politicians are out for what will advance them polically, economically
or socially. Because of this, I tend to pick my candidates not
because I like them, but for the issues for which they stand (aka,
which lobbiests that control them...) The lesser of evils. This may
be a pessimistic view, but one that I think is close to reality. That
being said, this blog isn't about politics, but a topic that does
interest me, and to a large degree has shaped my political
preferences: Conservation.
It has always been my goal to continually better myself. I am a man
driven by convictions, and after watching An Inconvenient Truth
(www.climatecrisis.net) the topic of Global Warming struck me to the
core. Its hard to not think about this daily while living in
Guantanamo Bay... There are four windmills on the hillside between my
room and the ocean, a constant reminder to me that we need to harness
renewable energy on a massive scale. This issue is bigger that what
is best for the earth, I have become passionate about this issue
because it is also what is best for mankind as a whole. Not only do
we have the opportunity to develop and harnass clean energy, but we
will lessen our dependance on oil and coal in the process. With the
political world as volitile as it is, we simply can not depend on
foreign resources any more. Some people say if our cars average
40mpg... we would import no oil. That is a big sacrifice though, and
Americans are driven by convenience, so this won't happen... unless it
becomes more convenient for the average person to buy more fuel
efficient vehicles. We have already seen a huge economic shift in
which car manufacterers are succesful, toyota (for the first time
ever) sold more cars than ford and moved into the seat of largest car
manufacturer ever. Driven by raising gas prices, this is actually a
step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. This is where
politics comes in. A carbon tax, or gas-guzzler tax would be an
exellent solution for two reasons. First, the money raised can be
used to fund energy research and Second, it provides an economic
advantage for the average citizen to buy a more fuel efficient
vehicle.
I know this was long, and probably boring, but this happened to be on my mind.
17 comments:
Tag! I hope you don't mind. This Meme thing (look it up in wikipedia) Ultimately is suppose to help your readership. Do it if you want, or don't you won't hurt my feelings. Check out my About Me post today.
i think you almost hit the nail on the head regarding your point about making renewable and alternative sources of energy more convenient to more people. i think a really good shift in thinking approach to the climate crisis would be to make it easier for people to conserve. irregardless if its a gas or hybrid car, it requires energy to be made and shipped and scrapped. what if there was some kind of incentive for people to live closer to where they work, shop, study, etc so they could ride their bikes or walk? something like more mixed-use neighborhoods instead of suburban developments.
one really big climate change forcer that people forget about is the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. water vapor is the most plentiful greenhouse gas, even greater than CO2. several alternative energy sources emit water vapor as a waste product which turns to clouds and traps more heat. so if we conserved by using less electricity etc, less energy would be demanded, less waste emitted whether it be from fossil fuels or alternative sources. for some americans, it may be really difficult to cut use and conserve and that's where alternates are important. i think wind turbines are the best way to go and look really cool too...but now im just babbling, but i thought what you wrote was really interesting. good night.
--court.
So, do you think that this should be done at the state or federal level of government?
Much of the proposed and current federal environmental policies fall well outside of the enumerated legislative powers in Article 1 Section 8 of our US Constitution. Does this bother you? Because I value our Constitution, I believe most environmental protection should occur at state levels.
Interestingly, your proposed gas guzzler tax falls well within Congresses "Interstate Commerce" powers, as the vehicles that would be effected are products of interstate commerce. This can legitimately be accomplished at the federal level.
I would not oppose your proposal on Constitutional grounds. I do not oppose then general goal of your proposal. I do believe the overly complicated nature of our tax system is abused to benefit special interests resulting in wholesale inequality. Subsequently, I am hesitant to add complexity. I would rather see simplification that would result in more uniform application. But perhaps this is an exception worth considering.
I am not much concerned with global climate change. Our current (and projected) temperatures fall well within the norms of our environment over the last several thousand years. The extreme fears propagated by the global warming cabal (is that too strong?) stem from exaggerations of the most extreme projections of outlier modeling systems. I do not deny that change is happening, or that it is partially man-made. I believe that our environment is resilient enough, and that mankind is resourceful enough to handle any change. Change is generally feared, because it is different and unknown. But perhaps we will even be better off for it. During the warm period in the middle ages, crop production significantly increased. This could help resolve the famine issues in Africa and elsewhere.
After all that, you may be surprised to learn that I generally agree with you environmentally. We need to reduce our dependence on oil. This is important for both national security and environmental reasons. I also believe that steps should be made to amend America's common ethic toward personal conservation. I think that there should be tremendous incentives placed on the energy industry to develop nuclear power plants to replace coal and oil burning facilities. This has worked well for France.
Even though I generally reject global warming fears (and the dire need to reduce greenhouse gases), because of my desire to reduce our dependence on foreign powers and our creation of other damaging pollutants, I result at substantially similar grounds.
On the point that government should be simplified.. and not complexified, I whole heartedly agree. However, we do not have said government and let's be honest... we will never have a simple government. I disagree that we should not create tax laws for the betterment of general wellfare of the United States because its complicated. As issues arise, laws should be created, as issues become obsolete, laws should be altered or overturned. As loopholes are found, they should be closed. I believe that the tax should be created on a federal level. In Article 1 Section 8 of our US Constitution, it states "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes... to pay the Debts and provide for the... general Welfare of the United States." Imposing a tax that will reduce the significant impact that the average american leaves, while creating new industries that will add jobs to American society while reducing the amount of jobs and dependance to overseas markets is not only within the rights of the federal government, but irresponsible for the government not to persue. The issue of global warming is real, the impact of humans is undeniable. The amount of impact that humans are making is up for debate but I believe that energy production is leading to a substantal amount of greenhouse gasses which is adding to the largest climate change in observable history.
On another note. I never thought I would enjoy conversations over political issues with my brother. He is much smarter than me and could beat me in a verbal debate no matter which side he took. I do enjoy discussions on important topics like this however.
Here is a new blog you may appreciate. It seems to be a very reasonable blog, even though they reach different conclusions than me.
Also, two questions. These are not trick questions. I just think the answers (either way) are revealing. The questions are:
1) Suppose that global warming is natural and therefore not caused by humans. Would you still want to prevent it from occurring?
2) Suppose we discovered that the earth was cooling rather than warming due to a natural cycle. Would you encourage people to use more carbon-based energy as a way of warming the earth?
it's not as much an issue of global warming as it is of global climate change. it's a pretty fair split between regions that are getting warmer and colder and the rapid rates of these temperature changes is due to human forcings. everyone cites the figure of the .6 celsius degree increase to stand for global warming, but this is taken mostly from the northern hemisphere where there is the most land and thus the data is skewed.
the North Atlantic Deep Water thermal ocean gradient has been disrupted due to warming near the Americas. the cycling of water has changed and less heat is being transported to europe. there is data to show that europe has been cooling for the past 70 years. the change in the ocean's thermocline and salinity gradient (because salty cold water is the heaviest and sinks. there is freshening in the north atlantic due to the melt that prevents this water from rising and cycling. this is where plankton comes from.) has really messed with the fishing industry.
climate change is not bad and has happened several times, but rapid climate change is not good. species can't adapt as quickly. initially warming may seem good for agriculture, but it drains the soil of nutrients and inhibits the nitrogen cycle.
don't forget about conservation of energy. if some place on earth is getting warmer, there has to be some place getting cooler.
I just spent the past hour responding, and this unreliable internet just crashed... and lost it all... Let me summarize what I wrote.
To answer your questions, no, I fundamentally disagree that we should alter the climate. Natural climate change is a natural and neccesary part of the earths ecosystems.
This is not the issue that I was discussing in earlier posts, but ties in nicely. The end result of a perfect world, or the one we live in today in my mind should be the same: To minimize our impact by first minimizing carbon emissions.
Let me ask you the same questions you asked me from another point of view:
1) Suppose you agree global warming is caused by natural and humans intervention. Would you still want to do nothing, and let it occur?
2) Suppose we discovered that the earth was supposed to be cooling due to a natural cycle but was offset by carbon emissions. Would you be concerned with altering earth's natural cycle?
I had a lot more written, but I think i am going to write a new blog now.
court...
Your distinction between climate change and "rapid climate change" is interesting, and may have some legs. If it could be demonstrated that rapid climate change is happening, it causes irreparable harm, and that human action could mitigate such change (regardless if it is caused by humans), such human intervention would be warranted, provided it could satisfy a reasonable cost/benefit analysis.
Your assertion ("don't forget about conservation of energy. if some place on earth is getting warmer, there has to be some place getting cooler.") does not hold up. If the earth was a closed system, it would, but we both gain heat from the Sun and lose heat to space.
Unusual Perspective...
We are part of the system, and as such we must have impact on the system. All parts of the system affect the whole. Beavers dam rivers. Mosquitoes spread disease. Great Whites eat dolphins. Humans consume oxygen and produce carbon dioxide. Every fish we catch out of a lake alters the ecosystem of that lake. The question is not should we change our environment, it is how much change is acceptable.
Is it acceptable to clear virgin land to build a house? The answer has to be "yes" to a point. To answer otherwise is to abandon all society and return to swinging by vines. The world is radically different than it would have been without humans. And that is OK, because there are humans.
Before meaningful conversation can take place (not just here, but nationally), I think we need to think hard about the answer to this question: how much impact is appropriate/acceptable?
Answering your two questions:
"1) Suppose you agree global warming is caused by natural and humans intervention. Would you still want to do nothing, and let it occur?"
Assuming we had reliable knowledge that this warming will cause overall harm, our actions should be carefully measured by a cost/benefit analysis. If the cost is worldwide recession and massive famine, and the benefit is 1 degree less warming and 6 inches less rise in sea level, I would propose we do not take that course. If the cost is 1% of the GDP, and the benefit is saving the world from certain destruction, they yes, by all means.
"2) Suppose we discovered that the earth was supposed to be cooling due to a natural cycle but was offset by carbon emissions. Would you be concerned with altering earth's natural cycle?"
Being that I accept that we are part of the earth's natural cycle, I do not have a reflexive action opposing such influence. I am concerned that such action could be causing damage. If global cooling was of more harm than other pollution and the power distribution associated with oil, it would be a reasonable corrective action. But given my concerns relating to pollution and national security, it would need to be pretty substantial to overcome my conviction that we must lessen our dependence on oil and coal.
jeffrey--
the earth is a closed system. if 100 units of solar radiation reaches the earth, 30 is reflected back to space as solar radiation that is never absorbed by the earth, 70 is released by the earth as outgoing infrared radiation from the atmosphere, vegetation, and water. s. schneider (1987) climate modeling, scientific american, 256:5, 72-80.
Court...
To claim the earth is a closed system is to claim the Sun plays no part in the temperature of earth.
Your citation proves my point. It recognizes that the earth both receives energy from the Sun and releases energy from our atmosphere. It is therefore not a closed system. You seem to assume that the energy received and released is precisely equal, and therefore is equivalent to a closed system. If I accept your claim, then I must also accept that if the Sun disappears tomorrow, earth's average temperature would be unchanged.
Of course the Sun affects our temperature. This is why nights are cold and days are warm. This is why Mars is hot and Jupiter is freezing. This is why increased solar activity increases earth's average temperature. This is why decreased solar activity decreases earth's average temperature. Of course the Sun is not the only factor, but it is certainly a factor. If it is a factor, then earth's atmosphere is necessarily an open system.
Jeff, you are right that the earth is not a closed system, but I think court's point of warmer in one place means colder in another holds weight also. Although not a perfect system, looking at climate on a geologic short timescale (weeks, months or years) a rising of temperature in one region will be offset by a cooling of another region. The open system is mostly refering to the change of temperatures globally over longer time periods i.e. .6 celcius rise average temp over many years. So both of you're points are correct (as I see it).
maybe closed wasnt the right word, but the earth is in balance. it is a blackbody and emits as much energy as it receives. across its surface, its albedo balances so it does emit precisely the same amount of energy it receives. the earth is warm because of the lapse in time. if the sun disappeared, the earth would begin cooling in 9 minutes. this explains why some regions are cooling. again, the .6 figure is not very reliable and climate change is best seen in the changing cycles of phosphorous, sulfur, nitrogen, carbon, water, and salt.
my point is that the earth's climate gradient is getting steeper faster than most species can adapt. legislation to slow this is very warranted, but the exact problem and real science behind it needs to be thoroughly understood first.
courtney.hugo
It must also follow that the earlier assertion ("don't forget about conservation of energy. if some place on earth is getting warmer, there has to be some place getting cooler.") fails.
If earth is not a closed system, conservation of energy is not applicable to our subset of that system. Global temperature averages can and have changed. This can happen in one of two ways (usually a combination thereof).
First, a change in solar activity changes the energy input to our system. While it is true that energy will eventually leave our system, the change in energy will change our environment.
Second, a change in our atmosphere that alters the length of time the energy is held. This also will affect our environment.
This is certainly an aside from the main point, but I deem it important. To ignore this is to greatly simplify the nature of climate change.
The last thirty years have seen significant increase in solar activity. To dispose of this fact is to exaggerate man's impact, and therefore man's potential to offset this impact. Certainly, man bears no responsibility (and no ability to change) point 1 above. Further, man is only partly responsible for part 2 above. Whether this responsibility is a majority or minority factor is to be determined.
This is not to say that man should not act. But our action should be carefully considered, with realistic expectations of what we believe our actions can remedy. As I have said, I believe that our actions should be the result of a cost/benefit analysis. If we exaggerate our potential to mitigate, we also exaggerate the potential benefit, which greatly distorts the reliability of the data on which we must make such decisions.
The preceding paragraph presupposes
that warming is bad and that our ability to offset that warming is therefore a benefit. But such assumption is far from evident. Most models that project such fearful circumstances greatly simplify the complex systems that control our environment.
I fear that religious like devotion to particular advocacy (on both sides of the aisle) detract from a serious evaluation of the data. I do not deny that the future may be bleak. But my knowledge of the history of resiliency of this planet and its occupants offsets fears of doomsday scenarios.
Here is a German article that summarizes an alternate viewpoint. While I do not claim this viewpoint fact, I do believe it is reasonable.
court...
My brother speaks very highly of you. After our little exchange, I can see why. You are very intelligent and well considered. I have enjoyed our your thoughts.
Point of clarification...
I said, "If earth is not a closed system, conservation of energy is not applicable to our subset of that system."
I should have said, "If earth is not a closed system, conservation of energy does not imply that the amount of energy in earth's atmosphere is constant."
Of course conservation of energy still applies. If energy is lost from the atmosphere, the energy did not disappear, it just moved.
haha...thanks. i think maybe we are arguing for the same point but from different angles. i never told your brother this and he's probably going to cringe now, but i really don't like al gore and i don't agree with alot of his points in an inconvenient truth. essentially, i believe that it is very logical that humans are negatively impacting the climate, but the checks and balances of the system need to be understood before passing legislation. i'm an environmental science major in a program that focuses alot on urban cases...sewage, drainage, smog, building materials, energies, etc. oddly enough, alot of my professors are liberals but are adamantly against al gore and his points. environmental science integrates policy, ethics, economics, and science. it's important that scientists and legislators present details to the public without embellishing or romanticizing them.
enough! time to pack my room and go home for the summer!
Post a Comment