solar, geothermal, nukes, wind and PHEVs!
To be sure, concerns about Global Warming due to rising CO2 emission are serious. But, go to any Ice Age website, and check out the previous 400,000 years. We are on the cusp of another Ice Age, if past patterns prevail. Indeed, past pstterns indicate we are at an apex in temperatures right now.
An Ice Age would be a lot worse than Global Warming! And, we ran into Ice Ages, despite some previous epochs having far higher CO2 levels than now.
Those with children might want to assemble some land in cities just south of the equator. The southern half of the globe does not freeze up, and the equator is the warmest place.
Forget Canada.
In practice, however, I think we should radically curtail consumption of fossil oil, for environmental and political reasons. Pollution is bad, lowers the quality of life, hurts property values, shortens lives.
Buying trillions of dollars in oil from the most repressive brutal backward Thug States is not my idea of a foreign policy.
So, let’s go solar, geothermal, nukes, wind and PHEVs!
To be sure, concerns about Global Warming due to rising CO2 emission are serious. But, go to any Ice Age website, and check out the previous 400,000 years. We are on the cusp of another Ice Age, if past patterns prevail. Indeed, past pstterns indicate we are at an apex in temperatures right now.
An Ice Age would be a lot worse than Global Warming! And, we ran into Ice Ages, despite some previous epochs having far higher CO2 levels than now.
Those with children might want to assemble some land in cities just south of the equator. The southern half of the globe does not freeze up, and the equator is the warmest place.
Forget Canada.
In practice, however, I think we should radically curtail consumption of fossil oil, for environmental and political reasons. Pollution is bad, lowers the quality of life, hurts property values, shortens lives.
Buying trillions of dollars in oil from the most repressive brutal backward Thug States is not my idea of a foreign policy.
So, let’s go solar, geothermal, nukes, wind and PHEVs!
To be sure, concerns about Global Warming due to rising CO2 emission are serious. But, go to any Ice Age website, and check out the previous 400,000 years. We are on the cusp of another Ice Age, if past patterns prevail. Indeed, past pstterns indicate we are at an apex in temperatures right now.
An Ice Age would be a lot worse than Global Warming! And, we ran into Ice Ages, despite some previous epochs having far higher CO2 levels than now.
Those with children might want to assemble some land in cities just south of the equator. The southern half of the globe does not freeze up, and the equator is the warmest place.
Forget Canada.
In practice, however, I think we should radically curtail consumption of fossil oil, for environmental and political reasons. Pollution is bad, lowers the quality of life, hurts property values, shortens lives.
Buying trillions of dollars in oil from the most repressive brutal backward Thug States is not my idea of a foreign policy.
So, let’s go solar, geothermal, nukes, wind and PHEVs!
To be sure, concerns about Global Warming due to rising CO2 emission are serious. But, go to any Ice Age website, and check out the previous 400,000 years. We are on the cusp of another Ice Age, if past patterns prevail. Indeed, past pstterns indicate we are at an apex in temperatures right now.
An Ice Age would be a lot worse than Global Warming! And, we ran into Ice Ages, despite some previous epochs having far higher CO2 levels than now.
Those with children might want to assemble some land in cities just south of the equator. The southern half of the globe does not freeze up, and the equator is the warmest place.
Forget Canada.
In practice, however, I think we should radically curtail consumption of fossil oil, for environmental and political reasons. Pollution is bad, lowers the quality of life, hurts property values, shortens lives.
Buying trillions of dollars in oil from the most repressive brutal backward Thug States is not my idea of a foreign policy.
So, let’s go solar, geothermal, nukes, wind and PHEVs!
To be sure, concerns about Global Warming due to rising CO2 emission are serious. But, go to any Ice Age website, and check out the previous 400,000 years. We are on the cusp of another Ice Age, if past patterns prevail. Indeed, past pstterns indicate we are at an apex in temperatures right now.
An Ice Age would be a lot worse than Global Warming! And, we ran into Ice Ages, despite some previous epochs having far higher CO2 levels than now.
Those with children might want to assemble some land in cities just south of the equator. The southern half of the globe does not freeze up, and the equator is the warmest place.
Forget Canada.
In practice, however, I think we should radically curtail consumption of fossil oil, for environmental and political reasons. Pollution is bad, lowers the quality of life, hurts property values, shortens lives.
Buying trillions of dollars in oil from the most repressive brutal backward Thug States is not my idea of a foreign policy.
So, let’s go solar, geothermal, nukes, wind and PHEVs!
To be sure, concerns about Global Warming due to rising CO2 emission are serious. But, go to any Ice Age website, and check out the previous 400,000 years. We are on the cusp of another Ice Age, if past patterns prevail. Indeed, past pstterns indicate we are at an apex in temperatures right now.
An Ice Age would be a lot worse than Global Warming! And, we ran into Ice Ages, despite some previous epochs having far higher CO2 levels than now.
Those with children might want to assemble some land in cities just south of the equator. The southern half of the globe does not freeze up, and the equator is the warmest place.
Forget Canada.
In practice, however, I think we should radically curtail consumption of fossil oil, for environmental and political reasons. Pollution is bad, lowers the quality of life, hurts property values, shortens lives.
Buying trillions of dollars in oil from the most repressive brutal backward Thug States is not my idea of a foreign policy.
So, let’s go solar, geothermal, nukes, wind and PHEVs!
To be sure, concerns about Global Warming due to rising CO2 emission are serious. But, go to any Ice Age website, and check out the previous 400,000 years. We are on the cusp of another Ice Age, if past patterns prevail. Indeed, past pstterns indicate we are at an apex in temperatures right now.
An Ice Age would be a lot worse than Global Warming! And, we ran into Ice Ages, despite some previous epochs having far higher CO2 levels than now.
Those with children might want to assemble some land in cities just south of the equator. The southern half of the globe does not freeze up, and the equator is the warmest place.
Forget Canada.
In practice, however, I think we should radically curtail consumption of fossil oil, for environmental and political reasons. Pollution is bad, lowers the quality of life, hurts property values, shortens lives.
Buying trillions of dollars in oil from the most repressive brutal backward Thug States is not my idea of a foreign policy.
So, let’s go solar, geothermal, nukes, wind and PHEVs!
Carbon tax is as I see it a two way street. It gives large business concerns a way out and caoms there conscience, and number two It quells a lot of the fears of people whom want a cleaner future. Carbon tax also says “see we are doing somthing”. I wonder what would happen if the question was changed to read “How much money would you pay as a one time fee to stop glogal warming?” The human being is indeed a funny animal. If the refridgerator breaks down we grumble but we just go out and buy a new one (one time large expendature) however if the price of gasoline is to up by three dollars and I have to pay that increase each and every time I go in to buy gas, well that is just plain terrible even though it will take a very long time to equal the refriderator purchase.
Global warming can indeed be stopped and backed to 1960 averages. Just sell the people something that will fix global warming while at the same time save them future money.
Carbon tax is as I see it a two way street. It gives large business concerns a way out and caoms there conscience, and number two It quells a lot of the fears of people whom want a cleaner future. Carbon tax also says “see we are doing somthing”. I wonder what would happen if the question was changed to read “How much money would you pay as a one time fee to stop glogal warming?” The human being is indeed a funny animal. If the refridgerator breaks down we grumble but we just go out and buy a new one (one time large expendature) however if the price of gasoline is to up by three dollars and I have to pay that increase each and every time I go in to buy gas, well that is just plain terrible even though it will take a very long time to equal the refriderator purchase.
Global warming can indeed be stopped and backed to 1960 averages. Just sell the people something that will fix global warming while at the same time save them future money.
Carbon tax is as I see it a two way street. It gives large business concerns a way out and caoms there conscience, and number two It quells a lot of the fears of people whom want a cleaner future. Carbon tax also says “see we are doing somthing”. I wonder what would happen if the question was changed to read “How much money would you pay as a one time fee to stop glogal warming?” The human being is indeed a funny animal. If the refridgerator breaks down we grumble but we just go out and buy a new one (one time large expendature) however if the price of gasoline is to up by three dollars and I have to pay that increase each and every time I go in to buy gas, well that is just plain terrible even though it will take a very long time to equal the refriderator purchase.
Global warming can indeed be stopped and backed to 1960 averages. Just sell the people something that will fix global warming while at the same time save them future money.
Carbon tax is as I see it a two way street. It gives large business concerns a way out and caoms there conscience, and number two It quells a lot of the fears of people whom want a cleaner future. Carbon tax also says “see we are doing somthing”. I wonder what would happen if the question was changed to read “How much money would you pay as a one time fee to stop glogal warming?” The human being is indeed a funny animal. If the refridgerator breaks down we grumble but we just go out and buy a new one (one time large expendature) however if the price of gasoline is to up by three dollars and I have to pay that increase each and every time I go in to buy gas, well that is just plain terrible even though it will take a very long time to equal the refriderator purchase.
Global warming can indeed be stopped and backed to 1960 averages. Just sell the people something that will fix global warming while at the same time save them future money.
Carbon tax is as I see it a two way street. It gives large business concerns a way out and caoms there conscience, and number two It quells a lot of the fears of people whom want a cleaner future. Carbon tax also says “see we are doing somthing”. I wonder what would happen if the question was changed to read “How much money would you pay as a one time fee to stop glogal warming?” The human being is indeed a funny animal. If the refridgerator breaks down we grumble but we just go out and buy a new one (one time large expendature) however if the price of gasoline is to up by three dollars and I have to pay that increase each and every time I go in to buy gas, well that is just plain terrible even though it will take a very long time to equal the refriderator purchase.
Global warming can indeed be stopped and backed to 1960 averages. Just sell the people something that will fix global warming while at the same time save them future money.
Carbon tax is as I see it a two way street. It gives large business concerns a way out and caoms there conscience, and number two It quells a lot of the fears of people whom want a cleaner future. Carbon tax also says “see we are doing somthing”. I wonder what would happen if the question was changed to read “How much money would you pay as a one time fee to stop glogal warming?” The human being is indeed a funny animal. If the refridgerator breaks down we grumble but we just go out and buy a new one (one time large expendature) however if the price of gasoline is to up by three dollars and I have to pay that increase each and every time I go in to buy gas, well that is just plain terrible even though it will take a very long time to equal the refriderator purchase.
Global warming can indeed be stopped and backed to 1960 averages. Just sell the people something that will fix global warming while at the same time save them future money.
Carbon tax is as I see it a two way street. It gives large business concerns a way out and caoms there conscience, and number two It quells a lot of the fears of people whom want a cleaner future. Carbon tax also says “see we are doing somthing”. I wonder what would happen if the question was changed to read “How much money would you pay as a one time fee to stop glogal warming?” The human being is indeed a funny animal. If the refridgerator breaks down we grumble but we just go out and buy a new one (one time large expendature) however if the price of gasoline is to up by three dollars and I have to pay that increase each and every time I go in to buy gas, well that is just plain terrible even though it will take a very long time to equal the refriderator purchase.
Global warming can indeed be stopped and backed to 1960 averages. Just sell the people something that will fix global warming while at the same time save them future money.
Carbon tax is as I see it a two way street. It gives large business concerns a way out and caoms there conscience, and number two It quells a lot of the fears of people whom want a cleaner future. Carbon tax also says “see we are doing somthing”. I wonder what would happen if the question was changed to read “How much money would you pay as a one time fee to stop glogal warming?” The human being is indeed a funny animal. If the refridgerator breaks down we grumble but we just go out and buy a new one (one time large expendature) however if the price of gasoline is to up by three dollars and I have to pay that increase each and every time I go in to buy gas, well that is just plain terrible even though it will take a very long time to equal the refriderator purchase.
Global warming can indeed be stopped and backed to 1960 averages. Just sell the people something that will fix global warming while at the same time save them future money.
Carbon tax is as I see it a two way street. It gives large business concerns a way out and caoms there conscience, and number two It quells a lot of the fears of people whom want a cleaner future. Carbon tax also says “see we are doing somthing”. I wonder what would happen if the question was changed to read “How much money would you pay as a one time fee to stop glogal warming?” The human being is indeed a funny animal. If the refridgerator breaks down we grumble but we just go out and buy a new one (one time large expendature) however if the price of gasoline is to up by three dollars and I have to pay that increase each and every time I go in to buy gas, well that is just plain terrible even though it will take a very long time to equal the refriderator purchase.
Global warming can indeed be stopped and backed to 1960 averages. Just sell the people something that will fix global warming while at the same time save them future money.
Carbon tax is as I see it a two way street. It gives large business concerns a way out and caoms there conscience, and number two It quells a lot of the fears of people whom want a cleaner future. Carbon tax also says “see we are doing somthing”. I wonder what would happen if the question was changed to read “How much money would you pay as a one time fee to stop glogal warming?” The human being is indeed a funny animal. If the refridgerator breaks down we grumble but we just go out and buy a new one (one time large expendature) however if the price of gasoline is to up by three dollars and I have to pay that increase each and every time I go in to buy gas, well that is just plain terrible even though it will take a very long time to equal the refriderator purchase.
Global warming can indeed be stopped and backed to 1960 averages. Just sell the people something that will fix global warming while at the same time save them future money.
Ice ages don’t happen over the course of 50-100 years — saying that human-induced global warming is just cancelling out an impending ice age is absurd. Its like putting spinach on your hamburger in hopes that the spinach will net out the fat.
Ice ages don’t happen over the course of 50-100 years — saying that human-induced global warming is just cancelling out an impending ice age is absurd. Its like putting spinach on your hamburger in hopes that the spinach will net out the fat.
Ice ages don’t happen over the course of 50-100 years — saying that human-induced global warming is just cancelling out an impending ice age is absurd. Its like putting spinach on your hamburger in hopes that the spinach will net out the fat.
Ice ages don’t happen over the course of 50-100 years — saying that human-induced global warming is just cancelling out an impending ice age is absurd. Its like putting spinach on your hamburger in hopes that the spinach will net out the fat.
Ice ages don’t happen over the course of 50-100 years — saying that human-induced global warming is just cancelling out an impending ice age is absurd. Its like putting spinach on your hamburger in hopes that the spinach will net out the fat.
Ice ages don’t happen over the course of 50-100 years — saying that human-induced global warming is just cancelling out an impending ice age is absurd. Its like putting spinach on your hamburger in hopes that the spinach will net out the fat.
Ice ages don’t happen over the course of 50-100 years — saying that human-induced global warming is just cancelling out an impending ice age is absurd. Its like putting spinach on your hamburger in hopes that the spinach will net out the fat.
Ice ages don’t happen over the course of 50-100 years — saying that human-induced global warming is just cancelling out an impending ice age is absurd. Its like putting spinach on your hamburger in hopes that the spinach will net out the fat.
Ice ages don’t happen over the course of 50-100 years — saying that human-induced global warming is just cancelling out an impending ice age is absurd. Its like putting spinach on your hamburger in hopes that the spinach will net out the fat.
Ice ages don’t happen over the course of 50-100 years — saying that human-induced global warming is just cancelling out an impending ice age is absurd. Its like putting spinach on your hamburger in hopes that the spinach will net out the fat.
Global warming is an engineering problem: We need to transfer more heat to outer space.
Eventually an engineer is going to figure it out.
First, the problem needs to get urgent enough so that somebody would pay up for a solution. Brace yourself!
Global warming is an engineering problem: We need to transfer more heat to outer space.
Eventually an engineer is going to figure it out.
First, the problem needs to get urgent enough so that somebody would pay up for a solution. Brace yourself!
Global warming is an engineering problem: We need to transfer more heat to outer space.
Eventually an engineer is going to figure it out.
First, the problem needs to get urgent enough so that somebody would pay up for a solution. Brace yourself!
Global warming is an engineering problem: We need to transfer more heat to outer space.
Eventually an engineer is going to figure it out.
First, the problem needs to get urgent enough so that somebody would pay up for a solution. Brace yourself!
Global warming is an engineering problem: We need to transfer more heat to outer space.
Eventually an engineer is going to figure it out.
First, the problem needs to get urgent enough so that somebody would pay up for a solution. Brace yourself!
Global warming is an engineering problem: We need to transfer more heat to outer space.
Eventually an engineer is going to figure it out.
First, the problem needs to get urgent enough so that somebody would pay up for a solution. Brace yourself!
Global warming is an engineering problem: We need to transfer more heat to outer space.
Eventually an engineer is going to figure it out.
First, the problem needs to get urgent enough so that somebody would pay up for a solution. Brace yourself!
Global warming is an engineering problem: We need to transfer more heat to outer space.
Eventually an engineer is going to figure it out.
First, the problem needs to get urgent enough so that somebody would pay up for a solution. Brace yourself!
Global warming is an engineering problem: We need to transfer more heat to outer space.
Eventually an engineer is going to figure it out.
First, the problem needs to get urgent enough so that somebody would pay up for a solution. Brace yourself!
Global warming is an engineering problem: We need to transfer more heat to outer space.
Eventually an engineer is going to figure it out.
First, the problem needs to get urgent enough so that somebody would pay up for a solution. Brace yourself!
We will never achieve zero net CO2 through voluntarily sacrifice. It can only happen through force (e.g. global dictatorship) or innovation.
We will never achieve zero net CO2 through voluntarily sacrifice. It can only happen through force (e.g. global dictatorship) or innovation.
We will never achieve zero net CO2 through voluntarily sacrifice. It can only happen through force (e.g. global dictatorship) or innovation.
We will never achieve zero net CO2 through voluntarily sacrifice. It can only happen through force (e.g. global dictatorship) or innovation.
We will never achieve zero net CO2 through voluntarily sacrifice. It can only happen through force (e.g. global dictatorship) or innovation.
We will never achieve zero net CO2 through voluntarily sacrifice. It can only happen through force (e.g. global dictatorship) or innovation.
We will never achieve zero net CO2 through voluntarily sacrifice. It can only happen through force (e.g. global dictatorship) or innovation.
We will never achieve zero net CO2 through voluntarily sacrifice. It can only happen through force (e.g. global dictatorship) or innovation.
We will never achieve zero net CO2 through voluntarily sacrifice. It can only happen through force (e.g. global dictatorship) or innovation.
We will never achieve zero net CO2 through voluntarily sacrifice. It can only happen through force (e.g. global dictatorship) or innovation.
Simple solution.
Frame Global Warming into a National Security context.
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Besides which, since when has not having the money to spend stopped Republicans from spending?
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png
Simple solution.
Frame Global Warming into a National Security context.
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Besides which, since when has not having the money to spend stopped Republicans from spending?
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png
Simple solution.
Frame Global Warming into a National Security context.
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Besides which, since when has not having the money to spend stopped Republicans from spending?
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png
Simple solution.
Frame Global Warming into a National Security context.
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Besides which, since when has not having the money to spend stopped Republicans from spending?
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png
Simple solution.
Frame Global Warming into a National Security context.
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Besides which, since when has not having the money to spend stopped Republicans from spending?
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png
Simple solution.
Frame Global Warming into a National Security context.
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Besides which, since when has not having the money to spend stopped Republicans from spending?
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png
Simple solution.
Frame Global Warming into a National Security context.
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Besides which, since when has not having the money to spend stopped Republicans from spending?
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png
Simple solution.
Frame Global Warming into a National Security context.
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Besides which, since when has not having the money to spend stopped Republicans from spending?
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png
Simple solution.
Frame Global Warming into a National Security context.
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Besides which, since when has not having the money to spend stopped Republicans from spending?
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png
Simple solution.
Frame Global Warming into a National Security context.
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Besides which, since when has not having the money to spend stopped Republicans from spending?
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png
How about we make it more undeniable.
When you add carbon to water. It turns into carbonic acid.
You make the ocean too acidic and you have a massive die-out of ocean species.
Much of which human society is utterly dependant on.
Well guess what, thats happening.
To the extent that it’s going to be more acidic than it’s been in a couple millinea.
Which certainly isn’t that long on a geologic/evolutionary timescale.
But for a historical timescale, we can’t wait a couple hundreds of thousands of years to recover from that.
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
How about we make it more undeniable.
When you add carbon to water. It turns into carbonic acid.
You make the ocean too acidic and you have a massive die-out of ocean species.
Much of which human society is utterly dependant on.
Well guess what, thats happening.
To the extent that it’s going to be more acidic than it’s been in a couple millinea.
Which certainly isn’t that long on a geologic/evolutionary timescale.
But for a historical timescale, we can’t wait a couple hundreds of thousands of years to recover from that.
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
How about we make it more undeniable.
When you add carbon to water. It turns into carbonic acid.
You make the ocean too acidic and you have a massive die-out of ocean species.
Much of which human society is utterly dependant on.
Well guess what, thats happening.
To the extent that it’s going to be more acidic than it’s been in a couple millinea.
Which certainly isn’t that long on a geologic/evolutionary timescale.
But for a historical timescale, we can’t wait a couple hundreds of thousands of years to recover from that.
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
How about we make it more undeniable.
When you add carbon to water. It turns into carbonic acid.
You make the ocean too acidic and you have a massive die-out of ocean species.
Much of which human society is utterly dependant on.
Well guess what, thats happening.
To the extent that it’s going to be more acidic than it’s been in a couple millinea.
Which certainly isn’t that long on a geologic/evolutionary timescale.
But for a historical timescale, we can’t wait a couple hundreds of thousands of years to recover from that.
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
How about we make it more undeniable.
When you add carbon to water. It turns into carbonic acid.
You make the ocean too acidic and you have a massive die-out of ocean species.
Much of which human society is utterly dependant on.
Well guess what, thats happening.
To the extent that it’s going to be more acidic than it’s been in a couple millinea.
Which certainly isn’t that long on a geologic/evolutionary timescale.
But for a historical timescale, we can’t wait a couple hundreds of thousands of years to recover from that.
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
How about we make it more undeniable.
When you add carbon to water. It turns into carbonic acid.
You make the ocean too acidic and you have a massive die-out of ocean species.
Much of which human society is utterly dependant on.
Well guess what, thats happening.
To the extent that it’s going to be more acidic than it’s been in a couple millinea.
Which certainly isn’t that long on a geologic/evolutionary timescale.
But for a historical timescale, we can’t wait a couple hundreds of thousands of years to recover from that.
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
How about we make it more undeniable.
When you add carbon to water. It turns into carbonic acid.
You make the ocean too acidic and you have a massive die-out of ocean species.
Much of which human society is utterly dependant on.
Well guess what, thats happening.
To the extent that it’s going to be more acidic than it’s been in a couple millinea.
Which certainly isn’t that long on a geologic/evolutionary timescale.
But for a historical timescale, we can’t wait a couple hundreds of thousands of years to recover from that.
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
How about we make it more undeniable.
When you add carbon to water. It turns into carbonic acid.
You make the ocean too acidic and you have a massive die-out of ocean species.
Much of which human society is utterly dependant on.
Well guess what, thats happening.
To the extent that it’s going to be more acidic than it’s been in a couple millinea.
Which certainly isn’t that long on a geologic/evolutionary timescale.
But for a historical timescale, we can’t wait a couple hundreds of thousands of years to recover from that.
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
How about we make it more undeniable.
When you add carbon to water. It turns into carbonic acid.
You make the ocean too acidic and you have a massive die-out of ocean species.
Much of which human society is utterly dependant on.
Well guess what, thats happening.
To the extent that it’s going to be more acidic than it’s been in a couple millinea.
Which certainly isn’t that long on a geologic/evolutionary timescale.
But for a historical timescale, we can’t wait a couple hundreds of thousands of years to recover from that.
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
How about we make it more undeniable.
When you add carbon to water. It turns into carbonic acid.
You make the ocean too acidic and you have a massive die-out of ocean species.
Much of which human society is utterly dependant on.
Well guess what, thats happening.
To the extent that it’s going to be more acidic than it’s been in a couple millinea.
Which certainly isn’t that long on a geologic/evolutionary timescale.
But for a historical timescale, we can’t wait a couple hundreds of thousands of years to recover from that.
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
==Unfortunately, every time he tries to discuss his position, he is shouted down. I think it is unfortunate that the topic is often treated as something that can’t be discussed rationally.==
You have to draw the line somewhere though.
Me I don’t think it’s asking too much for people to get their science out of, or cited from, peer-reviewed physical science journals.
And not from books, magazines, or random websites.
I don’t see how you can have a “rational” scientific discussion any other way. Regardless of the scientific topic.
Since otherwise it’s no longer a debate of science. It’s a debate about dogmas. And those never end well.
==Unfortunately, every time he tries to discuss his position, he is shouted down. I think it is unfortunate that the topic is often treated as something that can’t be discussed rationally.==
You have to draw the line somewhere though.
Me I don’t think it’s asking too much for people to get their science out of, or cited from, peer-reviewed physical science journals.
And not from books, magazines, or random websites.
I don’t see how you can have a “rational” scientific discussion any other way. Regardless of the scientific topic.
Since otherwise it’s no longer a debate of science. It’s a debate about dogmas. And those never end well.
==Unfortunately, every time he tries to discuss his position, he is shouted down. I think it is unfortunate that the topic is often treated as something that can’t be discussed rationally.==
You have to draw the line somewhere though.
Me I don’t think it’s asking too much for people to get their science out of, or cited from, peer-reviewed physical science journals.
And not from books, magazines, or random websites.
I don’t see how you can have a “rational” scientific discussion any other way. Regardless of the scientific topic.
Since otherwise it’s no longer a debate of science. It’s a debate about dogmas. And those never end well.
==Unfortunately, every time he tries to discuss his position, he is shouted down. I think it is unfortunate that the topic is often treated as something that can’t be discussed rationally.==
You have to draw the line somewhere though.
Me I don’t think it’s asking too much for people to get their science out of, or cited from, peer-reviewed physical science journals.
And not from books, magazines, or random websites.
I don’t see how you can have a “rational” scientific discussion any other way. Regardless of the scientific topic.
Since otherwise it’s no longer a debate of science. It’s a debate about dogmas. And those never end well.
==Unfortunately, every time he tries to discuss his position, he is shouted down. I think it is unfortunate that the topic is often treated as something that can’t be discussed rationally.==
You have to draw the line somewhere though.
Me I don’t think it’s asking too much for people to get their science out of, or cited from, peer-reviewed physical science journals.
And not from books, magazines, or random websites.
I don’t see how you can have a “rational” scientific discussion any other way. Regardless of the scientific topic.
Since otherwise it’s no longer a debate of science. It’s a debate about dogmas. And those never end well.
==Unfortunately, every time he tries to discuss his position, he is shouted down. I think it is unfortunate that the topic is often treated as something that can’t be discussed rationally.==
You have to draw the line somewhere though.
Me I don’t think it’s asking too much for people to get their science out of, or cited from, peer-reviewed physical science journals.
And not from books, magazines, or random websites.
I don’t see how you can have a “rational” scientific discussion any other way. Regardless of the scientific topic.
Since otherwise it’s no longer a debate of science. It’s a debate about dogmas. And those never end well.
==Unfortunately, every time he tries to discuss his position, he is shouted down. I think it is unfortunate that the topic is often treated as something that can’t be discussed rationally.==
You have to draw the line somewhere though.
Me I don’t think it’s asking too much for people to get their science out of, or cited from, peer-reviewed physical science journals.
And not from books, magazines, or random websites.
I don’t see how you can have a “rational” scientific discussion any other way. Regardless of the scientific topic.
Since otherwise it’s no longer a debate of science. It’s a debate about dogmas. And those never end well.
==Unfortunately, every time he tries to discuss his position, he is shouted down. I think it is unfortunate that the topic is often treated as something that can’t be discussed rationally.==
You have to draw the line somewhere though.
Me I don’t think it’s asking too much for people to get their science out of, or cited from, peer-reviewed physical science journals.
And not from books, magazines, or random websites.
I don’t see how you can have a “rational” scientific discussion any other way. Regardless of the scientific topic.
Since otherwise it’s no longer a debate of science. It’s a debate about dogmas. And those never end well.
==Unfortunately, every time he tries to discuss his position, he is shouted down. I think it is unfortunate that the topic is often treated as something that can’t be discussed rationally.==
You have to draw the line somewhere though.
Me I don’t think it’s asking too much for people to get their science out of, or cited from, peer-reviewed physical science journals.
And not from books, magazines, or random websites.
I don’t see how you can have a “rational” scientific discussion any other way. Regardless of the scientific topic.
Since otherwise it’s no longer a debate of science. It’s a debate about dogmas. And those never end well.
==Unfortunately, every time he tries to discuss his position, he is shouted down. I think it is unfortunate that the topic is often treated as something that can’t be discussed rationally.==
You have to draw the line somewhere though.
Me I don’t think it’s asking too much for people to get their science out of, or cited from, peer-reviewed physical science journals.
And not from books, magazines, or random websites.
I don’t see how you can have a “rational” scientific discussion any other way. Regardless of the scientific topic.
Since otherwise it’s no longer a debate of science. It’s a debate about dogmas. And those never end well.
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
But turning to direct carbon taxes and indirect taxes such as cap & trade, have we learned nothing from the last century’s worth of big government screwing up? The politicians always forget the unintended consequence.
Here is only one possible unintended consequence of carbon taxes — the higher economic rent would end up in the hands of the exporters, not in the hands of importing governments.
Exporting countries sell oil today for under $100, and out of that they have to meet all their present costs & future investments. The over-taxed European consumer buys diesel or gasoline at the equivalent of an oil price of $250 – 300. European governments are pocketing $150-200 per barrel — more than the producer gets! Is that fair?
The inequity has been difficult for the exporters to deal with because a lot of oil goes to the US which has only normal taxes on oil. If the US joins Europe and adopts a high tax (direct or indirect) on oil, we should not be surprised if the exporters then start demanding a more equitable share of the expanded economic rent.
If those crazy westerners really want to pay a high price for oil, why should oil exporters deny them that privilege?
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
But turning to direct carbon taxes and indirect taxes such as cap & trade, have we learned nothing from the last century’s worth of big government screwing up? The politicians always forget the unintended consequence.
Here is only one possible unintended consequence of carbon taxes — the higher economic rent would end up in the hands of the exporters, not in the hands of importing governments.
Exporting countries sell oil today for under $100, and out of that they have to meet all their present costs & future investments. The over-taxed European consumer buys diesel or gasoline at the equivalent of an oil price of $250 – 300. European governments are pocketing $150-200 per barrel — more than the producer gets! Is that fair?
The inequity has been difficult for the exporters to deal with because a lot of oil goes to the US which has only normal taxes on oil. If the US joins Europe and adopts a high tax (direct or indirect) on oil, we should not be surprised if the exporters then start demanding a more equitable share of the expanded economic rent.
If those crazy westerners really want to pay a high price for oil, why should oil exporters deny them that privilege?
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
But turning to direct carbon taxes and indirect taxes such as cap & trade, have we learned nothing from the last century’s worth of big government screwing up? The politicians always forget the unintended consequence.
Here is only one possible unintended consequence of carbon taxes — the higher economic rent would end up in the hands of the exporters, not in the hands of importing governments.
Exporting countries sell oil today for under $100, and out of that they have to meet all their present costs & future investments. The over-taxed European consumer buys diesel or gasoline at the equivalent of an oil price of $250 – 300. European governments are pocketing $150-200 per barrel — more than the producer gets! Is that fair?
The inequity has been difficult for the exporters to deal with because a lot of oil goes to the US which has only normal taxes on oil. If the US joins Europe and adopts a high tax (direct or indirect) on oil, we should not be surprised if the exporters then start demanding a more equitable share of the expanded economic rent.
If those crazy westerners really want to pay a high price for oil, why should oil exporters deny them that privilege?
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
But turning to direct carbon taxes and indirect taxes such as cap & trade, have we learned nothing from the last century’s worth of big government screwing up? The politicians always forget the unintended consequence.
Here is only one possible unintended consequence of carbon taxes — the higher economic rent would end up in the hands of the exporters, not in the hands of importing governments.
Exporting countries sell oil today for under $100, and out of that they have to meet all their present costs & future investments. The over-taxed European consumer buys diesel or gasoline at the equivalent of an oil price of $250 – 300. European governments are pocketing $150-200 per barrel — more than the producer gets! Is that fair?
The inequity has been difficult for the exporters to deal with because a lot of oil goes to the US which has only normal taxes on oil. If the US joins Europe and adopts a high tax (direct or indirect) on oil, we should not be surprised if the exporters then start demanding a more equitable share of the expanded economic rent.
If those crazy westerners really want to pay a high price for oil, why should oil exporters deny them that privilege?
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
But turning to direct carbon taxes and indirect taxes such as cap & trade, have we learned nothing from the last century’s worth of big government screwing up? The politicians always forget the unintended consequence.
Here is only one possible unintended consequence of carbon taxes — the higher economic rent would end up in the hands of the exporters, not in the hands of importing governments.
Exporting countries sell oil today for under $100, and out of that they have to meet all their present costs & future investments. The over-taxed European consumer buys diesel or gasoline at the equivalent of an oil price of $250 – 300. European governments are pocketing $150-200 per barrel — more than the producer gets! Is that fair?
The inequity has been difficult for the exporters to deal with because a lot of oil goes to the US which has only normal taxes on oil. If the US joins Europe and adopts a high tax (direct or indirect) on oil, we should not be surprised if the exporters then start demanding a more equitable share of the expanded economic rent.
If those crazy westerners really want to pay a high price for oil, why should oil exporters deny them that privilege?
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
But turning to direct carbon taxes and indirect taxes such as cap & trade, have we learned nothing from the last century’s worth of big government screwing up? The politicians always forget the unintended consequence.
Here is only one possible unintended consequence of carbon taxes — the higher economic rent would end up in the hands of the exporters, not in the hands of importing governments.
Exporting countries sell oil today for under $100, and out of that they have to meet all their present costs & future investments. The over-taxed European consumer buys diesel or gasoline at the equivalent of an oil price of $250 – 300. European governments are pocketing $150-200 per barrel — more than the producer gets! Is that fair?
The inequity has been difficult for the exporters to deal with because a lot of oil goes to the US which has only normal taxes on oil. If the US joins Europe and adopts a high tax (direct or indirect) on oil, we should not be surprised if the exporters then start demanding a more equitable share of the expanded economic rent.
If those crazy westerners really want to pay a high price for oil, why should oil exporters deny them that privilege?
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
But turning to direct carbon taxes and indirect taxes such as cap & trade, have we learned nothing from the last century’s worth of big government screwing up? The politicians always forget the unintended consequence.
Here is only one possible unintended consequence of carbon taxes — the higher economic rent would end up in the hands of the exporters, not in the hands of importing governments.
Exporting countries sell oil today for under $100, and out of that they have to meet all their present costs & future investments. The over-taxed European consumer buys diesel or gasoline at the equivalent of an oil price of $250 – 300. European governments are pocketing $150-200 per barrel — more than the producer gets! Is that fair?
The inequity has been difficult for the exporters to deal with because a lot of oil goes to the US which has only normal taxes on oil. If the US joins Europe and adopts a high tax (direct or indirect) on oil, we should not be surprised if the exporters then start demanding a more equitable share of the expanded economic rent.
If those crazy westerners really want to pay a high price for oil, why should oil exporters deny them that privilege?
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
But turning to direct carbon taxes and indirect taxes such as cap & trade, have we learned nothing from the last century’s worth of big government screwing up? The politicians always forget the unintended consequence.
Here is only one possible unintended consequence of carbon taxes — the higher economic rent would end up in the hands of the exporters, not in the hands of importing governments.
Exporting countries sell oil today for under $100, and out of that they have to meet all their present costs & future investments. The over-taxed European consumer buys diesel or gasoline at the equivalent of an oil price of $250 – 300. European governments are pocketing $150-200 per barrel — more than the producer gets! Is that fair?
The inequity has been difficult for the exporters to deal with because a lot of oil goes to the US which has only normal taxes on oil. If the US joins Europe and adopts a high tax (direct or indirect) on oil, we should not be surprised if the exporters then start demanding a more equitable share of the expanded economic rent.
If those crazy westerners really want to pay a high price for oil, why should oil exporters deny them that privilege?
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
But turning to direct carbon taxes and indirect taxes such as cap & trade, have we learned nothing from the last century’s worth of big government screwing up? The politicians always forget the unintended consequence.
Here is only one possible unintended consequence of carbon taxes — the higher economic rent would end up in the hands of the exporters, not in the hands of importing governments.
Exporting countries sell oil today for under $100, and out of that they have to meet all their present costs & future investments. The over-taxed European consumer buys diesel or gasoline at the equivalent of an oil price of $250 – 300. European governments are pocketing $150-200 per barrel — more than the producer gets! Is that fair?
The inequity has been difficult for the exporters to deal with because a lot of oil goes to the US which has only normal taxes on oil. If the US joins Europe and adopts a high tax (direct or indirect) on oil, we should not be surprised if the exporters then start demanding a more equitable share of the expanded economic rent.
If those crazy westerners really want to pay a high price for oil, why should oil exporters deny them that privilege?
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
But turning to direct carbon taxes and indirect taxes such as cap & trade, have we learned nothing from the last century’s worth of big government screwing up? The politicians always forget the unintended consequence.
Here is only one possible unintended consequence of carbon taxes — the higher economic rent would end up in the hands of the exporters, not in the hands of importing governments.
Exporting countries sell oil today for under $100, and out of that they have to meet all their present costs & future investments. The over-taxed European consumer buys diesel or gasoline at the equivalent of an oil price of $250 – 300. European governments are pocketing $150-200 per barrel — more than the producer gets! Is that fair?
The inequity has been difficult for the exporters to deal with because a lot of oil goes to the US which has only normal taxes on oil. If the US joins Europe and adopts a high tax (direct or indirect) on oil, we should not be surprised if the exporters then start demanding a more equitable share of the expanded economic rent.
If those crazy westerners really want to pay a high price for oil, why should oil exporters deny them that privilege?
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
Right. So how come when a climatologist wanted to organize a public debate about global warming, he was unable to find any skeptics willing to face him?
The reality is that 99% of the scientific community that has any applicable background at all is united on the basic position: Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor. Whereas if you dig into the qualifications of the skeptical so-called experts, 99% of them aren’t any more qualified to have an opinion than you and I are. (Just as one example, Gristmill is doing an ongoing series checking out the people on Inhofe’s recently published list of 400 “skeptical scientists”.)
The only legitimate, qualified scientist of whom I’m aware who flatly denies AGW is Richard Lindzen. Now, granted, he’s a atmospheric physicist at MIT, so his credentials are excellent. But he’s ONE GUY.
In this context, your statement is nothing but an ad-hominem attack. So, hey, let’s be serious here: Cut it out.
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
Right. So how come when a climatologist wanted to organize a public debate about global warming, he was unable to find any skeptics willing to face him?
The reality is that 99% of the scientific community that has any applicable background at all is united on the basic position: Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor. Whereas if you dig into the qualifications of the skeptical so-called experts, 99% of them aren’t any more qualified to have an opinion than you and I are. (Just as one example, Gristmill is doing an ongoing series checking out the people on Inhofe’s recently published list of 400 “skeptical scientists”.)
The only legitimate, qualified scientist of whom I’m aware who flatly denies AGW is Richard Lindzen. Now, granted, he’s a atmospheric physicist at MIT, so his credentials are excellent. But he’s ONE GUY.
In this context, your statement is nothing but an ad-hominem attack. So, hey, let’s be serious here: Cut it out.
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
Right. So how come when a climatologist wanted to organize a public debate about global warming, he was unable to find any skeptics willing to face him?
The reality is that 99% of the scientific community that has any applicable background at all is united on the basic position: Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor. Whereas if you dig into the qualifications of the skeptical so-called experts, 99% of them aren’t any more qualified to have an opinion than you and I are. (Just as one example, Gristmill is doing an ongoing series checking out the people on Inhofe’s recently published list of 400 “skeptical scientists”.)
The only legitimate, qualified scientist of whom I’m aware who flatly denies AGW is Richard Lindzen. Now, granted, he’s a atmospheric physicist at MIT, so his credentials are excellent. But he’s ONE GUY.
In this context, your statement is nothing but an ad-hominem attack. So, hey, let’s be serious here: Cut it out.
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
Right. So how come when a climatologist wanted to organize a public debate about global warming, he was unable to find any skeptics willing to face him?
The reality is that 99% of the scientific community that has any applicable background at all is united on the basic position: Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor. Whereas if you dig into the qualifications of the skeptical so-called experts, 99% of them aren’t any more qualified to have an opinion than you and I are. (Just as one example, Gristmill is doing an ongoing series checking out the people on Inhofe’s recently published list of 400 “skeptical scientists”.)
The only legitimate, qualified scientist of whom I’m aware who flatly denies AGW is Richard Lindzen. Now, granted, he’s a atmospheric physicist at MIT, so his credentials are excellent. But he’s ONE GUY.
In this context, your statement is nothing but an ad-hominem attack. So, hey, let’s be serious here: Cut it out.
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
Right. So how come when a climatologist wanted to organize a public debate about global warming, he was unable to find any skeptics willing to face him?
The reality is that 99% of the scientific community that has any applicable background at all is united on the basic position: Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor. Whereas if you dig into the qualifications of the skeptical so-called experts, 99% of them aren’t any more qualified to have an opinion than you and I are. (Just as one example, Gristmill is doing an ongoing series checking out the people on Inhofe’s recently published list of 400 “skeptical scientists”.)
The only legitimate, qualified scientist of whom I’m aware who flatly denies AGW is Richard Lindzen. Now, granted, he’s a atmospheric physicist at MIT, so his credentials are excellent. But he’s ONE GUY.
In this context, your statement is nothing but an ad-hominem attack. So, hey, let’s be serious here: Cut it out.
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
Right. So how come when a climatologist wanted to organize a public debate about global warming, he was unable to find any skeptics willing to face him?
The reality is that 99% of the scientific community that has any applicable background at all is united on the basic position: Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor. Whereas if you dig into the qualifications of the skeptical so-called experts, 99% of them aren’t any more qualified to have an opinion than you and I are. (Just as one example, Gristmill is doing an ongoing series checking out the people on Inhofe’s recently published list of 400 “skeptical scientists”.)
The only legitimate, qualified scientist of whom I’m aware who flatly denies AGW is Richard Lindzen. Now, granted, he’s a atmospheric physicist at MIT, so his credentials are excellent. But he’s ONE GUY.
In this context, your statement is nothing but an ad-hominem attack. So, hey, let’s be serious here: Cut it out.
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
Right. So how come when a climatologist wanted to organize a public debate about global warming, he was unable to find any skeptics willing to face him?
The reality is that 99% of the scientific community that has any applicable background at all is united on the basic position: Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor. Whereas if you dig into the qualifications of the skeptical so-called experts, 99% of them aren’t any more qualified to have an opinion than you and I are. (Just as one example, Gristmill is doing an ongoing series checking out the people on Inhofe’s recently published list of 400 “skeptical scientists”.)
The only legitimate, qualified scientist of whom I’m aware who flatly denies AGW is Richard Lindzen. Now, granted, he’s a atmospheric physicist at MIT, so his credentials are excellent. But he’s ONE GUY.
In this context, your statement is nothing but an ad-hominem attack. So, hey, let’s be serious here: Cut it out.
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
Right. So how come when a climatologist wanted to organize a public debate about global warming, he was unable to find any skeptics willing to face him?
The reality is that 99% of the scientific community that has any applicable background at all is united on the basic position: Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor. Whereas if you dig into the qualifications of the skeptical so-called experts, 99% of them aren’t any more qualified to have an opinion than you and I are. (Just as one example, Gristmill is doing an ongoing series checking out the people on Inhofe’s recently published list of 400 “skeptical scientists”.)
The only legitimate, qualified scientist of whom I’m aware who flatly denies AGW is Richard Lindzen. Now, granted, he’s a atmospheric physicist at MIT, so his credentials are excellent. But he’s ONE GUY.
In this context, your statement is nothing but an ad-hominem attack. So, hey, let’s be serious here: Cut it out.
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
Right. So how come when a climatologist wanted to organize a public debate about global warming, he was unable to find any skeptics willing to face him?
The reality is that 99% of the scientific community that has any applicable background at all is united on the basic position: Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor. Whereas if you dig into the qualifications of the skeptical so-called experts, 99% of them aren’t any more qualified to have an opinion than you and I are. (Just as one example, Gristmill is doing an ongoing series checking out the people on Inhofe’s recently published list of 400 “skeptical scientists”.)
The only legitimate, qualified scientist of whom I’m aware who flatly denies AGW is Richard Lindzen. Now, granted, he’s a atmospheric physicist at MIT, so his credentials are excellent. But he’s ONE GUY.
In this context, your statement is nothing but an ad-hominem attack. So, hey, let’s be serious here: Cut it out.
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
Right. So how come when a climatologist wanted to organize a public debate about global warming, he was unable to find any skeptics willing to face him?
The reality is that 99% of the scientific community that has any applicable background at all is united on the basic position: Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor. Whereas if you dig into the qualifications of the skeptical so-called experts, 99% of them aren’t any more qualified to have an opinion than you and I are. (Just as one example, Gristmill is doing an ongoing series checking out the people on Inhofe’s recently published list of 400 “skeptical scientists”.)
The only legitimate, qualified scientist of whom I’m aware who flatly denies AGW is Richard Lindzen. Now, granted, he’s a atmospheric physicist at MIT, so his credentials are excellent. But he’s ONE GUY.
In this context, your statement is nothing but an ad-hominem attack. So, hey, let’s be serious here: Cut it out.
Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor.
Climate change has been real for hundreds of millions of years, based on real scientific geological evidence.
The planet came out of the most recent Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, and — Surprise! — it has been gently warming ever since.
Observational data on recent global warming (however defined) is much less definitive than alarmists assume — very sparse, unrepresentative data. But let’s assume for now that there is a recent underlying global warming trend.
The simplest hypothesis to explain such recent warming is a continuation of the gentle global warming trend (with fluctuations around it) that the world has seen for the last 10,000 years.
Anthropogenic global warmers ask us to reject the simple obvious explanation of continued natural processes — instead, they insert a different hypothesis that it is all the fault of those damn Europeans and their industrial revolution. That is quite a difficult case to support, scientifically speaking.
I have noticed that almost none of the anthropgenic global warming crowd will even try to make a scientific case. They chant “consensus”; they say it is too difficult for mere taxpayers to understand; they point to primitive mathematical models which predict global warming (because that is the way their mathematics were set up); they put their fingers in their metaphorical ears. But they will not discuss the science!
I am open-minded; would not be surprised if there is some recent global warming (natural or otherwise); am prepared to listen to a genuine scientific case explaining why any such warming is anthropogenic. But why is it so difficult to find a True Believer who will actually present a rational scientific case?
Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor.
Climate change has been real for hundreds of millions of years, based on real scientific geological evidence.
The planet came out of the most recent Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, and — Surprise! — it has been gently warming ever since.
Observational data on recent global warming (however defined) is much less definitive than alarmists assume — very sparse, unrepresentative data. But let’s assume for now that there is a recent underlying global warming trend.
The simplest hypothesis to explain such recent warming is a continuation of the gentle global warming trend (with fluctuations around it) that the world has seen for the last 10,000 years.
Anthropogenic global warmers ask us to reject the simple obvious explanation of continued natural processes — instead, they insert a different hypothesis that it is all the fault of those damn Europeans and their industrial revolution. That is quite a difficult case to support, scientifically speaking.
I have noticed that almost none of the anthropgenic global warming crowd will even try to make a scientific case. They chant “consensus”; they say it is too difficult for mere taxpayers to understand; they point to primitive mathematical models which predict global warming (because that is the way their mathematics were set up); they put their fingers in their metaphorical ears. But they will not discuss the science!
I am open-minded; would not be surprised if there is some recent global warming (natural or otherwise); am prepared to listen to a genuine scientific case explaining why any such warming is anthropogenic. But why is it so difficult to find a True Believer who will actually present a rational scientific case?
Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor.
Climate change has been real for hundreds of millions of years, based on real scientific geological evidence.
The planet came out of the most recent Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, and — Surprise! — it has been gently warming ever since.
Observational data on recent global warming (however defined) is much less definitive than alarmists assume — very sparse, unrepresentative data. But let’s assume for now that there is a recent underlying global warming trend.
The simplest hypothesis to explain such recent warming is a continuation of the gentle global warming trend (with fluctuations around it) that the world has seen for the last 10,000 years.
Anthropogenic global warmers ask us to reject the simple obvious explanation of continued natural processes — instead, they insert a different hypothesis that it is all the fault of those damn Europeans and their industrial revolution. That is quite a difficult case to support, scientifically speaking.
I have noticed that almost none of the anthropgenic global warming crowd will even try to make a scientific case. They chant “consensus”; they say it is too difficult for mere taxpayers to understand; they point to primitive mathematical models which predict global warming (because that is the way their mathematics were set up); they put their fingers in their metaphorical ears. But they will not discuss the science!
I am open-minded; would not be surprised if there is some recent global warming (natural or otherwise); am prepared to listen to a genuine scientific case explaining why any such warming is anthropogenic. But why is it so difficult to find a True Believer who will actually present a rational scientific case?
Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor.
Climate change has been real for hundreds of millions of years, based on real scientific geological evidence.
The planet came out of the most recent Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, and — Surprise! — it has been gently warming ever since.
Observational data on recent global warming (however defined) is much less definitive than alarmists assume — very sparse, unrepresentative data. But let’s assume for now that there is a recent underlying global warming trend.
The simplest hypothesis to explain such recent warming is a continuation of the gentle global warming trend (with fluctuations around it) that the world has seen for the last 10,000 years.
Anthropogenic global warmers ask us to reject the simple obvious explanation of continued natural processes — instead, they insert a different hypothesis that it is all the fault of those damn Europeans and their industrial revolution. That is quite a difficult case to support, scientifically speaking.
I have noticed that almost none of the anthropgenic global warming crowd will even try to make a scientific case. They chant “consensus”; they say it is too difficult for mere taxpayers to understand; they point to primitive mathematical models which predict global warming (because that is the way their mathematics were set up); they put their fingers in their metaphorical ears. But they will not discuss the science!
I am open-minded; would not be surprised if there is some recent global warming (natural or otherwise); am prepared to listen to a genuine scientific case explaining why any such warming is anthropogenic. But why is it so difficult to find a True Believer who will actually present a rational scientific case?
Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor.
Climate change has been real for hundreds of millions of years, based on real scientific geological evidence.
The planet came out of the most recent Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, and — Surprise! — it has been gently warming ever since.
Observational data on recent global warming (however defined) is much less definitive than alarmists assume — very sparse, unrepresentative data. But let’s assume for now that there is a recent underlying global warming trend.
The simplest hypothesis to explain such recent warming is a continuation of the gentle global warming trend (with fluctuations around it) that the world has seen for the last 10,000 years.
Anthropogenic global warmers ask us to reject the simple obvious explanation of continued natural processes — instead, they insert a different hypothesis that it is all the fault of those damn Europeans and their industrial revolution. That is quite a difficult case to support, scientifically speaking.
I have noticed that almost none of the anthropgenic global warming crowd will even try to make a scientific case. They chant “consensus”; they say it is too difficult for mere taxpayers to understand; they point to primitive mathematical models which predict global warming (because that is the way their mathematics were set up); they put their fingers in their metaphorical ears. But they will not discuss the science!
I am open-minded; would not be surprised if there is some recent global warming (natural or otherwise); am prepared to listen to a genuine scientific case explaining why any such warming is anthropogenic. But why is it so difficult to find a True Believer who will actually present a rational scientific case?
Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor.
Climate change has been real for hundreds of millions of years, based on real scientific geological evidence.
The planet came out of the most recent Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, and — Surprise! — it has been gently warming ever since.
Observational data on recent global warming (however defined) is much less definitive than alarmists assume — very sparse, unrepresentative data. But let’s assume for now that there is a recent underlying global warming trend.
The simplest hypothesis to explain such recent warming is a continuation of the gentle global warming trend (with fluctuations around it) that the world has seen for the last 10,000 years.
Anthropogenic global warmers ask us to reject the simple obvious explanation of continued natural processes — instead, they insert a different hypothesis that it is all the fault of those damn Europeans and their industrial revolution. That is quite a difficult case to support, scientifically speaking.
I have noticed that almost none of the anthropgenic global warming crowd will even try to make a scientific case. They chant “consensus”; they say it is too difficult for mere taxpayers to understand; they point to primitive mathematical models which predict global warming (because that is the way their mathematics were set up); they put their fingers in their metaphorical ears. But they will not discuss the science!
I am open-minded; would not be surprised if there is some recent global warming (natural or otherwise); am prepared to listen to a genuine scientific case explaining why any such warming is anthropogenic. But why is it so difficult to find a True Believer who will actually present a rational scientific case?
Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor.
Climate change has been real for hundreds of millions of years, based on real scientific geological evidence.
The planet came out of the most recent Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, and — Surprise! — it has been gently warming ever since.
Observational data on recent global warming (however defined) is much less definitive than alarmists assume — very sparse, unrepresentative data. But let’s assume for now that there is a recent underlying global warming trend.
The simplest hypothesis to explain such recent warming is a continuation of the gentle global warming trend (with fluctuations around it) that the world has seen for the last 10,000 years.
Anthropogenic global warmers ask us to reject the simple obvious explanation of continued natural processes — instead, they insert a different hypothesis that it is all the fault of those damn Europeans and their industrial revolution. That is quite a difficult case to support, scientifically speaking.
I have noticed that almost none of the anthropgenic global warming crowd will even try to make a scientific case. They chant “consensus”; they say it is too difficult for mere taxpayers to understand; they point to primitive mathematical models which predict global warming (because that is the way their mathematics were set up); they put their fingers in their metaphorical ears. But they will not discuss the science!
I am open-minded; would not be surprised if there is some recent global warming (natural or otherwise); am prepared to listen to a genuine scientific case explaining why any such warming is anthropogenic. But why is it so difficult to find a True Believer who will actually present a rational scientific case?
Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor.
Climate change has been real for hundreds of millions of years, based on real scientific geological evidence.
The planet came out of the most recent Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, and — Surprise! — it has been gently warming ever since.
Observational data on recent global warming (however defined) is much less definitive than alarmists assume — very sparse, unrepresentative data. But let’s assume for now that there is a recent underlying global warming trend.
The simplest hypothesis to explain such recent warming is a continuation of the gentle global warming trend (with fluctuations around it) that the world has seen for the last 10,000 years.
Anthropogenic global warmers ask us to reject the simple obvious explanation of continued natural processes — instead, they insert a different hypothesis that it is all the fault of those damn Europeans and their industrial revolution. That is quite a difficult case to support, scientifically speaking.
I have noticed that almost none of the anthropgenic global warming crowd will even try to make a scientific case. They chant “consensus”; they say it is too difficult for mere taxpayers to understand; they point to primitive mathematical models which predict global warming (because that is the way their mathematics were set up); they put their fingers in their metaphorical ears. But they will not discuss the science!
I am open-minded; would not be surprised if there is some recent global warming (natural or otherwise); am prepared to listen to a genuine scientific case explaining why any such warming is anthropogenic. But why is it so difficult to find a True Believer who will actually present a rational scientific case?
Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor.
Climate change has been real for hundreds of millions of years, based on real scientific geological evidence.
The planet came out of the most recent Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, and — Surprise! — it has been gently warming ever since.
Observational data on recent global warming (however defined) is much less definitive than alarmists assume — very sparse, unrepresentative data. But let’s assume for now that there is a recent underlying global warming trend.
The simplest hypothesis to explain such recent warming is a continuation of the gentle global warming trend (with fluctuations around it) that the world has seen for the last 10,000 years.
Anthropogenic global warmers ask us to reject the simple obvious explanation of continued natural processes — instead, they insert a different hypothesis that it is all the fault of those damn Europeans and their industrial revolution. That is quite a difficult case to support, scientifically speaking.
I have noticed that almost none of the anthropgenic global warming crowd will even try to make a scientific case. They chant “consensus”; they say it is too difficult for mere taxpayers to understand; they point to primitive mathematical models which predict global warming (because that is the way their mathematics were set up); they put their fingers in their metaphorical ears. But they will not discuss the science!
I am open-minded; would not be surprised if there is some recent global warming (natural or otherwise); am prepared to listen to a genuine scientific case explaining why any such warming is anthropogenic. But why is it so difficult to find a True Believer who will actually present a rational scientific case?
Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor.
Climate change has been real for hundreds of millions of years, based on real scientific geological evidence.
The planet came out of the most recent Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, and — Surprise! — it has been gently warming ever since.
Observational data on recent global warming (however defined) is much less definitive than alarmists assume — very sparse, unrepresentative data. But let’s assume for now that there is a recent underlying global warming trend.
The simplest hypothesis to explain such recent warming is a continuation of the gentle global warming trend (with fluctuations around it) that the world has seen for the last 10,000 years.
Anthropogenic global warmers ask us to reject the simple obvious explanation of continued natural processes — instead, they insert a different hypothesis that it is all the fault of those damn Europeans and their industrial revolution. That is quite a difficult case to support, scientifically speaking.
I have noticed that almost none of the anthropgenic global warming crowd will even try to make a scientific case. They chant “consensus”; they say it is too difficult for mere taxpayers to understand; they point to primitive mathematical models which predict global warming (because that is the way their mathematics were set up); they put their fingers in their metaphorical ears. But they will not discuss the science!
I am open-minded; would not be surprised if there is some recent global warming (natural or otherwise); am prepared to listen to a genuine scientific case explaining why any such warming is anthropogenic. But why is it so difficult to find a True Believer who will actually present a rational scientific case?
“But they will not discuss the science!”
The science is pretty simple. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere lead to more light being reflected back to Earth rather than escaping the atmosphere. More reflection – > more energy transfer -> higher temperatures. Of course, no one claims to know all the mechanisms which determine climate. But this is certainly one of them. Since the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases is likely the result of human activity (because rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the 20th century has accelerated with levels of industrialization), humans are the cause of this warming mechanism. If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty. Even for commonly accepted phenomenon like gravity. Anti-knowledge (relevant information that you are unaware of) is always a possibility.
“But they will not discuss the science!”
The science is pretty simple. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere lead to more light being reflected back to Earth rather than escaping the atmosphere. More reflection – > more energy transfer -> higher temperatures. Of course, no one claims to know all the mechanisms which determine climate. But this is certainly one of them. Since the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases is likely the result of human activity (because rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the 20th century has accelerated with levels of industrialization), humans are the cause of this warming mechanism. If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty. Even for commonly accepted phenomenon like gravity. Anti-knowledge (relevant information that you are unaware of) is always a possibility.
“But they will not discuss the science!”
The science is pretty simple. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere lead to more light being reflected back to Earth rather than escaping the atmosphere. More reflection – > more energy transfer -> higher temperatures. Of course, no one claims to know all the mechanisms which determine climate. But this is certainly one of them. Since the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases is likely the result of human activity (because rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the 20th century has accelerated with levels of industrialization), humans are the cause of this warming mechanism. If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty. Even for commonly accepted phenomenon like gravity. Anti-knowledge (relevant information that you are unaware of) is always a possibility.
“But they will not discuss the science!”
The science is pretty simple. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere lead to more light being reflected back to Earth rather than escaping the atmosphere. More reflection – > more energy transfer -> higher temperatures. Of course, no one claims to know all the mechanisms which determine climate. But this is certainly one of them. Since the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases is likely the result of human activity (because rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the 20th century has accelerated with levels of industrialization), humans are the cause of this warming mechanism. If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty. Even for commonly accepted phenomenon like gravity. Anti-knowledge (relevant information that you are unaware of) is always a possibility.
“But they will not discuss the science!”
The science is pretty simple. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere lead to more light being reflected back to Earth rather than escaping the atmosphere. More reflection – > more energy transfer -> higher temperatures. Of course, no one claims to know all the mechanisms which determine climate. But this is certainly one of them. Since the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases is likely the result of human activity (because rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the 20th century has accelerated with levels of industrialization), humans are the cause of this warming mechanism. If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty. Even for commonly accepted phenomenon like gravity. Anti-knowledge (relevant information that you are unaware of) is always a possibility.
“But they will not discuss the science!”
The science is pretty simple. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere lead to more light being reflected back to Earth rather than escaping the atmosphere. More reflection – > more energy transfer -> higher temperatures. Of course, no one claims to know all the mechanisms which determine climate. But this is certainly one of them. Since the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases is likely the result of human activity (because rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the 20th century has accelerated with levels of industrialization), humans are the cause of this warming mechanism. If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty. Even for commonly accepted phenomenon like gravity. Anti-knowledge (relevant information that you are unaware of) is always a possibility.
“But they will not discuss the science!”
The science is pretty simple. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere lead to more light being reflected back to Earth rather than escaping the atmosphere. More reflection – > more energy transfer -> higher temperatures. Of course, no one claims to know all the mechanisms which determine climate. But this is certainly one of them. Since the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases is likely the result of human activity (because rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the 20th century has accelerated with levels of industrialization), humans are the cause of this warming mechanism. If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty. Even for commonly accepted phenomenon like gravity. Anti-knowledge (relevant information that you are unaware of) is always a possibility.
“But they will not discuss the science!”
The science is pretty simple. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere lead to more light being reflected back to Earth rather than escaping the atmosphere. More reflection – > more energy transfer -> higher temperatures. Of course, no one claims to know all the mechanisms which determine climate. But this is certainly one of them. Since the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases is likely the result of human activity (because rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the 20th century has accelerated with levels of industrialization), humans are the cause of this warming mechanism. If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty. Even for commonly accepted phenomenon like gravity. Anti-knowledge (relevant information that you are unaware of) is always a possibility.
“But they will not discuss the science!”
The science is pretty simple. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere lead to more light being reflected back to Earth rather than escaping the atmosphere. More reflection – > more energy transfer -> higher temperatures. Of course, no one claims to know all the mechanisms which determine climate. But this is certainly one of them. Since the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases is likely the result of human activity (because rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the 20th century has accelerated with levels of industrialization), humans are the cause of this warming mechanism. If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty. Even for commonly accepted phenomenon like gravity. Anti-knowledge (relevant information that you are unaware of) is always a possibility.
“But they will not discuss the science!”
The science is pretty simple. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere lead to more light being reflected back to Earth rather than escaping the atmosphere. More reflection – > more energy transfer -> higher temperatures. Of course, no one claims to know all the mechanisms which determine climate. But this is certainly one of them. Since the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases is likely the result of human activity (because rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the 20th century has accelerated with levels of industrialization), humans are the cause of this warming mechanism. If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty. Even for commonly accepted phenomenon like gravity. Anti-knowledge (relevant information that you are unaware of) is always a possibility.
“If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty.”
They why is it always stated that the ‘Science is Settled?’
“If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty.”
They why is it always stated that the ‘Science is Settled?’
“If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty.”
They why is it always stated that the ‘Science is Settled?’
“If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty.”
They why is it always stated that the ‘Science is Settled?’
“If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty.”
They why is it always stated that the ‘Science is Settled?’
“If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty.”
They why is it always stated that the ‘Science is Settled?’
“If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty.”
They why is it always stated that the ‘Science is Settled?’
“If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty.”
They why is it always stated that the ‘Science is Settled?’
“If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty.”
They why is it always stated that the ‘Science is Settled?’
“If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty.”
They why is it always stated that the ‘Science is Settled?’
FWIW, I think you’re right. There’s just too much economic pressure. We can say that we have to conserve or we have to reduce carbon emissions, blah blah blah, but at the same time people are urged to consume. Eat until your stomach bursts, buy junk you don’t need, replace things that don’t need replacing, buy new fashion four times a year, etc. Really getting people to conserve (or reduce carbon emissions) would require a different economic system.
FWIW, I think you’re right. There’s just too much economic pressure. We can say that we have to conserve or we have to reduce carbon emissions, blah blah blah, but at the same time people are urged to consume. Eat until your stomach bursts, buy junk you don’t need, replace things that don’t need replacing, buy new fashion four times a year, etc. Really getting people to conserve (or reduce carbon emissions) would require a different economic system.
FWIW, I think you’re right. There’s just too much economic pressure. We can say that we have to conserve or we have to reduce carbon emissions, blah blah blah, but at the same time people are urged to consume. Eat until your stomach bursts, buy junk you don’t need, replace things that don’t need replacing, buy new fashion four times a year, etc. Really getting people to conserve (or reduce carbon emissions) would require a different economic system.
FWIW, I think you’re right. There’s just too much economic pressure. We can say that we have to conserve or we have to reduce carbon emissions, blah blah blah, but at the same time people are urged to consume. Eat until your stomach bursts, buy junk you don’t need, replace things that don’t need replacing, buy new fashion four times a year, etc. Really getting people to conserve (or reduce carbon emissions) would require a different economic system.
FWIW, I think you’re right. There’s just too much economic pressure. We can say that we have to conserve or we have to reduce carbon emissions, blah blah blah, but at the same time people are urged to consume. Eat until your stomach bursts, buy