An Inconvenient Truth/Global Warming or None Like it Hot

An Inconvenient Truth - Gore and rebuttal by Milloy

[N/A]: Milloy: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ [64.2] too

Sean Tou: Did you see who wrote that article, or his "credentials"? From the end of the article: Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com, CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

I wouldn't trust a word from any shill the CEI would put out. If you want to know why, look at these retarded commercials they're running. Specifically, the one called "Energy".

Kyle Hartman: While all you say is true, I also wouldn't trust a word from a politician or Al Gore, an environmentalist. I haven't seen the movie yet, but plan too, so I can't say much about that really. Just judge the information or the quality of the information, not the people. This whole thing seems too political to me. Science is much better when dumb people don't get involved, like evolution.

Sean Tou: I would trust Al Gore a lot more than Steven Milloy. Gore's been studying global warming for 20+ years. Steven Milloy works for a group that calls CO2 life.

Mr. Milloy's first assertion is that greenhouses work by "physically blocking heat transfer (by convection) from inside to outside – the same effect that heats the inside of your car when it’s parked in the sun on a hot day. Opening the doors and windows allows air currents to flow and the heat to dissipate." This is not inherently false, but Milloy leaves out half of the reason. Greenhouses heat up when the Sun heats the soil within them, which in turn heats the air near the soil. The warmed air is prevented from rising. Mililoy's explanation from here on is correct - convection is suppressed.

He gives a quick and painless explanation of the greenhouse effect, and how it differs from how greenhouses actually work, which is all well and good. He at least knows what he's lying about. He then starts literally pulling graphics out of his ass. I'm not even trying to be funny here. There's nothing wrong with using charts and shit, but he cites absolutely no studies that back up his graphics. There is no authority, and he may as well be making it all up. For example, how does he know that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic in nature? Does he cite a study that shows that there is a logarithmic correlation between the two? No, as you might have guessed. I'm sorry if I didn't even bother to respond to his arguments, but no self-respecting scientist would conveniently "forget" to cite his sources so that other people couldn't argue with him, and that's pretty much the case here.

Just to try and intimidate someone who might think they possibly know something he doesn't, he adds at the end "So where does all the fuss about manmade CO2 and global warming come from? Not from actual temperature measurements and greenhouse physics – rather it comes from manmade computer models relying on myriad assumptions and guesswork." No, as you may have seen from An Inconvenient Truth, they have highly accurate ways of measuring the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in a given year, dating back thousands of years. One method that Gore highlighted was the glacier record. IIRC, falling snow contains a good measure of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as the snow freezes in the polar ice caps, it creates a measurable record of the CO2 in a given year. Furthermore, another point Gore made sure to prominently highlight was the very close correlation between levels of CO2 and planetary temperature throughout the Earth's temperature cycles. So no, it's not exactly "guesswork".

Ethan Goldblum: One of the most powerful pieces of information in the movie was the *scientific* community's consensus on the issue. IIRC, a 10% sample of all global warming related papers in peer-reviewed publications, found that essentially 0 disagreed with the consensus stance. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 [64.3]

If you don't want to believe Gore or Milloy individually, fine. But the accepted research from the world's scientific community paints a very clear picture.

Kyle Hartman: Thank you Ethan, that was much better. I see nothing wrong with that article. It just says humans have altered the temperature of our environment. It didn't really say what was terribly wrong with that. We're good at adapting. If anyone could find out possible consequences, it would be much appreciated. Specifically how far the sealine could move inland. I'll buy a house a little beyond that distance, and in so many years, I'll have a several million dollar profit on a new seafront property. With all the people displaced, the cost of housing could go up too.

Chris Orser: Both Al Gore's movie and Wikipedia's article mention some of these future problems caused by global warming:

-Devastation to various wildlife. Already, polar bears seem to be turning cannibal. Also, as shown in "An Inconvenient Truth", the poor guys can't find any ice. What's that you say, you don't care about wildlife? Well, in addition to eradicating some species, global warming will lead to a larger environment for other animals...many disease carrying.

-It may sound all well and good to make the U.S. into a tropical paradise, but consider this: only a relatively small part of the world is suitable for agriculture. Combine the loss of this part of the world with the increase in human population, and you have one big Malthusian resource conflict. I hope you all like food shortages!

-Rising of the ocean. Seeya later, NJ!

-Speaking of demographics and loss of land (the Dutch are done for), get ready for waves upon waves of refugees. Get ready for a whole new level of xenophobia!

-Good luck, global economy! Hurricane Katrina alone cost, what, $200 billion dollars? And yes, I do think that global warming contributed to the strength, if not the existence, of Katrina.

I mostly highlighted the issues that were less technical, and struck me as the most important, but feel free to add to the list. Even if you don't think it exists, I don't see how you can argue that global warming shouldn't be explored as much as possible. There are many, many more problems, many of which are inter-related, and many seem like they'll have more impact on less developed countries.

Whether or not Gore used this political purposes is up in the air; no one can tell his motivations. He seemed like he had a great chance to win the 2004 election if he had wanted to, but then again, maybe he knew the Democrats would lose. I don't know, and none of us do. But I do think that "An Inconvenient Truth" could be a ridiculously brilliant political springboard back into the White House for Gore, and, personally, I hope it is.

Ethan Goldblum: I also think that it is important to note that the issue of global warming exists even in the absence of Mr. Gore. Attacking the movie, or global warming itself, on the grounds that Gore is using it to gain support for 2008 completely ignores the -ever so slightly- more important situation the movie attempts to explain.

I highly recommend reading Billions and Billions by the late Carl Sagan. One section is devoted to global warming/solving environmentally issues(such as CFCs) Sagan addresses the issue of global warming from a humanist viewpoint, attempting to incorporate all perspectives into his analysis.

(On a sidenote, I also found the chapter on abortion enlightening for its attempt to discuss the issue structurally/scientifically)

Chris Orser: I read that Junk Science thing...finally. The first that struck me was that the guy complained that there wasn't enough information out there supporting what he believed:

"Who would have thought so many "issue" sites, environment sites and, yes, government sites, could be hosting so much utter garbage on a topic subject to such intense scrutiny? Who could have imagined having to spend several hours wading through searches to find a few simple graphics correctly expressing the greenhouse effect?"

I could make a snappy zinger pointing out that maybe, just maybe, the reason that the "utter garbage" of global warming actually being a problem is...true, but I want to keep a somewhat open mind.

Then, oddly, the article goes on to defend the "greenhouse effect". I think we all already knew that the natural greenhouse effect is a good thing, it's just that, like many things, taken to the extreme the greenhouse effect could kill us all.

He uses a lot of intelligent-sounding science terms, but tries to simplify what he says as much as possible. While he could very well be making brilliant points, he could also simply be talking down to his readers and spinning the truth, much as a cult leader might instruct his followers in the ways of Xenu.

IDK, I struggled through this, anyone else want to give it a read?

Afterwards, I looked into the guy, and he didn't seem like a great person. The only really damning thing to me was that he took money from Philip Morris, who would certainly have a reason to pay someone to try to disprove the effects of cigarettes. Also, he apparently appears on FOX News, which certainly seems to enjoy inviting conservatives on its shows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy [64.4]

Mike Houser: Personally, I believe that global warming is a crackpot theory invented and marketed by environmentalists in order to raise funds. Supported by the politicians and media because it sells.

If you actually look at the "science" out there, there is not much to look at. In addition, the data we do have is unreliable at best. We have only skimmed the surface of climatology. We cannot forecast the weather accurately a week in advance, how are we supposed to predict global temperatures a 100 years from now.

In the 1980's scientists predicted a 0.33 degree increase in the temperature of the earth surface, however the actual increase was only 0.11. WTF!! That is 300% error.

I will say this, the earth's surface temperature is rising, but his is most likely do to the urbanization of the planet and the heat island effect. Atmospheric temperatures have remained relatively constant over the last century. According to the theory of global warming atmospheric temperature should rise due to an increase of CO2 levels.

Speaking of CO2 levels...

Over the past fifty years the CO2 level has increased 60 parts per million from 316ppm to 376ppm. Do you know how small of a change that is.

So CO2 makes up 0.000376% of or atmosphere today as opposed to 0.000316% in 1957. The percentage change was 0.00006%. I do not think this change is large enough to create a drastic increase in temperature.

Chris Orser: I'd like to see your sources. Obviously, there is some disagreement between Gore's data and yours.

Also, you said that it's hard to judge the weather, then proceeded to admonish scientists for making an error concerning the weather.

Anyway, I would separate being able to predict weather (get it, I made a pun) it will rain or not, given that the difference between raining or not can be a relatively small amount of precipitation, and whether or not the world's climate is going to become significantly hotter, and there are already symptoms of that (like the fact that recent years have been hotter, for example).

Finally, the scientific consensus is in favor of global warming. In the end, their opinion is the only one that really matters. I hardly think every scientist is a "crackpot", nor do I think there's a huge conspiracy to raise funds to...idk...probably make LSD according to you. This may come as a shock, but just because you have a certain poltical philosophy doesn't mean that you have to agree with everything that Fox News says.

Kyle Hartman: That's way too many scientists to be crackpots. If we have caused as much damage/disruption I doubt there is too much we can do about it. I think gasoline is on the way out, I'm not holding my breath for fusion, but fission is still awesome. Lets not go nuts, we can just add this to the list of problems with petroleum as a major fuel source, other problems are reliance on insane countries, regular pollution, costly wars, and monopolistic companies. I think we are getting close to perfecting fuel cells, which can be powered by fission, or eventually fusion. I think this would cost less, despite the global warming issue. I'm just saying you can argue and complain, but nothing will really change until we come up with a fuel source, that we can use for less of a cost, that doesn't release CO2 as a byproduct. I'm with conservatives in that I don't think this is a reason to hinder industry, if we want them to change, give them a better alternative. They don't pollute cause their evil, it's cause it's cheap. Kinda like survival of the fittest.

Sean Tou: It's not really cheap, it's just shortsighted. Gore talked about that in AIT - how industry lobbyists keep trying to portray this false dichotomy that it's either industry or environment, but it's not like that at all.

Mike Houser: I will admit that the last few years have been warmer… If you compare today’s temperatures to those in the fifties and sixties or the late 1800's. Did you know in the sixties they thought there was global cooling, and we ere going into another ice age. Imagine that.

However if you can compare today's temperatures to those of the 1930's or mid 1850's, the temperatures are about the same or even a little cooler.

The truth is you can make the data look any way you see fit. The rule of thumb today is make a hypothesis then find the data that supports this. Environmentalists want you to feel scared so people will donate money to them so they can run their machine. Pollution worries people but global warming scares the hell out of them.

When you see stuff about global warming, you have to see exactly what they are talking about. What are comparing? Surface temperature vs. Atmospheric temperature. Are they accounting for the urban heat island effect properly? Where did the data come from?

Chris Orser: N/A wrote: 

Environmentalists want you to feel scared so people will donate money to them so they can run their machine.

What the hell are you talking about???

Btw, I would rate global warming above the other major problems facing us, like our non-renewable energy sources, dependance on foreign countries, rogue states that may be pursuing WMD's, the growing rich-poor divide in our country, growing competition from foreign countries, etc, mostly because, while it may not be the most urgent, the effects of global warming are the worst. Again, I disagree that you shouldn't give people the proper motivation to solve ALL problems (sometimes you have to make things happen), but acknowledgement is a lot better than denial.

While, yes, scientists have been wrong before, they're consensus is the best thing we've got to decide on what's probably true and what probably isn't. Could they be wrong? Sure. But I think most people agree that, if there's any indication in science that there's a right answer, an answer that a consensus of scientists believe in is probably the one.

Chris Orser: Do you mean other than carbon sequestration, personally using less oil (hybrid cars, driving less, buying less plastic products, etc), voting for environmentally-concerned politicians (NOT necessarily the Green party), and maybe telling Bush to sign the fucking Kyoto Protocol?

Sean Tou: The funny thing about the Kyoto Protocol is that even though Bush wouldn't sign it, individual states are basically setting up their shit so it's like they may have well signed it themselves.

Kyle Hartman: People don't even recycle, how hard is it to put something in the blue container thats next to the other one. People even litter when it's less than 10 feet away.

I have an idea, lets tax petroleum to make people use less, thus increasing the demand for alternative fuel and maybe pave the way for fuel cell cars (charged preferably by nuclear power, but that's just me, and if not an alternative fuel than cars that get 50 miles to the gallon), than we take the money we make on those taxes for the government to by petroleum to booster it's oil reserve, which we never plan to use. We do this saying we are concerned about the public and need to prevent a shortage, that way we look like we are doing it out of neccessity and goodness to the people. Than we take our reserve buildup and sell it to China, India, or other developing countries that will still use a lot of petroleum. If prices rise the way the are now, petroleum is a good investment, even without the US buying as much. Plus then, other countries are now reliant on us for oil shipments and the tide has turned. The US with Canada actually has a decent amount of oil, it's just more expensive to pump, but it is profitable. We could then have enough petroleum for our few remaining uses, plus plenty to ship out, and with the amount stored from before we could make a real profit. I guess it doesn't help so much with global warming because others would just be using the oil, but it fixes some other problems the US has, and we can always blame other countries for using so much oil later, after we have stopped. So yeah, that was just a random thought I had that I thought was connected to global warming in some way but wasn't. Anyway, it still involves personally using less petroleum.

Chris Orser: Oh come now, if people actually gave a damn, we could do a lot to stop global warming. The nice thing is that a lot of what we have to do stop global warming (making things more efficient, becoming less dependent on oil, instituting more safeguards against mass pollution) would benefit us in other areas, like the economy, foreign policy, or clean air. I also think that the next natural disaster that strikes (esp a hurricane in a non-environmentalist area) will further strengthen the environmentalist effort (I feel a little bad saying that, and it's not something that I hope happens).

The petroleum tax sounds good. An increase in the supply of petroleum would cause more foreign consumption of oil (higher supply generally leads to lower prices), but probably not enough to off-set current U.S. use. If the U.S. did manage to make alternative, cleaner, more efficient, renewable energy sources viable, then those energy sources would eventually be used by other countries (and who would have the technology, know-how, and resources to create such energy sources? The United States. Now there's a freaking gold mine). And yes, if nothing else, it would give us a lot more freedom in foreign policy.

Btw, did anybody else see that study by Ford that said that hydrogen cars might work in the U.S., so long as pumping stations became widespread?

Sean Tou: This [64.5] is obviously impractical for everyone to buy, but it's a step in the right direction. It's a purely electrical car, has zero emissions, and can go a few hundred miles without needing a recharge.

Aric Wei: Are a lot of people still buying SUVs? It sickens me to also see Hummer commercials in such a time like this. On the other hand, the SUV manufacturers are trying to make their vehicles more energy efficient and what not.

Chris Orser: Possible drawbacks to biofuels. It's from a British Liberal newspaper, so I don't think it's just an oil propaganda piece.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1431083.ece [64.6]

Kyle Hartman: Still, it's dumb to stay the course, and most of his problems weren't actually with biofuels, just people not thinking ahead. It was really more of a cautionary note than a serious flaw with biofuels. The biggest problem, not to an environmentalist of course, is that biofuels cost more for the amount of energy you get right now at least. Business could potentially get really hurt by forcing them to use alternative energy rather than petroleum, but I guess we don't have that much of a choice, and it's better if the transition is mild and well thought out. I still like nuclear power used in conjunction with hybrid cars. It would cost a lot of capital, but both are known to work, and the infrastructure is in place. Or they could just make good electric cars, and go nuclear all the way. I wonder how much radioactive material would produced from powering the country?

Sean Tou: So there was something interesting in today's Times. It's kinda old, but I think it's worthy of discussion. California's enacted a bunch of environmental laws, and they're forcing power plants to basically clean up.

Link [64.7]

There's an interesting dichotomy that everyone makes every single time there's a reference to cleaning up industrial pollution. Al Gore actually addressed this in "An Inconvenient Truth" with an amusing visual of weighing scales. On one side of the scales was the planet Earth, on the other side was a set of gold bars. It's obviously a terrible analogy, and I think it was Reagan that came up with it. The point is, all the conservatives think there's some kind of trade-off between saving the environment and having a thriving industry. I don't see why it has to be that way. Isn't it similar to how everyone thought machinery was going to decrease employment, but it actually ended up creating more jobs than ever before? I don't see how this situation is much different.

Chris Orser: I don't know if you're necessary comparing apples to apples there, but yes, I do think being "green" can doesn't necessarily mean losing money. For instance, part of being green is being efficient, which usually means more money up-front but savings in the long run (eg buying a more fuel-efficient car). Land value can come into play, as pollution reduces land value. As we all know from Sim City, land value is the key to luring high-income, high-education individuals, who then want high tech jobs. So you have a vicious cycle there where being green brings in smarter people and raises the land value. Then, of course, there's the PR angle; rather than spending 10 million on a stadium naming deal, a company could spend 9 million on getting greener and 1 million on marketing the fact that they got greener; I would think that that would work just as well, esp with people caring more about the environment these days. Then, of course, there's the fact that the longer the planet isn't a smog-filled hellhole, the longer people can live a more affluent lifestyle with more money to spend (actually, I don't really think that I should come to that conclusion so naturally, but I would think that most business leaders would want to see the earth somewhat clean), along with probably more resources as being greener does generally mean using less resources (using oil-substitutes for example).

On the other hand, being greener generally does cost money, as most of the reason companies do what they do is because it's the cheapest, easiest alternative. That's why tax breaks, government funded research, and intelligent regulations are so important.

Obviously the scale is an oversimplification, but I think in the long-term it's just plain wrong. It's not always right in the short-term, either.

Sean Tou: My thinking was that researching more environmentally-friendly technologies would actually open up new fields of study and production (and thus create industry), but yea, you have a good point there about future planning vs. looking at the short-term.

Kyle Hartman: Sean's comparison definitely wasn't valid. While it can create more jobs, it overal costs more. It's good in the long run because the we won't damage other resources of the earth which we need, namely land, and water. Being green hurts business while machines help business, so if anything the analogy flawed. I don't think of environmentalism as a major concern, but it should definitely be on the agenda more than it is now. As long as restrictions aren't crippling, business will find a way to adapt, and it certainly won't even hurt our ability to compete in the world market, just the salaries everyone gets. Maybe it would put pressure and tighten up some jobs, which is fine by me. My sympathy for those less valuable to a company is somewhat lacking I guess. Environmentally sound is essential to our communities, and is a sane restriction on business. Just don't whine later when the job market tightens. CEO's won't cut their pay, they will just announce layoffs and paycuts for the blue collar workers. I'm with you most of the way, just be careful what you wish for, repercussions are inevitable, and it seems we usually overlook them. But hey, a tougher job market is good in that it creates competition. I would just argue that we have to be sane with the limitations, lest people get whiney. Everyone cares about the environment to some degree, but I bet htey are still looking out for number 1. When the economy does well, people are more open to environmental ideas, so just don't slow it down, or all that work is back to square 1. That's mostly just what i think though, and I know I probably read it somewhere too, either way it seems to make sense.

Chris Orser: You're overconfidence in business is your undoing. Yes, they will adapt, but they adapt not for the common good but for profit. A business would adapt just as well in a post-global warming world, with food shortages everywhere and half the South flooded. If we don't regulate the businesses, they will eventually lead us off a cliff. Just look at the stock market crash of 1929 for a great example.

Kyle Hartman: I've read up on that, and it was partly due to incompetant government influence. Hoover strongly encouraged businesses to keep wages high, so businesses had to lay off people rather than paying them less, which led to mass unemployment. Government's can't be trusted controling the economy at all in my opinion. They can act as voice for the people, like in environmentalism however. Businesses won't go green of course, but you can offer large enough incentives vs. penalties for those who don't comply, that's a reasonable government influence. There were a lot of things that led to the Great Depression, saying it was lack of government regulation of business alone (I know you didn't, but others think it) is ridiculous. It was a global depression, so it has a lot of factors. The government putting restrictions and checks on business practices is fine, so in that sense, regulation is ok. Plus there's always the wonderful regulating Chinese government, how much worse can you get environmentally speaking?

Chris Orser: My point was that, since the government regulations created since the Great Depression were instituted, nothing as bad as the Great Depression has ever happened. Of course, that's not to say that it won't happen again (in fact, I heard somewhere that we have a depression every 70 years...bum bum bum...), just that I think it's less likely to. I believe that business lacks the ability to regulate itself against it's own excesses, and, at times, it needs to be protected from itself (or more often, the people need to be protected from it). An appointed commission under a democratically elected government is just what is needed; basically, I'm saying that we need to create an environmental protection agency...oh wait, we already have one. Too bad it's head probably doesn't believe in global warming (the president appoints the head of the EPA).

To bring China into the picture is, as I suspect you already realize, to use a straw man; I'm certainly not proposing to go as far them, and I think it also misses a certain point, in that the Chinese government is concerned only about growth, whereas the U.S. government is (hopefully) concerned about sustainability, the happiness of it's people, etc.

The fact is, I'm more concerned about living in a world that doesn't suck than I am about maintaining a great economy, and I think if the choice does come down to taking a business over because of it's harmful policies or letting it run rampant, I would choose to take the business over. But, of course, that's only in the worst case scenario; I appreciate business's contribution to our country and believe that free trade is generally more efficient. I'm just saying that incentives may not be enough, and, if they aren't, then we need to take action.

Kyle Hartman: My point is just that incentives are enough. I see no evidence that even minor regulation, but to me I think of regulations as a control or direction (maybe you define it differently), like government trying to force or point business in a direction. I can see your point about it's better to control it than to let it go crazy, but I don't see evidence that would require any measure of control. A government incentive is fine, and a reasonable restriction. The reason we don't see them today is lack of support punishing eco-harming businesses. It's easier to get support for incentives and laws protecting waste disposal, than to get support for regulating the economy, and what reason is there to think they don't work?

Chris Orser: Well, to give another example, big business became so big in the early 20th century that the government had to step in and break up the trusts. I think we all understand the dangers of monopolies (you mine as well live in a communist country), and I think this example just gives further proof that business can't regulate itself enough for the good of the people. That's why it's good that the government has to approve of mergers, which is one example of a regulation. Then there's the Great Depression, which, like you mentioned, was a complicated thing...but it wouldn't have been nearly as bad if banks were forced to keep a certain amount of money on hand, as they are today. For an example that's somewhat relevant to us, tobacco companies pretty clearly target kids in their marketing, and, if not for the gov't banning smoking for people under 18, there might be a lot more smokers.

I don't think business has the track record, or the adaptibility, to not kill us all through short-term profit policies, if we don't regulate what they do to a certain extent (e.g. I think we should make all SUV's hybrids).

Kyle Hartman: Breaking up monopolies and trusts is ok, and thats minimum regulation in my opinion. I think big business is ok, and even having 90% of the market share is ok in my book, but the government should step in against illegally crushing smaller businesses. Out competing someone is ok, but outcompeting by price gouging isn't, especially since it's dangerous to the consumer. A watchdog function is ok for the government, as long as it isn't in control, and making economic decisions.

Chris Orser: Ok, well I feel that that watchdog role what I'm arguing for, though obviously, in this case at least, I'm talking more about environmental issues than anything else. I'm trying to think of a good example about exactly where I'd draw the line; I guess, like I was saying earlier, I'd like the gov't to mandate that all SUV's and Light Trucks cut back on emissions over a long period of time, but I wouldn't like it (at least not yet) if the gov't mandated a cutback on the number of SUV's and light trucks themselves.

Kyle Hartman: i think it's better just too raise the taxes on oil because it's an environmental hazard. It's a perfectly valid response in my opinion since it costs money to fix the environmental problem, those who use the most gas have to pay the most. 50 cents to a dollar higher and we would see a big sale in hybrids. It's unfair to suddenly due it since cars a huge investment and you can't just sell it back, but announce that over the course of the next 3 years we will tax gasoline in growing increments.

Chris Orser: Sounds good to me, and I'd also add that its a foreign policy problem as well as an environmental problem, not to mention that its a (long-term) economic problem. I like the idea of equating pollution to money, and we should use such methods on factories and whatnot.

Chris Orser: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/19/bush-warming-hurricanes/ [64.8]

An article that talks about how Bush allegedly “tried to suppress a federal scientist from discussing the link between global warming and hurricanes.”

Note that Bush has, in the past, admitted that global warming exists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070602298.html [64.9]

Sean Tou: Interesting that you mention that you basically want a tax on pollution, as Gore just gave a speech [64.10] saying that we should remove all payroll taxes and replace them with pollution taxes.

Kyle Hartman: Chris Orser wrote:

Sounds good to me, and I'd also add that its a foreign policy problem as well as an environmental problem, not to mention that its a (long-term) economic problem. I like the idea of equating pollution to money, and we should use such methods on factories and whatnot.

Money is the official national language.

To Sean: the link didn't work for me, but i like the idea of reducing payroll taxes. Although, isn't that a whole lot of money, i don't want a pollution tax to be crippling, just enough to make them pay attention, like punching someone in the stomach. I suppose it makes sense though, sense without a payroll tax we have more money to spend, which we will need to pay the higher prices of energy with a pollution tax.

Sean Tou: Here's the relevant parts of the speech, along with bits I found interesting:

We in the United States of America have a particularly important responsibility, after all, because the world still regards us — in spite of our recent moral lapses — as the natural leader of the community of nations. Simply put, in order for the world to respond urgently to the climate crisis, the United States must lead the way. No other nation can.

[...]

Well, first of all, we should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions. Merely engaging in high-minded debates about theoretical future reductions while continuing to steadily increase emissions represents a self-delusional and reckless approach. In some ways, that approach is worse than doing nothing at all, because it lulls the gullible into thinking that something is actually being done when in fact it is not.

[...]

A responsible approach to solving this crisis would also involve joining the rest of the global economy in playing by the rules of the world treaty that reduces global warming pollution by authorizing the trading of emissions within a global cap.

[...]

The absence of the United States from the [Kyoto] treaty means that 25% of the world ec1onomy is now missing. It is like filling a bucket with a large hole in the bottom. When the United States eventually joins the rest of the world community in making this system operate well, the global market for carbon emissions will become a highly efficient closed system and every corporate board of directors on earth will have a fiduciary duty to manage and reduce CO2 emissions in order to protect shareholder value.

[...]

First, dramatic improvements in the efficiency with which we generate, transport and use energy will almost certainly prove to be the single biggest source of sharp reductions in global warming pollution... Since pollution is, after all, waste, business and industry usually become more productive and efficient when they systematically go about reducing pollution. After all, many of the technologies on which we depend are actually so old that they are inherently far less efficient than newer technologies that we haven’t started using. [He uses the example of the combustion engine. 90% of the BTUs in a gallon of gasoline is wasted when run through an engine. Futhermore, only 1% of the energy actually produced is used to move a passenger]

[...] 

Sean Tou: Today, our nation faces threats very different from those we countered during the Cold War. We worry today that terrorists might try to inflict great damage on America’s energy infrastructure by attacking a single vulnerable part of the oil distribution or electricity distribution network. So, taking a page from the early pioneers of ARPANET, we should develop a distributed electricity and liquid fuels distribution network that is less dependent on large coal-fired generating plants and vulnerable oil ports and refineries.

[He suggests distributing windmills and solar cells through the gride to reduce emissions and increase "energy security". Also, dispersing ethanol and biodisel production facilities would make renewable fuel stock and decrease dependence on oil, which would "make us less vulnerable to the impact of a category 5 hurricane hitting coastal refineries or to a terrorist attack on ports or key parts of our current energy infrastructure." He adds that this would help the American auto industry combat foreign car companies with more efficient cars.]

[... He goes on to talk about how erratic and dangerous the oil market is, how vulnerable it is to manipulation by the countries that have the largest supplies of oil. Switching to alternate forms of fuel would remove dependence on foreign oil]

[...]

For the last fourteen years, I have advocated the elimination of all payroll taxes — including those for social security and unemployment compensation — and the replacement of that revenue in the form of pollution taxes — principally on CO2. The overall level of taxation would remain exactly the same. It would be, in other words, a revenue neutral tax swap. But, instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage business from producing more pollution.

[...]

This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue. It affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left vs. right; it is a question of right vs. wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours.

I really recommend reading all of it. If you want, I'll make a new thread that just has the whole transcript in it.

Kyle Hartman: I still don't know what to think about global warming, but it hardly matters as these restrictions would probably include limiting other areas of pollution. I think making the world green benefits us all, and won't cost that much for the benefits we get. I honestly don't know how successful Gore is going to be in this area though, as his focus is largely on global warming, and a lot of people don't believe in it.

Chris Orser: Actually, that last part is where you're wrong.

http://www.zogby.com/wildlife/NWFfinalreport8-17-06.htm [64.11]

That poll shows that 70 percent of Americans have become more convinced over the last year that global waming is a serious problem. I know that that doesn't necessarily mean that they actually do think global warming is a serious problem, so, because I'm feeling ironic, here's a poll from fox news.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175070,00.html [64.12]

It says that 77 percent of Americans believe global warming is a problem.

Of course, that doesn't mean that most Americans think global warming is the most important problem, and Al Gore isn't going to win the presidency on that issue alone. Not that he has too, anyway, he just needs to get more lawmakers on his side and continue to raise awareness of the current scientific consensus on the subject.

Kyle Hartman: Oh..... good then. Do you really think Gore is going to run? I would consider picking him over a soley social conservative easily, or maybe cause I would be mad that McCain lost in the primaries.

Chris Orser: I actually kinda do. I think the major weakness he had as a candidate was that people saw him as unpassionate and boring, and I think his environmental activism may have changed that perspective a little (and might have even gained him some non-political credibility). He's also the best anti-Hillary candidate, by which I mean he's the only one who looks like he could beat her in a primary right now. Him running and winning would also have some parallels in history: Richard Nixon did about the same thing.

Of course, it all comes down to what he wants. I think anyone who gets to as high of a position as Vice President (he was also a power in the Senate, btw) has a lot of ambition, and I don't know if someone with a lot of ambition could really walk away from politics forever, esp since he's only in his late 50's, making him slightly younger than Bush. And I think if he really believes in saving the environment, he'll do all he can politically to help it; even just his candidacy would spotlight the environment a lot.

On an unrelated note, I was on wikipedia and it had a link about Gore's grades in school. Yeah, I beat his and Bush's SAT's (Gore: 1355, Bush: 1206). I wonder, though, if SAT scores on the whole have changed over the years. His IQ in '61 and '64 were 133 and 134.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18 [64.13]

Sean Tou: I don't think he needs to be President to make a huge difference. Look what Bill Clinton is doing with his foundation right now. It's far more than anything he ever did as President (not that he wasn't a good pres.)

Kyle Hartman: Ok, so I just say An Inconvenient Truth now that it's out on DVD, and I have to admit what Al Gore was asking for was realistic, feasible, and arguably easy. If you want people to ride buses more, make them almost free, requiring greater miles per gallon in an automobile forces a stagnant US industry to be innovative, ditto for power-saving devices, alternative energy is costly in the short run but is really an investment because you get energy for almost free forever afterwards. Although I don't think it's wise to simply place a tax on CO2 emissions, I think it would be fine if the US subsidized the carbon scrubbers so they were very cheap for business, thus business wouldn't be effected so much by such a requirement. To be honest, I'm still not afraid of global warming, but the solutions I support because they are good for other reasons, and I'm definitely not going to miss the "majestic glaciers" he went on and on about.

Kyle Hartman: http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS03-12.pdf 

I was wondering why we don't invest in renewable fuel. I mean think about it, you set up one windmill to get energy, you use it's energy to sell to get money to build another, and you just keep going, obviously not on such a small scale. I know fossil fuels are cheap, but it's renewable, another way of saying free if done correctly. You just keep taking the profits to keep expanding until everyone can get energy for almost free. I can see every random hilltop with a windmill covered in solar cells standing fueling hydrogen batteries for transportation in biodiesel electic hybrid getting 80 miles to the gallon. I don't understand why only environmentalists care about this sort of thing, we have the potential to make so much money. We're a pretty rich country, we can cover the initial costs. We can be the ones to start the major push to this technology and be the main producers, then sell it internationally by guilting the Europeans.

Brian Robinson: Kyle Hartman wrote:

I was wondering why we don't invest in renewable fuel. I mean think about it, you set up one windmill to get energy, you use it's energy to sell to get money to build another, and you just keep going, obviously not on such a small scale.

Actually, America has the second largest collection of wind power in the world. The problems with renewable energy lie with converting our rather inflexible way of life to one more open to renewable sources. Meaning, people have to learn to drive smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles and/or create an actual demand for hybrid vehicles. You know, car manufacturers have plenty of hybrid models that are very very efficient, but refuse to sell them in today's modern market. 

To be blunt, renewable energy is an investment. It doesn't pay off immediately, but you have essentially "free" energy much farther down the road. It's up to the present society to finally make the investment. 

But all of you knew that anyway. And now you know it again.

Kyle Hartman: The government has lied to people before, I refuse to accept that we won't progress because people are stupid. If anything, it's America's greatest strength. You just need to redirect it to help the problem. If you global warming was blown waaaay out of proportion, and people honestly were afraid of carbon, then I bet we would see renewable energy working much quicker. I wouldn't call it lying, just misinformation or nonfull disclosure. Show the effects using the only most extreme estimates. If nothing else, scare tactics have been shown to work. I'm sure you would have no problem getting the media to get excited about it. Sure, some people would know it's blown out of proportion, but how many Americans get their information from the nightly news, or even from a friend who watches the news. I could see this not working at all if people really don't want to hear this information, thats another thing the public can do, just close their ears to problems, but the level of publicity I would try to make the issue should be too much to ignore, scare tactics do work.

Sean Tou: That would be funny seeing tactics reversed, but the problem I see is that the other side will put up just as much as a fight, if not bigger. It's going to be funded by the entire petroleum industry, because the future of renewable energy likely does not involve oil, or at least marginalizes it to a great degree.

Chris Orser: I honestly think we'll be fine as long as we don't turn complacent about this...maybe a better way to put that is that I'm very hopeful about our chances to make renewable energy a global thing, though I have to understand that I live in an environment that's different from most Americans, and even moreso from the entire world. Nonetheless, given how much sense it makes both for the environment and for business, and how people from different ideologies can embrace it, and how every day new people seem to be adopting and acting on renewable energy ideas, I think we have a very good chance to actually create a world of sustainable development. 

With that said, I still think the most important thing is to not get complacent and just assume the problem will get fixed and go away. No matter how much sense anything makes, and no matter how profitable it might be, the only sure way to fix the problem is for people to embrace it and try to do something about it, even if that something is simply voting for candidates that support renewable energy ideas, or buying from companies that use renewable energy. Determination, not inevitability, is the key ingredient to any change.

Brian Robinson: Let the markets establish better environmental policies, place environmental taxes on industries or establish resource ownership. That is, a company would own a particular section of resource-rich land, and likely be more interested in maintaining it, seeing as it's their only window of profit.

Kyle Hartman: Brian Robinson wrote:

Let the markets establish better environmental policies, place environmental taxes on industries or establish resource ownership. That is, a company would own a particular section of resource-rich land, and likely be more interested in maintaining it, seeing as it's their only window of profit.

They would be more interested in getting the most profit from the land. They would still rip it up for the resources, drain it, then break up the company going their ways with the plunder. I have no evidence of obviously, but it's what I would do in their position. I'm all for environmental taxes, assuming you provide a subsidy to offset the costs somewhat. I'm not worried about the environmental problems not being fixed, I'm worried about missing out on potential earnings for the United States. It would be great if we could stop importing foreign oil, just work off our reserves cause we need so much less. I think one fifth of our trade deficit is from foreign oil alone, so it would be nice to eliminate.

Brian Robinson: I'm fairly certain that if a company has only 'x' out of resources to work with they will not strip them all bare and run themselves into the ground. Let's say Lumber Company A is given X number of acres to grow tree farms. Well, that company is more likely to use soil restorative techniques to keep their business afloat as opposed to slashing and burning the entire lot and destroying their source of revenue.

Chris Orser: Unless of course they can use the money they make to buy better land (or switch to non-land/natural resource using businesses), and do the same process all over again. Companies will tend to do whatever is profitable, so, while your idea makes sense, it would take some effective and competent regulation.

You'd also have to make huge short-term changes to apply that system, I think, which might off-set the potential advantages. On the other hand, it might not, and it is one scheme to make sustainable development connected with profit.

Kyle Hartman: I understand what Brian is trying to say, but you can't see companies anymore as an entity that will do the best for itself. There is too much turnover in the industry, people do what is best for themselves, and more often than not it's to make short term profits, exaggerate, make stock profits and then use your experience to move to a new company. Some people can make money through buying larger companies, breaking them down, and then selling them off cause they are worth more broken apart that way. I think we need to reevaluate the corporate world sometimes. Good thinking though, it's not like any ideas i come up with will work either, but I think it's important that everyone keeps thinking on ways to make the world a better place. Waaay too many people only look inwards.

Aric Wei: China is a significant factor in the global warming influence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

If you look at the China section of the article, in 2004 they had 54% of our emissions (USA), but since they are developing so quickly and building about one coal power plant per week, they are going to exceed us in about a few years if not already.

Kyle Hartman: another american job lost overseas, over-consumption and environmental apathy

Chris Orser: I thought this was a pretty good argument for us signing the Kyoto Treaty:

Why We Should Act, Regardless: It seems the strongest objection against binding greenhouse-gas restrictions here is that China and India will swamp any emissions cuts made by the United States. In the short term, this is true -- but it's no reason to delay action. The United States has been the source of all the major technical and economic innovations to combat smog and acid rain, including catalytic converters, reformulation of gasoline, coal "washing" and the trading of emissions permits to cut the cost of acid rain reduction. Devised here, such ideas are spreading throughout the developing world. Smog in Mexico City, which seemed unstoppable a decade ago, is declining. China, India, Mexico and other growing nations are adopting American anti-pollution ideas of their own free choice because it's in their self-interest. No international treaties require other nations to take action against smog or acid rain -- they are doing so because they want to, the strongest of human motivations.

If the United States regulates greenhouse gases, American ingenuity will lead to an outburst of clever technical and marketplace ideas for cutting greenhouse gases cheaply. Right now, few inventors and businesspeople are working on this because you cannot make a profit by cutting greenhouse gases. Offer a profit incentive, and American brainpower will make the breakthroughs that change artificial global warming from unstoppable to just another management problem. If these breakthroughs are cheap, other nations will adopt them of their own free choice because it will be in their interest to do so -- no complex international treaties required. U.S. Congress, what are we waiting for?

Mike Baney: First: the logarithmic thing is right. Just look up Beer's law. Absorption=molar absorptivity*path length*concentration

%%%BEGIN SCIENCE: SKIP IF YOU WANT

Where A is the log of % transmittance (defined as percent of light that got through). This is what introduces the logarithmic dependancy.

Molar absorptivity is a compound-dependant constant that basically says how much a compound absorbs per how much you have. Analogy: tinted glass would have a higher molar absorptivity than clear glass.

Path length is how far the light travels through whatever it is. In the glass analogy, it would be the thickness of the glass. Thicker glass means higher absorbency.

Concentration is concentration.

%%%END SCIENCE

Second: The reason people don't want to sign the Kyoto protocol is apparently China has a history of signing these kinds of treaties then ignoring them to gain a short term economic advantage, which is huge for a developing country. Although we should try to lead by example, no one looks to second place for an example.

Third: I'm trying to find out why CO2 (as a gas) is so important compared to say, oxygen. I guess just because its the primary gas that we make--other stuff is insignificant by percentage so if you're looking for a culprit, that's pretty much it. I looked at heat capacities and CO2 isn't special: .9 J/mol compared to water's 4.184 J/mol. It's IR spectrum is actually less than water, meaning water absorbs more wavelengths of IR than water. However, it does have significant absorption in the "far IR" region, which is lower energy, but probably translates better into heat (heat itself is low energy).

Fourth: I wrote a paper on different ways the government can curb emissions, and there's a whole bunch of them that are generally economically driven and can help smart companies gain a competitive advantage over others, which is the kind of gradient you need to have people actually do things.

I'll be back with more probably.

Sean Tou: China's going to drive it's ecology into the f***ing gutter, the way it's going.

My take on it is that the US is still one of the leading producers of pollution in the world, so it should take what moral high ground it has left and sign it (amusingly enough, several states have actually recently enacted legislation that is equal to or stricter than Kyoto, eg California). Kyoto was never meant to act as a be-all-end-all solution; it's just a first step, and a necessary one.

Kyle Hartman: To Mike,

Most of the heat stored in the atmosphere is in water vapor. However, with higher concentrations of CO2, we trap more heat which heats the earth, causing an equilibrium shift between water in the ocean and water vapor. So a little bit of CO2 can cause more evaporation of water across all the oceans, which is a lot of water vapor which traps more heat in the atmosphere. 

Chris Orser: In regards to the Kyoto Protocol, I can see both sides of the argument. In the end I'm probably for signing it, but it seems to me that we should probably get more out of developing countries, who apparently "have no obligation beyond monitoring and reporting emissions." I understand why there would be a double-standard, but having no obligation at all to improve anything for developing countries seems pretty weak to me.

Kyle Hartman: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/solar-city-to-rise-in-persian-gulf-why-not-arizona/index.html?hp

this is a city designed to have zero to minimal ecological footprint. It does seem funny that they're trying this where oil would be the cheapest, giving this experiment a higher opportunity cost, but there may be side benefits I didn't consider, or they think it's truly worth the cost. Either way, good for them.

Brian Robinson: One way or the other, it's good to see such a project be initiated by someone. With the US economy the way it is, I doubt people would approve the amount of capital required to construct that thing. Bush already proposed that $3.1 trillion spending plan, not to mention that economy revitalization deal floating through Congress right now.

I suppose, and this is purely speculation on my part, that solar cities within oil-producing countries can directly export a vast majority of all the oil they acquire. In other words, a more streamlined transportation process could be created. Not positive what the economic effects might be, but I feel they should help reduce operating costs.

Kyle Hartman: I think it's exciting to see what solar technology they can come up with. Using solar power on a scale like this will help us identify problems and benefits with using solar power as well as oppurtunity to inprove solar designs. I really don't mind tax dollars being spent on research, particularly research into infrastructure. Plus, a city in the US would be fun to visit. What do others think about building a solar city like this in the American Southwest?

Ethan Goldblum: interestingly enough, it makes more sense to use photovoltaic systems in a place like Albany, NY then in Phoenix, AZ. This is primarily due to the ratio of system costs to local energy costs, similar to what Kyle had mentioned earlier.

Solar is a cool technology and I can't wait to see where it will go. Apparently the guy who invented the super soaker is working on a drastically more efficient heat engine. 

Wind power is also a cool technology. When I was out in California I saw huge arrays (miles upon miles) of wind turbines. Obviously this requires a great amount of land (desert is good for this) and some people consider it unsightly (I thought it was cool 

In the long run, I'm waiting for the space elevator. Once we can get things into orbit at very low costs, we can just set up huge solar arrays outside the atmosphere and pipe the energy back down. How far off is this? I have no idea.

Kyle Hartman: You and that damn elevator, I understand it's potential, but you also have to consider the energy lost sending it back down that distance, and then to everywhere in the US, or possibly world. We would need super-conducting infrastructure everywhere, or have a energy storage device (battery) capable of holding lots and lots of energy for transport. 

However, I will admit that these ideas will become more and more feasible, extremely quickly over time as we both advance our understanding of materials and increase the energy efficiency of energy using systems. 

Good point about solar usage in that region, but land costs so much more in New York, plus it's more cloudy in this region. The Southwest has land that the American government already owns, Indian Reservations, it's junk land and it can give the indians some jobs (they aren't doing so great).

Speaking of wind power, the Chinese are probably lying, but this is some cool windmill technology.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004708.html

Equally amazing are GIANT windmills, I couldn't find a good technical site on them, so if someone finds one please post it.

http://www.unpluggedliving.com/giant-windmills-power-northern-philippines/