Global Warming...is it really a problem?

[Eberbacher]

Originally Posted by mystery45

Other government mandates is making it more expensive for people to buy things than before. the new CAFE restrictions here in the US are going to be huge. affordable cars are going to be a thing of the past to meet the new standards. more so if you have a family and need a larger vehicle.
.

Nearly all 1st world nations have much higher emission standards for newly build cars and we still buy cars.


Yes its a restriction but one for the better.
Compared to the 80s when there was a lot of "acid rain" and the air quailty in some cities was really bad, the introduction of higher emission standards brought the development of better engines, better filter systems and most important, better air quality.

Of course the car is a bit more expensiv, but face it, in todays world, America can´t be the land where everything is super cheap, when the rest of the world is paying 30% (some cars we build here and ship to the US to sell them cheaper there )- 250% (gas/petrol) more.
These days are slowly going to end.

[Brandon]

@Quirk: Indeed I believe your point would still stand. I just saw the "need a scientist" line and decided to respond to that part. My main point was that the argument that "such and such model isn't 100% accurate" is essentially meaningless by itself because no model will ever be 100% accurate. That doesn't mean no model is ever useful, but it does mean models need to be evaluated by some metric other than 100% accuracy.

[Solaran_X]

Originally Posted by Mad Mat

People are being happy that we've had nuclear power for about 5 decades with 'only' 3 serious accidents (and many more not very serious). Two of those were in the former Sovjet Union and one happened in the aftermath of a serious earthquake and tsunami. But it's not like unexpected incidents like this (natural disaster, construction error or human error) can ever be ruled out. We should be wary of technological optimism.

Only three major ones I know of are Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

Three Mile Island (1979) was relatively minor, very well contained, and actually beneficial in that it led to the voluntary exchange of ideas among US nuclear operators that drastically improved safety in ways government regulation could only dream of. Right now, TMI-2 is permanently decommissioned and TMI-1 has just had it's license extended to operate into 2034.

Chernobyl (1986) was a man-caused fault because they screwed up a test they were running on the facility. They were trying to find a way to have the reactors safely endure the first 60-75 seconds of a catastrophic power failure to the plant. It is speculated that a lot of mistakes happened during the procedure (the operators conducting the procedure all died during the meltdown), which led to the melt down.

Fukushima Daiichi (2011) was the combination of a few problems. The biggest one was insufficient safety features built into the reactor by the company that made it (GE).

All three nuclear accidents involved very old reactor designs. Modern nuclear reactors now have safety features in them that would have prevented all of these disasters from happening (at least the ones made by my company). Using a nuclear accident such as Fukushima Daiichii to criticize all nuclear power safety today is akin to using the 1971 Ford Pinto to criticize the modern automotive industry's safety abilities.

A lot has changed in the industry in the 41 years since that reactor was commissioned.

[Mad Mat]

Originally Posted by Solaran_X

Only three major ones I know of are Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

Third was the incident at Mayak.

[Quirkiness101]

Originally Posted by Mad Hat

People are being happy that we've had nuclear power for about 5 decades with 'only' 3 serious accidents (and many more not very serious). Two of those were in the former Sovjet Union and one happened in the aftermath of a serious earthquake and tsunami. But it's not like unexpected incidents like this (natural disaster, construction error or human error) can ever be ruled out. We should be wary of technological optimism.

True, but at the moment people still seem convinced that there's some sort of silver bullet energy solution that will be safe cheap efficient, accessible and easy. Really though, at least at this point, the world doesn't have those options. Sometimes you do have to pick between the lesser of two evils, and if the threat of climate change is seriously a lesser threat than nuclear power, I'm not that concerned anymore.

Originally Posted by Viricide

@Quirk: Indeed I believe your point would still stand. I just saw the "need a scientist" line and decided to respond to that part. My main point was that the argument that "such and such model isn't 100% accurate" is essentially meaningless by itself because no model will ever be 100% accurate. That doesn't mean no model is ever useful, but it does mean models need to be evaluated by some metric other than 100% accuracy.

Cool, then we're in agreement after all ^.^

Originally Posted by Mad Hat

That's one problem. Another is that those in power in developed countries have no concern whatsoever for any issue that is two decades away. Free-market capitalism has been eroding our sense for long-term sustainability for decades now.

Fair enough, but if the developed world makes this major effort without there being anything to incentivize the developing world to do the same, aren't we just kicking the can down the road a few decades before the problem comes back? Fossil Fuels are far cheaper and more efficient than their alternatives, so developing countries will be hard pressed to build infrastructures around anything else unless better green or efficient technologies are produced.

Originally Posted by Mad Hat

But it's not just about efficient technology. It's about reduced consumption as well. That's the problem with the paradox of Jevons, which is not a problem of population increase but a problem of externalized costs. If we make fossil fuel use more efficient, people are just going to use more of it as the true costs still remain externalized.

Okay, so in other words, regulations would be placed on companies so that the cost of pollution (with pollution being the externalized cost) is internalized in the form of taxes and fees to negatively incentivize the companies to get rid of the pollution to remove the added tax/fee burden?

[mystery45]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Why not build an earth in space while we're at it, were we can experiment with the greenhouse effect? It's like you're trying to be a caricature of obstructionism.

We don't need to which is why your statement is ridiculous. We can however conduct science and redo the assumptions without the outside pressure that now is forced on this field.

it is not ridiculous to have an independent group of scientists with no politcal or money ties peer review what is being done.

The only reason you would argue against something like that is because you are afraid of the results.

That there is a possibility that man is not the main driver of GW that climate change is a natural phenominon that can last for decades to centuries.

Chernobyl (1986) was a man-caused fault because they screwed up a test they were running on the facility.

That and the reactor should have never been brought online. they skipped a whole ton of safety requirements. it was a disaster just waiting to happen.

[Mad Mat]

Originally Posted by Quirkiness101

True, but at the moment people still seem convinced that there's some sort of silver bullet energy solution that will be safe cheap efficient, accessible and easy. Really though, at least at this point, the world doesn't have those options. Sometimes you do have to pick between the lesser of two evils, and if the threat of climate change is seriously a lesser threat than nuclear power, I'm not that concerned anymore.

You're not alone in this thinking. I'm on the fence about nuclear (as evident about my posting, but I'm gonna drop it now as it's very off-topic).

Even if you accept nuclear, the question is whether you will use it to facilitate the transformation into a sustainable society or if you will continue to press for growth. Nuclear energy is depletable as well.

Fair enough, but if the developed world makes this major effort without there being anything to incentivize the developing world to do the same, aren't we just kicking the can down the road a few decades before the problem comes back? Fossil Fuels are far cheaper and more efficient than their alternatives, so developing countries will be hard pressed to build infrastructures around anything else unless better green or efficient technologies are produced.

You're looking at it the wrong way. Fossil fuels are far cheaper and more efficient because of externalization. A green technology will never be its equal, because then the costs are automatically internalized.

But this problem does exist and is very difficult to adress. Developed countries have gotten this far at the expense of fossil fuels and other natural capital. Right now, they want developing countries to not make the same mistakes, either because that would really suck for everyone or because it keeps them down (classic example: deforestation in Amazonia). Developing countries then say that, if they are not to be making the same mistakes, developed countries have to pay compensation for their past benefits. But nobody wants to pay: it's far easier to ignore the problem or deny it. It's also difficult to design a system where these compensations are actually put to good use and not abused, or to design a system where the value of these compensations can be determined. What's the Amazonian rainforest worth to the world? Or not burning one Deepwater Horizon's GHG equivalent of oil?

Okay, so in other words, regulations would be placed on companies so that the cost of pollution (with pollution being the externalized cost) is internalized in the form of taxes and fees to negatively incentivize the companies to get rid of the pollution to remove the added tax/fee burden?

That's the capitalistic theory. There are more systems than just taxes though, and it's also relevant what happens with the revenue of these taxes.

It's also very hard to quantify the cost of pollution and virtually impossible to accurately compensate those who are damaged by it. In a very specific and blatant problem as an oil spill, it's doable. Not so with GHG emissions.

PS: the name is not Mad Hat.

[Timothy, Mimeslayer]

Originally Posted by mystery45

We don't need to which is why your statement is ridiculous. We can however conduct science and redo the assumptions without the outside pressure that now is forced on this field.

it is not ridiculous to have an independent group of scientists with no politcal or money ties peer review what is being done.

The only reason you would argue against something like that is because you are afraid of the results.

That there is a possibility that man is not the main driver of GW that climate change is a natural phenominon that can last for decades to centuries.

Hey guys, I am going to decide that all of physics is suspect and only advanced under political motivation. You guys need to go back and retake all the data from the past 2000 years and restart physics from the beginning because I said so, and god forbid any of you make money from someone who wants to see physics proven right.

[Captain_Morgan]

I think the way we frame the efficiency debate is too esoteric for most Americans, it might work for Europeans and some other more collectivist nations. The issue comes down to cutting costs and decreasing dependency on foreigners. At the rate between efficiency and more drilling, we're going to be exporting again as a nation.

Pushing harder on the efficiency end would've pushed the metrics a bit faster, which was one of Bush's failures. That and tax credits for stupid stuff like SUV's which were just wasteful and helped aid to Detroit's degeneration.