Gyroscopic Investing

LonerMatt,

No, no, no... we're supposed to let landowners and air-breathers sue drivers of vehicles for infringement on their private property rights.

Why regulate buildings and catlytic converters when this is a much better way to hold polluters accountable.

Sorry, libertarians... I just had to take that shot.

If the government is going to do anything, then they should just make power more expensive with taxes. The markets will then do what is necessary to conserve it. A building owner doesn't need to be convinced to make their operations more efficient if it will shave a huge amount off their monthly power bill. Cars that guzzle gas will simply be too expensive to operate and will not be popular. Etc.

When the government gets involved in dictating what kinds of power are going to be used, or what efficiencies will be done, etc. it dislocates the markets. Money is spent on pet projects where it does no good and useful ideas where research normally would be going is put on the back burner. Scientists will gravitate towards where federal funding is being spent and that often isn't the best use of their time. I'd hate to think that a scientist that could be creating the next actually useful power source is toiling away on a government subsidized project for ethanol from corn for instance. What a waste of resources.

The problem with the idea that there is a fixed outcome waiting to happen down the road of time, like an ice age, can lead to a kind of fatalism, paralysis or indifference. There may well be an ice age waiting to happen but that doesn't relieve us of our responsibility to be present and alive in this moment in time.

One of the interesting questions that a discussion like this finally spits out is "what do we owe to future generations?"

I don't know what the answer is.

Part of what the push for more conservation and efficiency seems to suggest is that we owe it to the future to allow perhaps one more generation to live in a way that is roughly similar to the way we have lived (though perhaps with smaller cars and dimmer lights). 

The problem with humans, in general, is that we have evolved with a strong preference toward identifying and solving problems that unfold over one human lifetime or less.  When you start talking about solving problems that occur over several human lifetimes (or longer), and thus require responses that may also require concerted effort over more than one human lifetime, I don't know if we have the individual or collective capacity to rise to such challenges.  I don't know if we have evolved in a way that equips us to solve (or even identify) such problems with much effectiveness.

Consider, too, that the agents that would be responsible for coming up with solutions to these problems--i.e., the various governments around the world--have shown an even shorter term orientation than even most individuals have.

The easy answer to the question of global warming is to burn less fossil fuels.  The harder question is to figure out what to do after that as the reduced consumption of fossil fuels slowly begins to invalidate a whole array of treasured beliefs about who we are, why we are here and what "progress" really means.

There is also the matter of deciding how each of us is going to spend the limited resources that we have at our disposal.  Are we going to set off on a journey to try to make all of humanity more enlightened, or are we going to accept that the world is the way it is, and try to make our way through it the best that we can.  I don't know what the right answer to this question is either.

Finally, there is the question about whether I am even seeing things clearly.  Perhaps what I think would be best for all of humanity might not actually be good for anyone but a handful of other people who think the way I do.  For everyone else it might seem incredibly foolish to forego a higher standard of living today in the hope that some future generation will wisely use the extra time that today's sacrifices would provide.

lazyboy wrote: The problem with the idea that there is a fixed outcome waiting to happen down the road of time, like an ice age, can lead to a kind of fatalism, paralysis or indifference. There may well be an ice age waiting to happen but that doesn't relieve us of our responsibility to be present and alive in this moment in time.

I agree.  Keynes' writing on "animal spirits" is insightful in the way it talks about the realization that you are alive in this moment and that action is necessary and how this state of mind tends to crowd out thoughts of death and futility.

Simonjester wrote:

LonerMatt wrote: Surely there are ways the government can intervene that indirectly address potential man-made global warming that are direct solutions for other problems?

For example, a small and simple idea such as making sure new buildings meet an 8 or 9 star energy rating standard, or when new power plants are built trying to use renewable energy where possible (wind, solar, geothermal or hydro).

You're right - the time scale is unknown, so why not start now? We don't have to have a massive upheaval (although maybe we do, I'm not sure).

i think it depends a great amount on the kind of intervention and the unintended consequences of those actions.. losing our sovereignty to a unelected and unaccountable group of people who "say" they are looking out for our best interests would be tragic.... having a better energy rating in new buildings because the added expense is in both the owners and society long term interests not a problem... you might not even need the governments intervention if it is truly a benefit to the guy doing the building..

the governments intervention often leads to unintended consequences. not all of them tragic, but it happens often enough and does enough harm that we should be very wary of not looking before we leap

craigr wrote: If the government is going to do anything, then they should just make power more expensive with taxes. The markets will then do what is necessary to conserve it. A building owner doesn't need to be convinced to make their operations more efficient if it will shave a huge amount off their monthly power bill. Cars that guzzle gas will simply be too expensive to operate and will not be popular. Etc.

I'm not confident the market reacts in the most appropriate way. Especially when we take democracy into account.

Making power more expensive through taxation is a pretty dumb political choice (even if it's ethical, which is certainly not clear cut).

Simonjester wrote: i think it depends a great amount on the kind of intervention and the unintended consequences of those actions.. 

Absolutely, that statement applies to any government action (or really any action at all). My point was there's a place for government action (they are, after all, regulators).

"Perhaps you should change your handle to "carpediemboy."

Honestly, MT, I can only be carpediemboy, one and a half days a week, at most. The rest of the time, for better or worse, I'm a contemplative lazyboy. 

craigr wrote: People,

Keep the tone polite or this thing is going to be locked. I've already had one complaint. One more and this is done.

Sorry about my sarcastic comment on using private property laws as a defense against environmental problems... I didn't mean for it to be more than a soft, sarcastic jab... a    probably would have helped. 

lazyboy wrote:
"Perhaps you should change your handle to "carpediemboy."

Honestly, MT, I can only be carpediemboy, one and a half days a week, at most. The rest of the time, for better or worse, I'm a contemplative lazyboy. 

I actually went back and removed it because I thought it might have come across as rude, but apparently the humor registered as intended.

How about "contemplatiodiem" for a handle?

I didn't read through the whole thread but one consideration (not sure if mentioned already) is cows. Livestock generates about 90% of the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere.

If we all stopped using cars and coal tomorrow, there'd still be 90% of the same stuff going into the atmosphere based on the food we eat.

Furthermore, it's impossible to prove that global warming is the fault of any human action. It's possible that the Earth undergoes climate shifts over long periods of time, irrespective of what we pollute into the atmosphere.

Since we can't say for sure that global warming is man-made, and we CAN say for sure that only about 10% or so is caused by pollutants, than I am hard pressed to negatively impact the standard of living of current generations of people for the small chance that future people will be better off.

Regulations reduces jobs. Perhaps environmental concerns would be something we can worry about with 3% unemployment. At 10% to 15% unemployment (perhaps closer to 20% depending on how you calculate it), I am appalled that people are so short-sited to worry about issues like global warming when the economy is in the crapper.

How about "contemplatiodiem" for a handle?

MT: Hmm, I like the thought you put into it.  :) But its not the handle for me. When I look at that word it gives me a headache for some inexplicable reason.  :-[
Maybe its not onomatopoeiac enough.

TripleB,

I've heard cows are a big piece of it, but I can't imagine that they're as high as you mention.

If it is that high, maybe a hefty tax on beef & dairy products is in order.  This wouldn't be too popular with some, including a couple really good friends of mine whose family are in the cattle farming business...

lazyboy wrote: How about "contemplatiodiem" for a handle?

MT: Hmm, I like the thought you put into it.  :) But its not the handle for me. When I look at that word it gives me a headache for some inexplicable reason.  :-[
Maybe its not onomatopoeiac enough.

Maybe you're just lazy.

"Maybe you're just lazy."

No argument there.  

MT,

One of the interesting questions that a discussion like this finally spits out is "what do we owe to future generations?"

I don't know what the answer is.

Apparently Hayek talked about ways to look at these issues in his last work "Law, Legislation, and Liberty".

From Wikipedia article on Green Libertarianism:

Hayek argues that free and sustainable societies and economies which support them should follow general rules rather than particular economic regulations. One such rule might be "sustainability", or "you can't do anything to the environment which can't continue in perpetuity". This is also known as the "7th Generation Principle" for Native Americans.[citation needed] Don't do anything to the environment which will diminish resources and opportunities even so far as 7 generations in the future. The Green Party calls this "future focus."

How does the market accurately price a non renewable resource that is of tremendous value? Although it might be presently abundant, current generations are burning through a valuable resource with tremendous abandon. Humans recency creates many obstacles for markets to accurately price a commodity.

I think Sweden (or one of the Scandinavian countries) had a fantastic solution to getting humans to conserve. What they did was raise the price of energy quite a bit through government mandate which naturally prompted people to conserve more and alter wasteful habits. At the end of the year the citizens were refunded the additional energy tax which the government had levied on their power consumption. People then took this returned money and spent it back into the economy in other (maybe more pleasurable ways). So, at the end of the day the price of power was the same except that the method by which citizens were charged effected a movement to conserve.

One thing often lost by people (scientists and non-scientists alike ) in the global warming discussion is scale.

For example, it is absolutely true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  And it is also true that man-made CO2 has increased significantly since the industrial revolution. However, it is also absolutely true that man-made CO2 only contributes 0.117% of the total greenhouse effect.  

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

For reference, termites create 10x more CO2 every year than all man-made sources combined.  

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/04/t ... -than.html

To claim that the end is nigh if we don't immediately change our lifestyle around CO2 is stretching the truth to fit a pre-defined result.  It's politics, not science.  The Kyoto Protocol (presented by politicians as the solution to our "problem"), if followed completely by every country on earth, would reduce human greenhouse contributions to global warming by only 0.035% (theoretically lowering temperatures 1/20th of a degree by 2050) -- less than natural climate variability and thus completely unmeasurable.  At the cost of trillions of dollars in global GDP.  

There's of course a lot more to the debate than just this.  But here's a great resource for each point.  ;D

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/p/climate-101.html

MediumTex wrote:

stone wrote: Medium Tex, when for you does a fact become a fact?

When people who disagree on the conclusions that can be drawn from that fact nevertheless agree on the fact.

I am not certain that I would endorse that definition.  There are people who believe that the world is flat.  I have neighbors who are looking forward to taking their children to a creationist themed park being built somewhere in Kentucky so they can show their kids how the dinosaurs all made it onto the Ark.  Whether something is accepted or not by people has no bearing on its veracity.

I don't believe unanimity is, or should objectively be, a criterion for establishment that something is factual.

Ad Orientem wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

stone wrote: Medium Tex, when for you does a fact become a fact?

When people who disagree on the conclusions that can be drawn from that fact nevertheless agree on the fact.

I am not certain that I would endorse that definition.  There are people who believe that the world is flat.  I have neighbors who are looking forward to taking their children to a creationist themed park being built somewhere in Kentucky so they can show their kids how the dinosaurs all made it onto the Ark.  Whether something is accepted or not by people has no bearing on its veracity.

I don't believe unanimity is, or should objectively be, a criterion for establishment that something is factual.

You're right.

Maybe I should just say that facts are sort of like pornography--I know them when I see them.

In the global warming debate, I assume a fact would be that when you burn naturally sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels, you are reintroducing carbon into the atmosphere that was removed a long time ago when vegetation was buried and compacted.

It would be the effect of introducing this new carbon into the atmosphere that would be the thing that would be debated, not whether there was, in fact, any new carbon in the atmosphere.

I do get the strong sense that many people's beliefs about global warming are not the product of a cool and dispassionate review of the evidence (though I am sure this is not true of all global warming researchers).  It seems that what is more common is that people begin with a belief, and then review the evidence until they find something that supports what they wanted to believe in the first place.  This process does not mean that a set of beliefs arrived at through this process is necessarily false, it just means that set of beliefs was not arrived at through a rigorous truth seeking process.

Tyler wrote:For example, it is absolutely true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  And it is also true that man-made CO2 has increased significantly since the industrial revolution. However, it is also absolutely true that man-made CO2 only contributes 0.117% of the total greenhouse effect.  

This is disingenuous.

You're essentially trying to belittle the effect that proportion (if at all accurate, which I'm not sure it is) could or would have.

Cyanide poisoning doesn't require my blood to be 40% cyanide to kill me, it's a comparably minute percentage of my blood composition - but I still die.

I've read (please don't assume this is gospel) that a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere by 1% would be globally catastrophic for humans.

1) I don't feel I belittled anything. I simply quantified the actual human contribution to the greenhouse effect so that we can put the discussion in the proper perspective.  Please read the link provided -- it's thorough and very insightful.

2) CO2 is not poison.  It is an essential trace gas required for life on earth that (thanks to the carbon cycle) has a positive correlation to environmental biodiversity.  

3) If small changes in CO2 levels were catastrophic, then life on earth would not exist because it naturally swings up to 50% with no human interaction needed.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphi ... ok.co2.gif

4) Scale matters.  Regarding Kyoto, a more apt (and numerically accurate) comparison would be making the argument that cutting $3.50 from your annual budget will somehow solve your long-term $10k debt problem. Remember, the same politicians "solving" our debt problem are "fixing" the planet - math is not their forte.  ;)

I'd highly recommend reading the links from my previous post.  Climate science is complex and highly political, and it takes time to unravel the real science from the urban legend.

Tyler wrote: 2) CO2 is not poison.  It is an essential trace gas required for life on earth that (thanks to the carbon cycle) has a positive correlation to environmental biodiversity.  Cyanide has a positive correlation to death.

It's about scale, though, isn't it? Cyanide is fine when it's in apple seeds, CO2 is fine generally. Anything can be made deadly given the right circumstances.

3) If small changes in CO2 levels were catastrophic, then life on earth would not exist because it naturally swings up to 50% with no human interaction needed.

That's why I said catastrophic for humans. The Earth is more adaptable than we are/ I'm not suggesting all humans would die due to Co2 changes, but that significant proportions of our current population would die away if substantial (and even insubstantial) environmental changes took place.

Scale matters.  

I know, and it seems awkward that you're ignoring your own advice. With the global population rising exponentially, how much environmental change do you think it would take (man made or otherwise) to be catastrophic?

Regarding Kyoto, a more apt (and numerically accurate) comparison would be making the argument that cutting $3.50 from your annual budget will somehow solve your long-term $10k debt problem. Remember, the same politicians "solving" our debt problem are "fixing" the planet - math is not their forte.

Again, this is an inaccurate analogy (presuming I'm understanding it correctly in the context of total human contribution compared to non-human) - it's hypocritical to suggest this is highly nuanced while at the same time using a fairly inaccurate analogy. Most other animals that emit Co2 or methane, etc, also have ways that absorbs that same chemical (termites break down trees, which rot and turn into soil which absorbs carbon and carbon dioxide, for example).

I'd highly recommend reading the links from my previous post.  Climate science is complex and highly political, and it takes time to unravel the real science from the urban legend.

Urban legends? Would those be something like construing statistics to "prove" a point those statistics can not and should not?

Gents,

Let's keep this discussion friendly.  We know we aren't all going to agree on this topic, but let's try to move the discussion forward.

Here is a list of scientists who are considered "climate change skeptics,"  and the reasons they give for their skepticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... al_warming

I'm betting that most of the people on that list have more in-depth knowledge about the field than any of us here on the PP forums, and yet they are still skeptical.  Of course, there are also dozens more scientists with the same knowledge who think that anthropogenic climate change is a huge danger.  To me, it's like how some people can start with the same data and come to two completely different conclusions about it.  Check out some of the discussions on Seeking Alpha about whether stock ABC is a good buy or not.

I myself have no idea if anthropogenic climate change is significant or not.  The question seems to be a little bit more complicated than "CO2 causes a greenhouse effect...  therefore more CO2 means a hotter planet."  IMO, anyone claiming they are absolutely certain one way or the other is acting based on their emotion, rather than scientific evidence.

I've also got to add that science is not determined by a "vote."  99% of scientists can and have been wrong in the past.  The beauty of science is that one piece of strong contrary evidence can prove 99% of scientists wrong.  It's happened time and time again through scientific history...

If we could travel back just 30 years and did a bunch of surveys, I bet we could turn up a lot of majority hypotheses and theories that are laughable to most scientists today.