Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

[XYZ]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

I live in an old house and probably pay twice as much each month in energy than I could if I did some minor upgrading. But I am simply too lazy to do it. Incentivize me.

Why do you need outside incentive to do what you think is right?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Why do you need outside incentive to do what you think is right?

Because we can't always do the morally correct thing without regard to cost. Otherwise, we'd all sell all our possessions and donate the money to people in third world countries without food and clean drinking water.

When Roy says "I'm too lazy to do it," he just means, "the benefits don't outweigh the costs by enough for me to bother." However, if the benefits were increased (or the costs reduced), the math would change and he'd hop to it.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

I don't disagree with you on the so-called hybrids and other potentially pointless or destructive measures. But again, if we don't rely on science then we will simply never know the answers to any of the issues that you raise.

Don't get me wrong- for the most part, I don't question science. The one caveat- science is objective, humans- who report science- are subjective. It's not a stretch to think that people can bend data to support their view of the world. For instance- how many people are lamenting that the Gulf will be dead forever based on the science of the recent oil spill. Do they ignore the spill in '79, or better yet, the entirerty of WWII (IMHO, the worst environmental disaster of all time)? Amazing how the world CAN recover. Not to say that we should pollute, but perhaps we should not panic so much, sometimes.

Anyway- the real filtering of Global Warming, wether I agree or not, is to understand full life cycle emissions. Without that knowledge, what people tell you to do is either guessing, or trying to profit from it. Buy a hybrid? How about just keep your current car (assuming it's post '96)? Even a 20mpg monster will have less impact than building a new car just for you. Of course, there are limits to that, but you get the point.

Instead of buying stuff that uses less, start with using less. Instead of engineering a whole new fleet of vehicles, how about keeping the vehicle flow high enough that it's not wasteful on the current roads (this is more about how cities time their lights).

Anyone have an idea how much energy it takes to make a fluorecent light? How long does it need to on vs. incandecent before there's a real benefit?

You want an electric vehicle fleet- how much energy is it going to take to create 300M vehicles worth of batteries just to support a the US?

How many people realize that we use <20% energy on personal transportation, but over 50% to make stuff? Perhaps we should focus on reducing the energy it takes to make stuff, which, in turn, will make stuff less expensive to make.

You want to be a Greenhouse Gas/global warming hero? Figure out a way to turn bauxite into aluminum without massive amounts of electricity. That would be a pretty massive step forward.

 

[blockski]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Don't get me wrong- for the most part, I don't question science. The one caveat- science is objective, humans- who report science- are subjective. It's not a stretch to think that people can bend data to support their view of the world. For instance- how many people are lamenting that the Gulf will be dead forever based on the science of the recent oil spill. Do they ignore the spill in '79, or better yet, the entirerty of WWII (IMHO, the worst environmental disaster of all time)? Amazing how the world CAN recover. Not to say that we should pollute, but perhaps we should not panic so much, sometimes.

Anyway- the real filtering of Global Warming, wether I agree or not, is to understand full life cycle emissions. Without that knowledge, what people tell you to do is either guessing, or trying to profit from it. Buy a hybrid? How about just keep your current car (assuming it's post '96)? Even a 20mpg monster will have less impact than building a new car just for you. Of course, there are limits to that, but you get the point.

Instead of buying stuff that uses less, start with using less. Instead of engineering a whole new fleet of vehicles, how about keeping the vehicle flow high enough that it's not wasteful on the current roads (this is more about how cities time their lights).

Anyone have an idea how much energy it takes to make a fluorecent light? How long does it need to on vs. incandecent before there's a real benefit?

You want an electric vehicle fleet- how much energy is it going to take to create 300M vehicles worth of batteries just to support a the US?

How many people realize that we use <20% energy on personal transportation, but over 50% to make stuff? Perhaps we should focus on reducing the energy it takes to make stuff, which, in turn, will make stuff less expensive to make.

You want to be a Greenhouse Gas/global warming hero? Figure out a way to turn bauxite into aluminum without massive amounts of electricity. That would be a pretty massive step forward.

Hey, you're right. We should have a massive investment in urban and suburban mass transit, and make it so no one needs to rely on cars for transportation at all.

The tech fix idea as a solution to GHG emissions is a faulty way to think about it.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Hey, you're right. We should have a massive investment in urban and suburban mass transit, and make it so no one needs to rely on cars for transportation at all.

The tech fix idea as a solution to GHG emissions is a faulty way to think about it.

Yes, and being flippant in your reply makes it clear that you really CARE as opposed to just want to get your way.

So you are ok with solutions that use more energy to make the product than they will save during their lifetime? Or should we not even ask that question?

Making people think that X is a solution, when the reality is that it makes things worse isn't going to solve any problems....

How am I supposed to take people seriously when they propose solutions that end up making the matter worse?

(BTW, the questions above are just that- questions. I don't know the answer, but it sure seems like we SHOULD know the answer if we are tying to solve a specific problem... I would really like to know that CF lights save more then the delta in manfuacturing energy- as they have become a very good source of light. Even more, I'd like to know more about LED manufacturing, since they are even better).

((My other problem is how to get started- I have an idea of micro-wind turbines, and still need to go through the math to know when they could start paying off, AND I know of a reasonably cheap warehouse space that could be used to make them- but have no idea how to start or how to finance w/o risking all of my hard earned savings))

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

How should science be evaluated, then?

Surely, neither of you is suggesting that all science is self-interested, and therefore worthy of distrust.

That hasn't stopped the people who worship at the altar of global warming from pointing the finger at scientists whose conclusions they don't agree with and questioning their motives.

So what's the line between healthy skepticism and relativism?

What's reasonable? Is it reasonable that scientists could be drawing the wrong conclusions based on their observations? For centuries, scientists believed the sun revolved around the earth. There wasn't anything wrong with that observation as it was made - one can observe the sun appearing to move across the sky during the course of a day - it's just that it wasn't accurate for reasons that scientists hadn't considered until Copernicus.

Don't confuse the tens of thousands of scientists doing relevant research with the tens who try to actually make money "proving" global warming. Or, for that matter, the dozens who try to get rich "disproving" it.

Or, for that matter, the hundreds of scientists doing relevant research who are lumped in as "deniers."

(BTW... I don't want to give you the impression that I'm trying to pick a fight or anything here... unlike most of the people on here with your political leaning, you appear to have an actual head on your shoulders. Keep up the good work. )

 

[blockski]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Yes, and being flippant in your reply makes it clear that you really CARE as opposed to just want to get your way.

So you are ok with solutions that use more energy to make the product than they will save during their lifetime? Or should we not even ask that question?

Making people think that X is a solution, when the reality is that it makes things worse isn't going to solve any problems....

How am I supposed to take people seriously when they propose solutions that end up making the matter worse?

Obviously, life cycle costs and impacts are vitally important. But as I was mentioning to Bob, there are other benefits to programs such as these. Hybrids are achievable now and can reduce fuel consumption now.

My big idea is rather simple - invest in mass transportation and let the real estate market develop densely around those stations - this is a proven market solution. In fact, it's how most of our cities were built prior to Euclidean Zoning laws that all too often artificially restrict density and development.

Density is good for the environment. It means people walk to the corner store instead of driving to Wal-Mart. It's more efficient, and most importantly it's a product of the market. The downside from a climate change perspective is that land use is slow to change. We've spent half a century plus building auto-dependent sprawl with massive government subsidy, and it's going to take a long time to un-do that damage. That's where interim bridge technologies like hybrid vehicles come into play.

I sure hope no one is positing that a Pruis will stop climate change. Now, actually getting rid of a car is a realistic step forward. Still, that doesn't mean the Prius is completely useless in starting this kind of transition.

(BTW, the questions above are just that- questions. I don't know the answer, but it sure seems like we SHOULD know the answer if we are tying to solve a specific problem... I would really like to know that CF lights save more then the delta in manfuacturing energy- as they have become a very good source of light. Even more, I'd like to know more about LED manufacturing, since they are even better).

((My other problem is how to get started- I have an idea of micro-wind turbines, and still need to go through the math to know when they could start paying off, AND I know of a reasonably cheap warehouse space that could be used to make them- but have no idea how to start or how to finance w/o risking all of my hard earned savings))

These are all great questions, but they're all at the micro scale. These kinds of innovations will be important (vital, really) to solving the problem, but we're not going to innovate for the sake of innovation. That's why an overarching macro framework to put a price on carbon emissions is vitally important, as it will internalize the previously external costs of carbon pollution, and the market will allocate resources accordingly.

So, you asked - am I OK with 'solutions' that make things worse? No, of course not. But I'm also under no illusions that those small, micro adjustments are actually solutions to the large scale, macro problems.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Obviously, life cycle costs and impacts are vitally important. But as I was mentioning to Bob, there are other benefits to programs such as these. Hybrids are achievable now and can reduce fuel consumption now.




I sure hope no one is positing that a Pruis will stop climate change. Now, actually getting rid of a car is a realistic step forward. Still, that doesn't mean the Prius is completely useless in starting this kind of transition.

Life cycle impact is more important than fuel consumption. That is the OVERALL impact as opposed to the usage impact. yes, fuel consumption goes down, but at what cost?

People ARE saying that hybrids are a solution to global climate change- did you not pay attention to what Al told you to do at the end of "an Inconvient Truth"? That IS my core problem. Saying that X is a solution to Y problem without just based on consumer usage and not based on life cycle impact. If the Prius uses more energy (more CO2) in it's lifecycle than a E350 (for example), how is that actually helping? It may be hurting. But it's one of those "feel good" things Bob is pointing out.

My big idea is rather simple - invest in mass transportation and let the real estate market develop densely around those stations - this is a proven market solution. In fact, it's how most of our cities were built prior to Euclidean Zoning laws that all too often artificially restrict density and development.

Density is good for the environment. It means people walk to the corner store instead of driving to Wal-Mart. It's more efficient, and most importantly it's a product of the market. The downside from a climate change perspective is that land use is slow to change. We've spent half a century plus building auto-dependent sprawl with massive government subsidy, and it's going to take a long time to un-do that damage. That's where interim bridge technologies like hybrid vehicles come into play.

can't argue with that. but you do need to make sure the home work is correct. I suspect it will be good with the right population and usage density. But you'd better be able to answer what the break even point has to be so that it actually helps.

These are all great questions, but they're all at the micro scale. These kinds of innovations will be important (vital, really) to solving the problem, but we're not going to innovate for the sake of innovation. That's why an overarching macro framework to put a price on carbon emissions is vitally important, as it will internalize the previously external costs of carbon pollution, and the market will allocate resources accordingly.

So, you asked - am I OK with 'solutions' that make things worse? No, of course not. But I'm also under no illusions that those small, micro adjustments are actually solutions to the large scale, macro problems.

to me, it matters little if they are macro or micro. If they are being proposed as solutions to the problem, then the questions need vetted.

IMHO, your solutions are just barely above micro solutions. Again, you are focusing on transportation energy usage, and most of the data I've seen shows that ~16% of our oil usage is for personal transportation. Another 16% is for commercial tranportation. That leaves nearly 70% of our energy usage. A 1% change in how much energy it takes to make aluminum will have a bigger impact than your mass transit- since there are more than enough areas in the US where even under ideal conditions, you'll not get the needed population density and usage to actually reduce overall energy usage.

 

[blockski]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Life cycle impact is more important than fuel consumption. That is the OVERALL impact as opposed to the usage impact. yes, fuel consumption goes down, but at what cost?

People ARE saying that hybrids are a solution to global climate change- did you not pay attention to what Al told you to do at the end of "an Inconvient Truth"? That IS my core problem. Saying that X is a solution to Y problem without just based on consumer usage and not based on life cycle impact. If the Prius uses more energy (more CO2) in it's lifecycle than a E350 (for example), how is that actually helping? It may be hurting. But it's one of those "feel good" things Bob is pointing out.

Are they feel good measures? Maybe, but they also raise awareness to the issue.

And you missed my point about life cycle costs and fringe benefits. If a long term, macro solution is, say, a carbon tax (read - an increase in gas prices), then hybrid cars that use less fuel will be an interim technology. The long term response to high fuel prices won't just be more efficient cars, but less driving.

Life cycle costing is vitally important, yes - but you also can't define your life cycle too narrowly. In short, it's a trade-off I'm willing to accept for now.

can't argue with that. but you do need to make sure the home work is correct. I suspect it will be good with the right population and usage density. But you'd better be able to answer what the break even point has to be so that it actually helps.

Well, we already have a lot of that data. Just compare current city living to suburban living. City lifestyles are far more energy efficient.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52M0E120090323

In the United States, New York City had emissions of 58.3 million tons in 2005, or around 7.1 tons per person. U.S. per capita levels were more than triple at 23.92 tons in 2004.

The report noted the density of New York's buildings, the smaller-than-average dwelling sizes and the reliance on public transportation as reasons for the large difference.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009752.html

The authors of this study, published in The Journal of Urban Planning and Development, quantified the emissions from building materials and construction, home heating and power demands, and transportation energy, in both urban suburban neighborhoods in the Toronto metro area. And they found that downtown residents use radically less energy, and consequently emit about two-thirds less climate-warming CO2 than their suburban counterparts. Take a look:

First, they found that the biggest difference between city and suburban living is in transportation emissions. Compared with center-city dwellers, suburbanites used 3.7 times more transportation energy. Low density development requires more and longer car trips compared to higher density areas. Even transit is more carbon-intensive in suburbs.

Second, the greenhouse gas impacts of building materials – all the wood, steel, concrete, glass, and the like – are tiny, compared with the energy used in resident’s daily lives. In fact, the “embodied energy” in the building materials isn’t much more than a rounding error. It’s still important to reduce the environmental impacts of building materials and construction, but when weighing the long-term climate impacts of new construction, the most important consideration is how we live once we’re in the buildings. That means the energy that goes into construction may be less important than the location of the building.

to me, it matters little if they are macro or micro. If they are being proposed as solutions to the problem, then the questions need vetted.

IMHO, your solutions are just barely above micro solutions. Again, you are focusing on transportation energy usage, and most of the data I've seen shows that ~16% of our oil usage is for personal transportation. Another 16% is for commercial tranportation. That leaves nearly 70% of our energy usage. A 1% change in how much energy it takes to make aluminum will have a bigger impact than your mass transit- since there are more than enough areas in the US where even under ideal conditions, you'll not get the needed population density and usage to actually reduce overall energy usage.

I'm not focusing on transportation emissions at all. Transportation emissions are part of the issue, but the larger context is the intersection of transportation and land use. Higher densities require less automotive transportation than low densities. Thus, I advocate for more mass transit not because it is more energy efficient, but because it is more spatially efficient and allows for high density land use. The land use is then what lowers overall emissions, and dense places enable walking and biking trips, ensure that those trips are shorter in length, and takes advantages of inherent efficiencies of higher densities.

It's funny that you mention a lack of population density to make transit work. Did you skip over the part of my post where I specifically talked about changing the zoning laws that have required low density development? Or the part about how changing land use will take a long time? These are big changes, and they will take a long time to manifest themselves - hence the need for a macro framework to help them along.

It's not about bringing transit to low density areas - it's about bringing transit to low density areas, then adding market development to those areas so they are high density places. And that takes time.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

We've already had this debate about city vs. suburb. It's a quality of living issue.

 

[blockski]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

We've already had this debate about city vs. suburb. It's a quality of living issue.

Quality for whom? You think people shelling out huge money to live in a postage stamp sized apartment in Manhattan aren't doing it for the quality of life in the city? Different people have different desires.

As far as greenhouse gas emissions go, there's no question that suburban lifestyles are far worse emitters. So, the question is this - we all agree that these emissions have costs - if we actually priced carbon so that the users (i.e. suburban residents) pay those costs rather than just dumping them on the environment, would they think the suburban lifestyle was such a great deal?

I suspect that some would continue to pay those costs, but others would not - particularly if given a reasonable alternative.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Quality for whom? You think people shelling out huge money to live in a postage stamp sized apartment in Manhattan aren't doing it for the quality of life in the city? Different people have different desires.

As far as greenhouse gas emissions go, there's no question that suburban lifestyles are far worse emitters. So, the question is this - we all agree that these emissions have costs - if we actually priced carbon so that the users (i.e. suburban residents) pay those costs rather than just dumping them on the environment, would they think the suburban lifestyle was such a great deal?

I suspect that some would continue to pay those costs, but others would not - particularly if given a reasonable alternative.

Call me crazy, but I'll take a three floor house, a three car garage, and a lawn over a penthouse condo/apartment/whatever in Manhattan any day of the week. The quality of life isn't even close in my book.

If someone wants to spend more to live a green, minimalist lifestyle, great. I'm happy for them. I'm not willing to pay more and live in an urban wasteland because some think tank says it's better for the environment. Tell that uber-hypocrite Al Gore to dump the megamansion and private jets. Until then, they can all pound sand.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

If someone wants to spend more to live a green, minimalist lifestyle, great. I'm happy for them. I'm not willing to pay more and live in an urban wasteland because some think tank says it's better for the environment.

I'm definitely free-market when it comes to people's lifestyles. I may snicker at them, but they're free to live however they want to.

Like these people. I can't help but laugh like a hyena watching this. Go ahead, try. It's hilarious because they're totally serious.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A_JPcBwYGmo?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A_JPcBwYGmo?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

If they want to feel like they're single-handedly saving the planet, they can knock themselves out. Don't force me to drive around in a beer can on wheels just because your sensibilities are hurt.

Tell that uber-hypocrite Al Gore to dump the megamansion and private jets. Until then, they can all pound sand.

I'll meet him halfway - he can be the benchmark for carbon footprints. As long as your personal footprint is less than Al Gore's, you cool.

 

[blockski]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Call me crazy, but I'll take a three floor house, a three car garage, and a lawn over a penthouse condo/apartment/whatever in Manhattan any day of the week. The quality of life isn't even close in my book.

If someone wants to spend more to live a green, minimalist lifestyle, great. I'm happy for them. I'm not willing to pay more and live in an urban wasteland because some think tank says it's better for the environment. Tell that uber-hypocrite Al Gore to dump the megamansion and private jets. Until then, they can all pound sand.

I think you're missing my point.

If you want that three bedroom house, that's great. Not everybody does.

The same thing applies to city living - you might not want that lifestyle, but it's quite obvious that many do and are willing to pay a lot of money for it.

Where you lose me is the assertion that the urban dwellers are paying more for a green lifestyle. That's not the case - the suburban dwellers are paying less to pollute more. It's a classic negative externality. You make a decision, that decision has consequences (GHG emissions) for which the decider does not pay the full cost - those costs are instead borne by society.

What a well-designed cap-and-trade or carbon tax system would do would be to 'internalize' those external costs - make the user pay for those costs that had been borne by society. The end result would probably be a large increase in the cost of suburban living - and when you add that to the equation, I suspect many people would re-evaluate their individual cost-benefit decisions for the 'quality of life' they chose.

It's not about your willingness to pay more to live in an urban environment. You should be paying more to live in a suburban one, since you're emitting far more greenhouse gases than the urban dwellers.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Where you lose me is the assertion that the urban dwellers are paying more for a green lifestyle. That's not the case - the suburban dwellers are paying less to pollute more. It's a classic negative externality. You make a decision, that decision has consequences (GHG emissions) for which the decider does not pay the full cost - those costs are instead borne by society.

The problem here is you're assuming that carbon emmissions are pollution. That, obviously, is the crux of the issue.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

I'll meet him halfway - he can be the benchmark for carbon footprints. As long as your personal footprint is less than Al Gore's, you cool.

But remember Al has no carbon footprint, at least according to their contorted calculations, because somewhere else in the world he paid someone to reduce their carbon. So he can burn fuel and electricity and everything else to his heart's content and do it guilt free (at least until he's honest with what he's doing). And to top it off, he pays for it all with the millions he makes off green investments that are doing well due to the policies he pushes. It's a complete circle. I'll hand it to him, it's brilliant, for him. For the rest of us, not so much.

 

[blockski]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

The problem here is you're assuming that carbon emmissions are pollution. That, obviously, is the crux of the issue.

There's no assumption. Carbon emissions are pollution. That much is settled science.


pol·lu·tion

–noun
1. the act of polluting or the state of being polluted.
2. the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment: air pollution.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

There's no assumption. Carbon emissions are pollution. That much is settled science.


pol·lu·tion

–noun
1. the act of polluting or the state of being polluted.
2. the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment: air pollution.

Then start holding your breath

 

[alfablue]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

There's no assumption. Carbon emissions are pollution. That much is settled science.


pol·lu·tion

–noun
1. the act of polluting or the state of being polluted.
2. the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment: air pollution.

Better stop breathing then. Since that's what we put out.

What's worse- CO2 or CO/HC/NOx? Why does it seem to be ok to sacrifice one that we know is bad for your personal heath and to the health of the environment for one that may sacrifice the evironment?


Also- for population density- I'm not talking large cities. But do you not recognize that there is a point of negative return? You are not going to take everyone out of the rual setting, not matter what you dream. Or try to force.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

There's no assumption. Carbon emissions are pollution. That much is settled science.


pol·lu·tion

–noun
1. the act of polluting or the state of being polluted.
2. the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment: air pollution.

Classic blockski!

Please stop polluting my air.