Climate change - the U.S. has to do something, anything

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: mect
Wait, I don't get it. You make the claim that you feel we should reduce our CO2 output, but you think that cap and trade will devastate the economy. Do you think we should just trust industry to do the right thing? The goal of industry is to make a profit. If the environment stands in the way of that profit, then the environment loses. This is the reason we have caps on all kinds of things. For example, gold mines can only have so much cyanide in their water. Do you think it is good for the government to limit this? I do. I don't think its a good idea to just trust businesses to do the right thing. Similarly, if we feel it would be in our best interest to limit the amount of CO2 we're emitting, then it seems like it would be a similarly good idea to not just trust industry to do the right thing. That means we need to cap it. Now, it makes no sense at all to just cap straight across and tell every company that they can only emit a fixed share of the pie. It makes much more sense to tell industry, here is the size of the pie, here is each groups allocation, now if you want to trade these amongst yourselves to best distribute this pie, then go ahead. This is cap and trade. It will have a much smaller impact on the economy then just a straight cap. I'm still baffled as to why republicans are opposed to cap and trade. It is capitalism applied to an environmental problem. I can understand those who are of the perspective that CO2 has no influence on the environment being opposed to cap and trade, but otherwise, it seems like the way to go.

Yes, if for private companies the priorities are set this way-
1 share holder returns and value.
2 directors salaries
3 product costs
4 workers salaries

How does the environment stand a chance unless there is a great consumer emphasis on environmental and social ethics of private industries.
Capitalists don't want a carbon tax/trading scheme, because it removes some of their powers to control economy in their respective markets. It also hurts those industries which appear on the surface as not being involved in environmental exploitation or economic exploitation- aka banking and finance!

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Based on my review of the technical studies, I do believe CO2 to be of minimal environmental impact, unless it is maybe of positive benefit in supporting the growth of plant life, the basis of all life on this planet. Maybe methane and NO have more of an injurious impact, in my reading the jury is still out on those as well.

You should learn some plant physiology. Look up photorespiration, it's a phenomena in which plants actually respire (that is release CO2) due to high levels of CO2. The main photosynthesis enzyme, Rubisco, is inhibited at higher CO2 concentrations. IIRC, around 400ppm CO2, photosynthesis in a large number of plants completely shuts down.

Those are laboratory conditions and far, far, far from existing and forecast levels even under the absolute worst case scenarios.

Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

For example, the last three years measurements of CO2 PPM -

Mauna Loa, Hawaii

2006 1.69
2007 2.17
2008 1.66

Sea Level - Global Mean

2006 1.77
2007 2.12
2008 1.79

Do you even analyze the data you just linked me? Staring at me, right in my face, is the measurements for CO2 that says in 2008, Mauna Loa had a mean CO2 level, in PPM, of ~380. Not 1.66. That is the growth rate with respect to ppm/year. That is, on average, you can expect the amount of CO2 to go up by 1.66ppm year on year measurement.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So let me get this straight. A team of 5 economists, as distinguished in their field as they may be, is going to tell us the most effective way to combat global climate change?

The OP references 21 Analysis and Perspective Papers, each with scientific as well as economic aspects considered. The final selection was prioritized by a cost-benefit analysis by the five identified world-class economists, including three Nobel Laureates (in Economics, not Peace, so maybe they actually know something useful.)

From Wiki -

Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Current economic models developed out of the broader field of political economy in the late 19th century, owing to a desire to use an empirical approach more akin to the physical sciences...

A definition that captures much of modern economics is that of Lionel Robbins in a 1932 essay: "the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses." Scarcity means that available resources are insufficient to satisfy all wants and needs. Absent scarcity and alternative uses of available resources, there is no economic problem. The subject thus defined involves the study of choices as they are affected by incentives and resources.

To me that sounds like the right discipline for rational decision taking in this matter.

Not to me it doesn't. Where did these 21 papers come from? Who authored them? How can I be sure there's no inherent bias in the selection process?

There's been quite a bit of criticism and claims of bias against the Copenhagen Consensus.

See the Wiki:

Approach and alleged bias

The report, especially its conclusion regarding climate change was subsequently criticised from a variety of perspectives. The general approach adopted to set priorities was criticised by Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist and advocate of both the Kyoto protocol [10] and increased development aid, who argued that the analytical framework was inappropriate and biased and that the project "failed to mobilize an expert group that could credibly identify and communicate a true consensus of expert knowledge on the range of issues under consideration." [11].

Tom Burke, a former director of Friends of the Earth, repudiated the entire approach of the project, arguing that applying cost-benefit analysis in the way the Copenhagen panel did was "junk economics". [12]

John Quiggin, an Australian economics professor, commented that the project is a mix of "a substantial contribution to our understanding of important issues facing the world" and an "exercises in political propaganda" and argued that the selection of the panel members was slanted towards the conclusions previously supported by Lomborg [13]. Quiggin observed that Lomborg had argued in his controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist that resources allocated to mitigating global warming would be better spent on improving water quality and sanitation, and was therefore seen as having prejudged the issues.

Under the heading "Wrong Question", Sachs further argued that: "The panel that drew up the Copenhagen Consensus was asked to allocate an additional US$50 billion in spending by wealthy countries, distributed over five years, to address the world?s biggest problems. This was a poor basis for decision-making and for informing the public. By choosing such a low sum ? a tiny fraction of global income ? the project inherently favoured specific low-cost schemes over bolder, larger projects. It is therefore no surprise that the huge and complex challenge of long-term climate change was ranked last, and that scaling up health services in poor countries was ranked lower than interventions against specific diseases, despite warnings in the background papers that such interventions require broader improvements in health services."

In response Lomborg argued that $50 billion was "an optimistic but realistic example of actual spending." "Experience shows that pledges and actual spending are two different things. In 1970 the UN set itself the task of doubling development assistance. Since then the percentage has actually been dropping". "But even if Sachs or others could gather much more than $50 billion over the next 4 years, the Copenhagen Consensus priority list would still show us where it should be invested first." [14]

One of the Copenhagen Consensus panel experts later distanced himself from the way in which the Consensus results have been interpreted in the wider debate. Thomas Schelling now thinks that it was misleading to put climate change at the bottom of the priority list. The Consensus panel members were presented with a dramatic proposal for handling climate change. If given the opportunity, Schelling would have put a more modest proposal higher on the list. The Yale economist Robert O. Mendelsohn was the official critic of the proposal for climate change during the Consensus. He thought the proposal was way out of the mainstream and could only be rejected. Mendelsohn worries that climate change was set up to fail. [15]

Michael Grubb, an economist and lead author for several IPCC reports, commented on the Copenhagen Consensus, writing:[16]

To try and define climate policy as a trade-off against foreign aid is thus a forced choice that bears no relationship to reality. No government is proposing that the marginal costs associated with, for example, an emissions trading system, should be deducted from its foreign aid budget. This way of posing the question is both morally inappropriate and irrelevant to the determination of real climate mitigation policy.

Panel membership

Quiggin argued that the members of the panel, selected by Lomborg, were, "generally towards the right and, to the extent that they had stated views, to be opponents of Kyoto." [13]. Sachs also noted that the panel members had not previously been much involved in issues of development economics, and were unlikely to reach useful conclusions in the time available to them [11]. Commenting on the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus, climatologist and IPCC author Stephen Schneider criticised Lomborg for only inviting economists to participate:[17]

In order to achieve a true consensus, I think Lomborg would've had to invite ecologists, social scientists concerned with justice and how climate change impacts and policies are often inequitably distributed, philosophers who could challenge the economic paradigm of "one dollar, one vote" implicit in cost-benefit analyses promoted by economists, and climate scientists who could easily show that Lomborg's claim that climate change will have only minimal effects is not sound science.

Lomborg countered criticism of the panel membership by stating that "Sachs disparaged the Consensus ?dream team? because it only consisted of economists. But that was the very point of the project. Economists have expertise in economic prioritization. It is they and not climatologists or malaria experts who can prioritize between battling global warming or communicable disease," [14]

You only have to actually click through to the link for Analyses and Perspective Papers to find out who wrote them and what is in them. Until you do you are just spouting off your own prejudiced opinion.

The Wiki reference relates to a prior exercise of the same type in 2004 dealing with a wider variety of global development and global problems.

In this post I referenced the latest study in 2008 that envisioned a $250 Billion budget for climate change mitigation, where the 2004 study postulated $50 Billion to address a much wider range of global issues (famine, disease, etc.) of which climate change was only one of the problems under evaluation.

If you actually read the Wiki commentary you will see that the critics were actually complimentary of the approach taken. The suggestion to include philosophers, social justice experts and malaria specialists is an interesting one but it does not help to set up an adequate cost/benefit analysis, does it?

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: mect
Wait, I don't get it. You make the claim that you feel we should reduce our CO2 output, but you think that cap and trade will devastate the economy. Do you think we should just trust industry to do the right thing? The goal of industry is to make a profit. If the environment stands in the way of that profit, then the environment loses. This is the reason we have caps on all kinds of things. For example, gold mines can only have so much cyanide in their water. Do you think it is good for the government to limit this? I do. I don't think its a good idea to just trust businesses to do the right thing. Similarly, if we feel it would be in our best interest to limit the amount of CO2 we're emitting, then it seems like it would be a similarly good idea to not just trust industry to do the right thing. That means we need to cap it. Now, it makes no sense at all to just cap straight across and tell every company that they can only emit a fixed share of the pie. It makes much more sense to tell industry, here is the size of the pie, here is each groups allocation, now if you want to trade these amongst yourselves to best distribute this pie, then go ahead. This is cap and trade. It will have a much smaller impact on the economy then just a straight cap. I'm still baffled as to why republicans are opposed to cap and trade. It is capitalism applied to an environmental problem. I can understand those who are of the perspective that CO2 has no influence on the environment being opposed to cap and trade, but otherwise, it seems like the way to go.

Based on my review of the technical studies, I do believe CO2 to be of minimal environmental impact, unless it is maybe of positive benefit in supporting the growth of plant life, the basis of all life on this planet. Maybe methane and NO have more of an injurious impact, in my reading the jury is still out on those as well.

The basis for cap-and-trade is not the actual reduction of free carbon, it is a government funding scheme that will be used to pay off select constituencies (insure support in future elections) and impose an additional cost burden on those who are not part of these privileged few - and that includes all consumers in the form of higher cost of goods.

Remember the single most important idea of taxation - companies do not pay taxes, people do. Maybe a company will eat a little bit less margin, until it makes no sense to continue to operate without profit (the reason business exists,) but the cost of taxation is in almost all cases passed on with price adjustment that is paid by the consumer.

There is a direct effect. If you price goods and services artificially higher (taxing energy automatically affects all goods production and service industries), less will be purchased. Less demand means less will be made. Less manufacturing and fewer service providers means fewer jobs.

But what about necessary goods and not luxury goods? These will still be made, but not here in the U.S. Jobs will move rapidly overseas as other countries are not likely to put equivalent artificial burdens on their manufacturing. Sure, U.S. tariffs are proposed to also tax goods coming from countries without carbon taxes. Guess what that does to free trade as counter tariffs are applied? It represents protectionism at its best and it will cost you.

Let us also consider the political appeal to the current Democrat Administration. The cost of goods will now be higher, more people will not be able to afford this price increase as they are already reeling from the cost of mandatory health insurance, increased taxation on productive classes to "pay down the debt" and the financial support of the increasing ranks of unemployed.

If the Democrats hit some electoral "sweet spot" by trading off increasingly negative employment numbers with the payoffs of new "free" benefits to key voting blocks, they can take the next step.

The economic shock will "require" the government to increase intervention - take over more industries, likely the energy companies this next go-around, maybe agriculture afterward. The goal is more government and less private sector. In other words, a centrally planned economy.

Sound good yet?

Cfc's are a good example.
It's not just about the co2!
It's all the other toxins that fly up or down with them.
Politicians of all swathes need to be forced to deal with environmental exploitation, cost of rectification need to be accounted for or later down the track, Mr. Joe 'Dirt' Public will pay for it, more socialized loses and privatized profit.
Sounding good isn't always about being good is it?


Think one word and apply it to everything,
SUSTAINABILITY!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

Whats Monsanto(largest fertilizer producing pty ltd.) got to say about dead zones?

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Based on my review of the technical studies, I do believe CO2 to be of minimal environmental impact, unless it is maybe of positive benefit in supporting the growth of plant life, the basis of all life on this planet. Maybe methane and NO have more of an injurious impact, in my reading the jury is still out on those as well.

You should learn some plant physiology. Look up photorespiration, it's a phenomena in which plants actually respire (that is release CO2) due to high levels of CO2. The main photosynthesis enzyme, Rubisco, is inhibited at higher CO2 concentrations. IIRC, around 400ppm CO2, photosynthesis in a large number of plants completely shuts down.

Those are laboratory conditions and far, far, far from existing and forecast levels even under the absolute worst case scenarios.

Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

For example, the last three years measurements of CO2 PPM -

Mauna Loa, Hawaii

2006 1.69
2007 2.17
2008 1.66

Sea Level - Global Mean

2006 1.77
2007 2.12
2008 1.79

Do you even analyze the data you just linked me? Staring at me, right in my face, is the measurements for CO2 that says in 2008, Mauna Loa had a mean CO2 level, in PPM, of ~380. Not 1.66. That is the growth rate with respect to ppm/year. That is, on average, you can expect the amount of CO2 to go up by 1.66ppm year on year measurement.

You are right! I was distracted by a phone call reminding me that I have an important dinner engagement this evening. Multi-tasking fails me again!

Let me see if I can get a handle on your fears -

Regulation by carbon dioxide. Since carbon dioxide and oxygen compete at the active site of RuBisCO, carbon fixation by RuBisCO can be enhanced by increasing the carbon dioxide level in the compartment containing RuBisCO (chloroplast stroma). Several times during the evolution of plants, mechanisms have evolved for increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the stroma (see C4 carbon fixation). The use of oxygen as a substrate is an apparently-puzzling process, since it seems to throw away captured energy. However it may be a mechanism for preventing overload during periods of high light flux. This weakness in the enzyme is the cause of photorespiration, such that healthy leaves in bright light may have zero net carbon fixation when the ratio of O2 to CO2 reaches a threshold at which oxygen is fixed instead of carbon. This phenomenon is primarily temperature-dependent. High temperature decreases the concentration of CO2 dissolved in the moisture in the leaf tissues. This phenomenon is also related to water stress. Since plant leaves are evaporatively cooled, limited water causes high leaf temperatures. C4 plants use the enzyme PEP carboxylase initially, which has a higher affinity for CO2. The process first makes a 4-carbon intermediate compound, which is shuttled into a site of C3 photosynthesis then de-carboxylated, releasing CO2 to boost the concentration of CO2, hence the name C4 plants.

Role of photorespiration

Photorespiration is said to be an evolutionary relic. Photorespiration lowers the efficiency of photosynthesis by removing carbon molecules from the Calvin Cycle. The early atmosphere in which primitive plants originated contained very little oxygen, so it is hypothesized that the early evolution of RuBisCO was not influenced by its lack of discrimination between O2 and carbon dioxide. Although the functions of photorespiration remain controversial, it is widely accepted that this pathway influences a wide range of processes from bioenergetics, photosystem II function, and carbon metabolism to nitrogen assimilation and respiration. Crucially, the photorespiratory pathway is a major source of H2O2 in photosynthetic cells. Through H2O2 production and pyridine nucleotide interactions, photorespiration makes a key contribution to cellular redox homeostasis. In so doing, it influences multiple signaling pathways, particularly those that govern plant hormonal responses controlling growth, environmental and defense responses, and programmed cell death.

Another theory postulates that it may function as a "safety valve", preventing excess NADPH and ATP from reacting with oxygen and producing free radicals, as these can damage the metabolic functions of the cell by subsequent reactions with lipids or metabolites of alternate pathways.

Since photorespiration requires additional energy from the light reactions of photosynthesis, some plants have mechanisms to reduce uptake of molecular oxygen by RuBisCO. They increase the concentration of CO2 in the leaves so that Rubisco is less likely to produce glycolate through reaction with O2.

C4 plants capture carbon dioxide in cells of their mesophyll (using an enzyme called PEP carboxylase), and oxaloacetate is formed. This oxaloacetate is then converted to malate and is released into the bundle sheath cells (site of carbon dioxide fixation by RuBisCO) where oxygen concentration is low to avoid photorespiration. Here Carbon dioxide is removed from the malate and combined with RuBP in the usual way. The Calvin cycle then proceeds as normal.

The enzyme PEP carboxylase (which catalyzes the combination of carbon dioxide with a compound called Phosphoenolpyruvate or PEP) is also found in other plants such as cacti and succulents who use a mechanism called Crassulacean acid metabolism or CAM in which PEP carboxylase sequesters carbon at night and releases it to the photosynthesizing cells during the day. This provides a mechanism for reducing high rates of water loss (transpiration) by stomata during the day.

This ability to avoid photorespiration makes these plants more hardy than other plants in dry and hot environments where stomata are closed and internal carbon dioxide levels are low. C4 plants include sugar cane, corn (maize), and sorghum.

OK, now it seems that high Co2 is actually a good control/balance for differing levels of oxygen.

Despite previous reports of no apparent photorespiration in C4 plants based on measurements of gas exchange under 2 versus 21% O2 at varying [CO2], photosynthesis in maize (Zea mays) shows a dual response to varying [O2]. The maximum rate of photosynthesis in maize is dependent on O2 (approximately 10%). This O2 dependence is not related to stomatal conductance, because measurements were made at constant intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci); it may be linked to respiration or pseudocyclic electron flow. At a given Ci, increasing [O2] above 10% inhibits both the rate of photosynthesis, measured under high light, and the maximum quantum yield, measured under limiting light ([phi]CO2). The dual effect of O2 is masked if measurements are made under only 2 versus 21% O2. The inhibition of both photosynthesis and [phi]CO2 by O2 (measured above 10% O2) with decreasing Ci increases in a very similar manner, characteristically of O2 inhibition due to photorespiration. There is a sharp increase in O2 inhibition when the Ci decreases below 50 [mu]bar of CO2. Also, increasing temperature, which favors photorespiration, causes a decrease in [phi]CO2 under limiting CO2 and 40% O2. By comparing the degree of inhibition of photosynthesis in maize with that in the C3 species wheat (Triticum aestivum) at varying Ci, the effectiveness of C4 photosynthesis in concentrating CO2 in the leaf was evaluated. Under high light, 30[deg]C, and atmospheric levels of CO2 (340 [mu]bar), where there is little inhibition of photosynthesis in maize by O2, the estimated level of CO2 around ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) in the bundle sheath compartment was 900 [mu]bar, which is about 3 times higher than the value around Rubisco in mesophyll cells of wheat. A high [CO2] is maintained in the bundle sheath compartment in maize until Ci decreases below approximately 100 [mu]bar. The results from these gas exchange measurements indicate that photorespiration occurs in maize but that the rate is low unless the intercellular [CO2] is severely limited by stress.

Light-dependent carbon dioxide release and oxygen uptake in photosynthetic organisms caused by the fixation of oxygen instead of carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. This oxygenation reaction forms phosphoglycolate, which represents carbon lost from the photosynthetic pathway. Phosphoglycolate also inhibits photosynthesis if it is allowed to accumulate in the plant. The reactions of photorespiration break down phosphoglycolate and recover 75% of the carbon to the photosynthetic reaction sequence. The remaining 25% of the carbon is released as carbon dioxide. Photorespiration reduces the rate of photosynthesis in plants in three ways: carbon dioxide is released; energy is diverted from photosynthetic reactions to photorespiratory reactions; and competition between oxygen and carbon dioxide reduces the efficiency of the important photosynthetic enzyme ribulose-bisphosphate (RuBP) carboxylase. There is no known function of the oxygenation reaction; most scientists believe it is an unavoidable side reaction of photosynthesis.

The rate of photosynthesis can be stimulated as much as 50% by reducing photorespiration. Since photosynthesis provides the material necessary for plant growth, photorespiration inhibits plant growth by reducing the net rate of carbon dioxide assimilation (photosynthesis). Plants grow faster and larger under nonphotorespiratory conditions, in either low oxygen or high carbon dioxide atmospheres. Most of the beneficial effects on plant growth achieved by increasing CO2 may result from the reduced rate of photorespiration.

There are some plants that avoid photorespiration under certain conditions by actively accumulating carbon dioxide inside the cells that have ribulose-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase. Many cacti do this by taking up carbon dioxide at night and then releasing it during the day to allow normal photosynthesis. These plants are said to have crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM). Another group of plants, including corn (Zea mays), take up carbon dioxide by a special accumulating mechanism in one part of the leaf, then transport it to another part of the leaf for release and fixation by normal photosynthesis. The compound used to transport the carbon dioxide has four carbon atoms, and so these plants are called C4 plants. Plants that have no mechanism for accumulating carbon dioxide produce the three-carbon compound phosphoglycerate directly and are therefore called C3 plants. Most species of plants are C3 plants.

So low C02 is bad and high CO2 is actually good. Right?

 

[Toastedlightly]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Based on my review of the technical studies, I do believe CO2 to be of minimal environmental impact, unless it is maybe of positive benefit in supporting the growth of plant life, the basis of all life on this planet. Maybe methane and NO have more of an injurious impact, in my reading the jury is still out on those as well.

You should learn some plant physiology. Look up photorespiration, it's a phenomena in which plants actually respire (that is release CO2) due to high levels of CO2. The main photosynthesis enzyme, Rubisco, is inhibited at higher CO2 concentrations. IIRC, around 400ppm CO2, photosynthesis in a large number of plants completely shuts down.

Photorespiration (or "photo-respiration") is the process by which RuBP, (a sugar) has oxygen added to it by the main enzyme involved in photosynthesis, rubisco, instead of carbon dioxide as happens during photosynthesis.

Do not pass your interpretation off as scientific fact. That is NOT photorespiration. If this were the case, then how would we have survived the cambrian era?

 

[PJABBER]

Omar and Toastedlightly, check out this reference and see if you buy the information. The author proposes that levels of 600ppm of C02 would have tremendous benefits, ie increasing food production yields by 30%!!! -

Photosynthesis and CO2 Enrichment

...it is clear that at double CO2 concentration, not only has the efficiency of C3 crops improved tremendously, but the temperature at which optimal photosynthesis occurs in C3 increases up to that of C4. Thus the vast majority of food crops will benefit hugely by increased CO2, and even more so by increased CO2 coupled with warming.

A dangerous combination would be increased warming without increased CO2. Since there is no proof whatsoever that increasing CO2 is having any significant effect on climate (any climate changes might be taking place by completely natural means over which we have no control), but there is incontrovertible evidence that increasing CO2 is positively beneficial with or without warming, then on the basis of risk mitigation and precaution it is utterly foolish to be reducing carbon emissions. As S.A. Cowling put it in Plants and temperature ? CO2 uncoupling (Science, 1999, 285, 1500-1501)

We should be less concerned about rising CO2 and rising temperatures and more worried about the possibility that future atmospheric CO2 will suddenly stop increasing.

The article Global Temperature Change and Terrestrial Ecology in the Encyclopedia of Water Science (CRC Press, 2007) has the matter stated correctly:

[It is a] well-established fact that CO2 is a powerful aerial fertilizer, which when added to the air can substantially increase the vegetative productivity of nearly all plants?numerous studies have demonstrated that the percent increase in growth produced by an increase in the air?s CO2 content typically rises with an increase in air temperature. In addition, at the species-specific upper-limiting air temperature at which plants typically die from thermal stress under current atmospheric CO2 concentrations, higher CO2 concentrations have been shown to protect plants and help them stave off thermal death?[and] increase the species-specific temperature at which plants grow best. Indeed it has been experimentally demonstrated that the typical CO2-induced increase in plant optimum temperature is as great as, if not greater than, the CO2-induced global warming typically predicted?Hence, [with] an increase in the air?s CO2 concentration ? even if it did have a tendency to warm the earth (which is hotly debated) ? ?[plants] ?would grow equally well, if not better, in a warmer and CO2-enriched environment.

We will set out the full range of benefits of increasing CO2 in future posts, but as an initial summary the following is helpful by Vaclav Smil from China?s environmental crisis: an enquiry into the limits of national development (M.E. Sharpe, 1993)

There could also be important beneficial effects, above all a roughly 30 percent higher crop productivity brought by 600ppm of atmospheric CO2 and higher tropospheric temperatures. And the benefits may not end with higher productivity. As photosynthesis is predicated on a very uneven CO2?H2O exchange, higher atmospheric CO2 levels would significantly boost the water use efficiency of all plants. This reduction [in water use] would also average about 30 percent.

Other notable benefits or a higher CO2 level include lower photorespiration (which would increase both the optimum as well as the upper temperature range for photosynthesis), substantially improved symbiotic fixation of nitrogen in leguminous plants, increased resistance to lower temperatures, and air pollution, and a better tolerance of soil and water salinity. A combination of these responses would mean that all major crops would yield more in their current environments while using less water and, when rotated with leguminous species, less fertilizer?or they could be grown in areas considered today too arid for continuous field farming, or that they may be able to outperform the current yields in those regions where precipitation may decline?

Policies such as reducing carbon dioxide emissions, carbon capture and storage, taking land out of food use for biofuels (or onshore wind farms), increasing energy costs, grossly inefficient and poisonous ?organic? farming methods etc all serve to destroy the capability of this planet to support an increasing population. Behind this surely is the stated neo-Malthusian and Green policy to wipe out billions of lives by the sheer force of economics. As hunger increases, it will be blamed on man-made climate change, and the screw will be turned ever more tightly to introduce policies that will accelerate the destruction of mankind.

 

[Bowfinger]

I just wanted to interject a kudo to PJ for this thread. A substantive "article" with his own on-topic, non-inflammatory commentary. Well done, and the result has largely been useful discussion instead of trolls and attacks. P&N used to have more of these -- never a lot, but far more than we've seen in recent memory.

I'd love to see this continue and encourage those on both sides of the issue to keep the discussion productive (in particular, shut out troll posts entirely, ignore them, let the signal drown out the noise for a change). This MAY be the single most important issue of modern history, and it deserves serious discussion.

:wine: or :beer: as appropriate

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I just wanted to interject a kudo to PJ for this thread. A substantive "article" with his own on-topic, non-inflammatory commentary. Well done, and the result has largely been useful discussion instead of trolls and attacks. P&N used to have more of these -- never a lot, but far more than we've seen in recent memory.

I'd love to see this continue and encourage those on both sides of the issue to keep the discussion productive (in particular, shut out troll posts entirely, ignore them, let the signal drown out the noise for a change). This MAY be the single most important issue of modern history, and it deserves serious discussion.

:wine: or :beer: as appropriate

We had a good discussion on nuclear energy as well, if I recall. The more technical the topic the more the politicos stay away.

:beer: + :wine: = :shocked:/:laugh:

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Based on my review of the technical studies, I do believe CO2 to be of minimal environmental impact, unless it is maybe of positive benefit in supporting the growth of plant life, the basis of all life on this planet. Maybe methane and NO have more of an injurious impact, in my reading the jury is still out on those as well.

True, plants provide a pretty good control mechanism for CO2 increase. There is also the albedo effect...higher temperatures lead to more clouds, which keeps the temperature from soaring as much as one might think (jet contrails alone provide a measurable effect!).
However, in my mind the climate change discussion has almost nothing to do with temperature or greenhouse gasses. The earth is a pretty rugged system, and while the more fragile lifeforms may die off, it's going to take a lot more than us to scour the planet clean.

What matters more to me are changing weather patterns, worsening health effects, and resource depletion. As temperature and precipitation patterns shift, growing regions will change. We can build a city anywhere and keep it heated or air conditioned, but we can't grow crops wherever we please...and with an ever-increasing population, we need to think about how to keep everyone fed. Now, perhaps the best way to combat this is with hardier drought-and-heat-resistant crops and focusing on a more long-term method of farming--in other words, have the farms follow the rain as climate shifts, instead of sucking all of our rivers dry to irrigate an increasingly dried-out region (Seriously, SW USA, stop trying to grow stuff in the desert. The Colorado used to be a beautiful river). If so, CO2 is a big fat waste of time. But so is sitting on our rears and hoping that the problem goes away.

As for health effects, well, just look at Asia. Massive problems with air and water quality due to no regulations. Screw the rest of the species, we need to deal with our emissions for our own sakes! I don't believe that this is economic suicide, considering that we are already paying the costs indirectly. I would imagine (no actual numbers) that the total cost of all those EPA Superfund cleanups (using tax money) greatly exceeds the amount that it would have taken to scrub, sequester, or properly dispose of that crap in the first place and pass the costs on to the consumer. The problem with this is that businesses won't voluntarily do anything without passing the cost off to someone else, and the government has lost sight of its primary responsibility as a shield for the public against the harmful effects of full free-market capitalism.

Resource depletion? Well, we need to have oil for long enough for nuclear to take off. We need to plant trees for lumber now that the major forests are showing the strain of over-logging. We need to re-use metals and other highly processed substances because that's cheaper, more energy-efficient, and more aesthetically pleasing than covering the planet with strip mines, power plants, and landfills. This problem, however, is more or less taking care of itself through the power of pure economics.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Based on my review of the technical studies, I do believe CO2 to be of minimal environmental impact, unless it is maybe of positive benefit in supporting the growth of plant life, the basis of all life on this planet. Maybe methane and NO have more of an injurious impact, in my reading the jury is still out on those as well.

True, plants provide a pretty good control mechanism for CO2 increase. There is also the albedo effect...higher temperatures lead to more clouds, which keeps the temperature from soaring as much as one might think (jet contrails alone provide a measurable effect!).
However, in my mind the climate change discussion has almost nothing to do with temperature or greenhouse gasses. The earth is a pretty rugged system, and while the more fragile lifeforms may die off, it's going to take a lot more than us to scour the planet clean.

What matters more to me are changing weather patterns, worsening health effects, and resource depletion. As temperature and precipitation patterns shift, growing regions will change. We can build a city anywhere and keep it heated or air conditioned, but we can't grow crops wherever we please...and with an ever-increasing population, we need to think about how to keep everyone fed. Now, perhaps the best way to combat this is with hardier drought-and-heat-resistant crops and focusing on a more long-term method of farming--in other words, have the farms follow the rain as climate shifts, instead of sucking all of our rivers dry to irrigate an increasingly dried-out region (Seriously, SW USA, stop trying to grow stuff in the desert. The Colorado used to be a beautiful river). If so, CO2 is a big fat waste of time. But so is sitting on our rears and hoping that the problem goes away.

As for health effects, well, just look at Asia. Massive problems with air and water quality due to no regulations. Screw the rest of the species, we need to deal with our emissions for our own sakes! I don't believe that this is economic suicide, considering that we are already paying the costs indirectly. I would imagine (no actual numbers) that the total cost of all those EPA Superfund cleanups (using tax money) greatly exceeds the amount that it would have taken to scrub, sequester, or properly dispose of that crap in the first place and pass the costs on to the consumer. The problem with this is that businesses won't voluntarily do anything without passing the cost off to someone else, and the government has lost sight of its primary responsibility as a shield for the public against the harmful effects of full free-market capitalism.

Resource depletion? Well, we need to have oil for long enough for nuclear to take off. We need to plant trees for lumber now that the major forests are showing the strain of over-logging. We need to re-use metals and other highly processed substances because that's cheaper, more energy-efficient, and more aesthetically pleasing than covering the planet with strip mines, power plants, and landfills. This problem, however, is more or less taking care of itself through the power of pure economics.

You have a lot of valid points.

Pollution should be a serious focus as contaminants often have long and serious effects. There are already a lot of laws like RCRA on the books dealing with these issues and they are being enforced here. Developing countries are starting to react to their polluting industries, I don't think it will be that long before more action is taken, with or without the U.S. or the U.N. getting involved.

There really are no serious shortages of natural resources including fossil fuels. The political restrictions on getting to them and extracting are the only serious barriers to achieving self sufficiency for the conceivable future. Enabling the development of broad scale nuclear power will go a long way toward achieving clean energy goals, but I think this is something that will just be offered lip service in the U.S.

I really found the re-forestation recommendation interesting and something that can work very well in the U.S. where natural forests were eliminated in many developed then abandoned areas. We could use a real Johnny Appleseed program and it wouldn't cost much at all.

Allowing farmers to follow shifting weather is going to be tough. Land ownership and personal use is one of our Declaration of Independence rights in that the original definition of happiness is derived from the thinking of both John Locke (Life, liberty and estate) and Adam Smith (Life, liberty and the pursuit of property). Choosing how we use personal land is identical to pursuing happiness. Property rights are invested in the land, not in in nomadic farming, so I doubt that we will see that any time soon.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
All it is is bullshit to make Al Gore money. Carbon credits are a scam. Making money from nothing.
As we have seen, there is a market for going green thus there is an opportunity for industry to utilize that market to make money and thus self regulation.

Cap and Trade is completely different from carbon credits. With carbon credits, you pay money that essentially goes towards green programs. In cap and trade, one company pays another company for the right to emit more while the other company emits less. That is what cap and trade is.

Bottom line your heating bill for your house is gonna go through the roof! And we're sending money to assholes. It's bullshit.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Bottom line this is a hugh fruad. The Climate is heating up it is getting warmer . But it has nothing to do with US . The whole dam solar system is heating up . How we causing that?
Thats scientific fact and these aswipes know it . The closer we get to the dark rift the warmer everthing is getting .

Nibiru is there but is it a threat or a GOD send??? The Dark rift is a threat a hugh threat that occurs every 26,000 years . Nibiru comes threw once every 3,600 years.

Were still here . But this time is differant. The dark rift and nibiru arrive about the same time What effect the dark rift has should be easy to learn about if sciece is legit in the area of dating past events. simplely find out climate change for 26,000 years ago . . I seen no evidence of a diaster in the record for that period . There was a warming tho .

Now the effect that nibiru plays in this is not known but it comes by every3,600 years and were still here.

I suspect all the 12/23/12 hype is in fact government sponsered terror hype BS. The biggest threat to this planet right now is Population and food shortages. How does one fix this problem . I don't like the only solution I can think of .

Right now the biggest threat too our well being is Or government . The biggest threat tp our government is food shortages and fuel shortages, One other threat remain that the government hasn't seen is the witnesses and GOD all mighty . There is going to be a cleansing . When its all done many will be dead who are fine people at the hands of our own government. they will call it many things but the trueth . Its population control.

What these asses have planed for 12/23/12 is unknown to the masses . Just know what ever it is . Its not real . Scare tatics . I won't say more than that . What i written already is going to be trashed reguardless . In the end the right thinking people will be left the decievers will be gone , Pope is really sick . So what ever they have planned is about to unfold .

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Bottom line this is a hugh fruad. The Climate is heating up it is getting warmer . But it has nothing to do with US . The whole dam solar system is heating up . How we causing that?
Thats scientific fact and these aswipes know it . The closer we get to the dark rift the warmer everthing is getting .

Nibiru is there but is it a threat or a GOD send??? The Dark rift is a threat a hugh threat that occurs every 26,000 years . Nibiru comes threw once every 3,600 years.

Were still here . But this time is differant. The dark rift and nibiru arrive about the same time What effect the dark rift has should be easy to learn about if sciece is legit in the area of dating past events. simplely find out climate change for 26,000 years ago . . I seen no evidence of a diaster in the record for that period . There was a warming tho .

Now the effect that nibiru plays in this is not known but it comes by every3,600 years and were still here.

I suspect all the 12/23/12 hype is in fact government sponsered terror hype BS. The biggest threat to this planet right now is Population and food shortages. How does one fix this problem . I don't like the only solution I can think of .

Right now the biggest threat too our well being is Or government . The biggest threat tp our government is food shortages and fuel shortages, One other threat remain that the government hasn't seen is the witnesses and GOD all mighty . There is going to be a cleansing . When its all done many will be dead who are fine people at the hands of our own government. they will call it many things but the trueth . Its population control.

What these asses have planed for 12/23/12 is unknown to the masses . Just know what ever it is . Its not real . Scare tatics . I won't say more than that . What i written already is going to be trashed reguardless . In the end the right thinking people will be left the decievers will be gone , Pope is really sick . So what ever they have planned is about to unfold .

You took the blue pill, didn't you?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Actually I off the really bad shit I got from US doctors , Using some non approved stuff now much much better. Screw US medican butchers.