Evil Indian Capitalist Polluters Kill Millions

[el freako]

Ned,

You know perfectly well that nuclear power is not price-competitive, unless there is either high taxation on the production of CO2 or the decommisioning costs of the plants are ignored.


The US's best bet to do something about their CO2 emissions would be to do something about the appalling inefficency of their energy production.
The US uses 46% more energy than the EU to make a dollar's worth of income.
And it create's 10% more CO2 per unit of energy it uses than the EU does.


At present the market does not support curbing pollution (indeed it never supports it when the pollution can be dumped onto a 'commons') so there is a clear case here for government intervention (assuming, of course, that a reduction in pollution is desired).
The intervention should be market-based and as transparent as possible to mitigate any economic harm, but intervention there should be.


It is only a mild exaggeration to say that the US's refusal to do anything about it's CO2 pollution is viewed in Europe with the same dismay as, say, the export of nuclear technology to Iran would be by the US.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Sandman
Notice key differences in the way CNN and the BBC report the causes of this awfulness.

CNN report:


BBC report:


The CNN report neglects to mention vehicles and power stations. What a surprise.

CNN lists burning of fossil fuels as a cause. Vehicles and powerstations burn fossil fuels. Perhaps, CNN just saw no reason to restate the obvious.

[DanS]

"DanS maybe we should wait for more data, but given the long lead-times on action that are needed to avert a global disaster on the worst-case scenarios we cannot afford to wait too long."

We can afford to wait just as long as it takes to have a clear understanding of the basic variables at play and what we should do to counteract the warming effects, if anything. I'm a really patient man.

Any serious effort before that seems likely a waste at best and harmful at worst.

"How long would you wait for data, and how sure would the scientific community have to be in order for action to be required."

Not knowing the action that would be required makes me supremely unable to know when it would be required.

"Also remember that by not acting now the US takes the risk that if it needs to cut it's CO2 levels later in the century it will have to cut them further and faster than otherwise, a cut or freeze spread across a longer period would cause far less pain as the economy has more time to adjust."

Can you quantify that risk for me?

"It's a bit like saving for your retirement when you are in your early 20's - you may die and never see the money and you could enjoy it now, but evey year you save in your early 20's is worth two in your early 40's."

I can look up on an actuarial table and know within a reasonable margin of error how likely I am to make it to old age and enjoy the fruits of my planning. Further the impact of my death on enjoying these fruits is 100% certain. Lastly, I can redirect that investment to other uses, if the situation warrants.

Such is not the case with global warming.

[Verto]

It seems that, simply because the US Senate refused to ratify an unfair treaty, the United States is doing nothing to stop pollution or global warming. In fact, the only reason we have global warming is because we Americans have SUVs.

It also appears that everyone of you reading this thread is contributing to global warming:

*EVIL APOLYTONERS KILL MILLIONS*

Did you realize that the computer you are using is contributing to global warming? So are the lights in the room. The hot water that you used for your last shower did, too. In fact, anything that uses energy derived from fossil fuels increases greenhouse gas emissions every time it is used.

Here are just a few things the U.S. is doing to fight pollution.

The Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) announced on August 7th, 2002 that it will provide a cash rebate of up to $50,000 to each residential or commercial customer who installs solar electric panels. LIPA will be offering $5,000 for each kilowatt of installed photovoltaic (PV) system capacity directly to the customer up to a maximum of 10 kW ($50,000). This rebate level will only be available until a total of 500 kW have been installed. At that point, the LIPA rebate will be reduced to $4,000 per kW

The U.S. Department of Energy, through its Regional Offices, focuses its efforts on national, state and local partnerships, made up of the building industry, other federal agencies, local and state governments, utilities, energy service providers, the solar energy industry, financial institutions, and non-governmental organizations to remove market barriers to solar energy use and develop and strengthen local demand for solar energy products and applications.

Announced in June 1997, Million Solar Roofs (MSRI) is an initiative to install solar energy systems on one million U.S. buildings by 2010. The initiative includes two types of solar technology: solar electric systems (or photovoltaics) that produce electricity from sunlight and solar thermal systems that produce heat for domestic hot water, space heating, or heating swimming pools

Reducing emissions associated with power generation. In 2010, with one million solar energy roofs in place, the Initiative could reduce carbon emissions in an amount equivalent to the annual emissions from 850,000 cars.
Creating high-tech jobs. By 2010, approximately 70,000 new jobs could be created as a result of the increased demand for photovoltaic, solar hot water, and related solar energy systems.

Keeping the U.S. solar energy industry competitive. By encouraging a broader domestic market for solar energy, the Initiative could help U.S. companies to regain their competitive edge in the worldwide market. By 2005, the photovoltaic market alone is expected to exceed $1.5 billion worldwide.

[Ned]

Verto, I mentioned some time ago that simply allowing people credit for excess power pumped back into the power grid from solar panels would make the panels economically viable. Today, at least in California, if you generate more power than you use, the dial runs backwards on the meter. However, if your net reading month to month shows that you are net generator of power, the power company does not pay you.

Simple changes like this will go a long way to fixing the instutional barriers to solar panels.

On Nuclear - the high cost is due to all those permits and other regulations we have in the US - plus the environmentalists here are totally against Nuclear and will do anything, legal or illegal, to stop one from being built. This is why I suggested building them outside the US.

But you have a point. We could simply provide a subsidy for Nuclear power. At some point, the price becomes reasonable and the plants will be built.

[MOBIUS]

I saw on an educational programme yesterday that Chicago's Sears Tower uses as much energy as your average Indian city of 1,000,000 inhabitants...

Whilst I abhor the pollution spewed out by SE Asia, they are only trying to a) become developed nations or b) The family to survive by keeping warm and using fuel to cook.

Some people here seem to have a short memory about the pollution over cities like LA (or London in the 50's where they reckon thousands died thru respiratory diseases!) or the fact that Texas today is a heavily polluted state in which many poorer Americans suffer health problems...

I remember the whole thing about the US proposing to by Carbon sinks in Kyoto to avoid having to put it's own house in order - so why not apply for 'credits' by modernising 3rd World energy consumption?

Another interesting thing is that what these countries are doing is the opposite of global warming as the smog cloud is actually preventing a good proportion of the sun's rays from reaching the surface - which is part of the problem, albeit a local one...

[pchang]

Global Warming

I think you might be confused about global warming. Light energy from the sun hits the earth and is absorbed. This includes particles in the air like smog or clouds. However, warmth from the earth is radiated back out in the form of infrared. At some point there is a balance and this sets the average temp. of the earth. Excess CO2 and other greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation and reduce the amount of energy the earth can radiate out into space. The balance point is shifted and the average temp. of the earth rises (at least in theory).

[Ned]

Pchang, so if smog lowers ground temperatures, this is good from a global warming point of view?

[MOBIUS]

Re: Global Warming

Originally posted by pchang
I think you might be confused about global warming. Light energy from the sun hits the earth and is absorbed. This includes particles in the air like smog or clouds. However, warmth from the earth is radiated back out in the form of infrared. At some point there is a balance and this sets the average temp. of the earth. Excess CO2 and other greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation and reduce the amount of energy the earth can radiate out into space. The balance point is shifted and the average temp. of the earth rises (at least in theory).

This stuff was reflected at about 2 miles up, so I'm not sure if that's high enough up in the atmosphere to negate the effects of global warming.

Anyway, I'm all for the US to offset some of their Kyoto requirements by spending a similar amount of money cleaning up the outputs of SE Asia. It seems to me that we should be spending money where it's easiest to gain the greatest efficiencies. That would also allow such countries as the US to not 'damage their economies' until such time as it is their turn for the World to deal with their pollution issues. Not that it's ever going to happen that way...

[Ned]

Morbius, This might be a much better way of spending our foreign aid. Europe, the US and Japan, united, together upgrading the entire world with more environment-friendly technologies.

[el freako]

I've just checked up on some figures from the OECD and the EU is doing better than the US is almost all forms of air pollution (not just CO2)

EU's pollution per head

Carbon Dioxide:
1990: 44% of US level
2000: 42% of US level

Sulphur Dioxides:
1990: 57% of US level
2000: 31% of US level

Nitrogen Dioxides:
1990: 44% of US level
2000: 33% of US level

And to those who claim that the EU only achieved this by 'crippling' it's economy:

GDP per head:
1990: 69% of US level
2000: 71% of US level

Employment Rate*
1990: 87% of US level
2000: 88% of US level

(*this is the number of people of working age in a job)

During the 1990's the US actually improved it's energy efficency faster than the EU did - cutting the amount of energy needed to make $1 of GDP by 16% compared to the EU's 13% - it was still less energy efficent than europe taking one third more energy than to make $1 of GDP.
However the US's energy use became more polluting during the 1990's with a 2% rise in CO2 released per unit of energy consumed which compared very unfavorably with the EU's 10% fall during the same period.

[Ned]

El Freako, We shut down nuclear power plants. Now, if the environmentalist would only stop forcing us to do that, our own CO2 trends would improve.

[pchang]

smog will not lower ground temps.

Smog will absorb light energy and radiate it out in all directions as infrared (including towards the ground), so no smog will not reduce ground temps (except for small local variations). If you spend more time in the midwest or east you will notice that in summertime, cloudy (but not rainy) days are just as hot and muggy as clear days.

The earth's climate is not a stable system. We know enough to model the climate quite well with static systems (approximations of reality), but not enough to model the climate well with dynamic systems (much better approximations of reality). This is pretty much due to our inability to really handle tough math. Anyway, in the static models, the avg. temp. of the earth is a balance between the energy absorbed from the sun and the energy radiated out into space. This is highly dependent upon the reflectivity of the earth (called the albedo). Surface ice is one of the greatest contributors to this reflectivity. Thus, as it gets warmer and the polar ice caps start to melt, the albedo decreases and the temp. gets even warmer. On the other hand, as it gets colder and the polar ice caps expand, the albedo increases and the temp. gets even colder.

It is not exactly known why, but there appears to be an ice age cycle every 20,000 years or so. The bulk of humanity's development has been during a warm period between ice ages. If the pattern holds, we should be entering into another ice age soon (in geological terms anyway).

[Ned]

Pchang, I believe the Ice Age cycle is more like 100k years with 11k no ice and 90k ice. This is from memory. I'll check.

[Ned]

Pchang, Confirmed. Here is a chart of the last million years. The dotted line represents the current average temperature. Notice that right after the start of the warm period, temperatures soar. Then they fall back reaching a plateau at about the temperatures we are at now, then fall off a cliff.

Also notice the very gradual trend upwards.