Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Climate Change and the Economy

  1. #1
    God/dess GoldCoastGirl's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2002
    Location
    ...hehehe... email me to ask me where i am ! (i dare you!)
    Posts
    11,486
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 127 Times in 51 Posts

    Exclamation Climate Change and the Economy

    Act on climate change, ANZ head warns
    By Kimina Lyall
    October 28, 2006 12:00am
    Article from:

    BUSINESS and government should take unilateral action to arrest climate change instead of waiting for a consensus to emerge on the issue, ANZ Bank chief executive John McFarlane said.

    http://www.news.com.au/business/stor...89-462,00.html




    Climate change 'brings huge cost'
    Climate change could shrink the global economy by a fifth at a cost of up to £3.68 trillion unless drastic action is taken, a review is to warn.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096084.stm


    enter: E3167322D9 for your 10% discount

  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    ^^^ unfortunately, two key issues with 'controlling' the forces causing climate change are A. that it is extremely expensive to switch to less climate changing substitutes, and B. that our global environment assures that the policies of other nations or lack thereof (i.e. China's constructing a new coal fired power plant ever week) can completely cancel out the extremely expensive 'control' measures taken by other countries in a heartbeat.

    California is already seeing such effects, where the billions and billions of dollars worth of gov't mandates on California businesses and individuals to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas generation in California has indeed resulted in a 25% reduction in pollution generated within that state ... however all of that 25% has been replaced by increased pollution and greenhouse gas generation in China - with China's pollution being blown straight to California by the trade winds !



    (snip)"California has made great strides in air quality over the past few decades, and has often blazed the way in the United States, setting higher standards for vehicle emissions, for example. Fuel-efficient, low-emission hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius, have become a status symbol in Marin and the Bay Area.

    But all that work could be undone by the emerging industrial revolution in China and elsewhere. And that is not a theory - it is happening right now. On certain days about a quarter of the particulate matter above Los Angeles can be traced to China, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. China has the potential to be responsible for a third of all the air pollution in the state, some experts say."(snip)

    So in essence, the economy of California is bearing a heavy burden in an attempt to improve their environment but in fact their environment is not improving (much), while China reaps the benefit of extreme economic competitiveness without environmental costs and 'exports' the same amount of pollution right back to California that the Californians paid heavily to stop generating themselves !

    Granted that every bit of reduced pollution and greenhouse gas emission is a reduction over the amount that would have otherwise been generated, but without a global solution the end result of individual states / countries attempting to force only their own companies and citizens to address the problem will eventually be total bankruptcy,

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 10-30-2006 at 05:05 AM.

  3. #3
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    California should keep on doing it though. Look at LA in the morning - the air is still disgusting. Not to mention the emphezima, cancer, etc...

  4. #4
    Veteran Member StuartL's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2006
    Location
    European Man Of Mystery
    Posts
    648
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 21 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    I know what you mean. A good pal of mine is in Singapore. He told me last week that the smog there is unreal. It is caused by the burning (deliberate) of forests in Borneo. That is about 600kms away!!! The damage that is causing by both cutting down / destroying forests and the fires must be immense.

    It is all about doing 'our' or 'your' bit though. Some new research was released a while ago in the UK. If every domestic lightbulb in the UK was changed for an energy efficient bulb, a power station could be switched off immediately! If every TV, DVD player, stereo and pc sat on standby were turned off properly, another power station could be switched off. Neither of these are exactly life changing, yet they still aren't being done.

    One thing is for sure, we could all do more.

    For a while I houseshared with an Irish guy. He was great fun and was working for DG Environment at the European Commission. He got me into green things. His friends (mostly environmental types) called him an environmental hitler 'cause he is so hardcore about it. But, it is training that we all need, unfortunately.

  5. #5
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    California should keep on doing it though. Look at LA in the morning - the air is still disgusting. Not to mention the emphezima, cancer, etc...
    In theory I agree. However, in practice, adding tons of extra cost to add more intense pollution controls to products sold in California (like cars), as well as adding tons of extra cost to add more intense pollution controls at California businesses, isn't going to improve the LA air quality ... because as fast as California is reducing their locally generated air pollution, China's increasing air pollution blows across the Pacific to make up the difference ! Thus the only thing that the extra California environmental compliance costs are contributing to is higher California unemployment and a higher cost of living for California residents.

    Keep in mind that, besides the vast growth in the sale of cars in China (with next to nothing installed in the way of pollution controls in order to keep the sale price at rock bottom), China is also starting up a new coal fired power plant every single week (without requiring expensive fume scrubbers either btw ... that would make Chinese electricity too expensive and force Chinese exporters to raise the price charged for their goods).

    IMHO unless and until something is done to require uniform pollution controls on a global basis, the generated pollution and profits are going to gravitate to countries with the least stringent pollution laws (and lowest environmental compliance costs). However, as has been proven in California, pollution is global and won't necessarily stay in the countries that produce the most of it - nor will states / countries that mandate the strictest pollution regulations (and the highest environmental compliance costs) to produce the least pollution necessarily have low pollution levels, thanks to 'involuntary imports' of pollution generated elsewhere.
    Last edited by Melonie; 10-30-2006 at 04:07 PM.

  6. #6
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    OK, I'm getting from this that we should conserve, but it won't do any good. The only good that we can do is tell other countries not to do it, which we can't really do.

    Therefore, I assume we should burn up, use up, waste, as much as we can before the other guy does, because the cost of the other guy wasting it worse and faster is too high for us.

    The ultimate theoretical costs of global warming can be ignored without reservation in light of the competitive costs of the present.

    Do I have it right?

  7. #7
    God/dess scarlett_vancouver's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    6,699
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 22 Times in 20 Posts

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    ^lol

    I think everyone should just get their coffers open, because no matter whether we continue business-as-usual, or take steps to control or reduce global warming, it's going to cost a shitload. Some argue that taking steps to reduce climate change (ie Kyoto) will be more expensive than just dealing with the repercussions. (see Bjorn Lomborg)

    Feature costumes for sale!

  8. #8
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    I've never understood advocating financial responsibility but also advocating wasting resources. Those two statements seem contradictory, especially in a world of a particular finite resource (oil).

    Since we're dealing with a resource that will ultimately run out, it just seems prudent - not PC, not tree-huggerish, but truly conservative - to slow down our consumption of that resource and invest in more abundant or renewable energy sources. It won't be a quick payoff, probably, but having all our eggs in one energy basket isn't going to look very smart when the basket is depleted. Or broken.

  9. #9
    Veteran Member josie's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Detroit!
    Posts
    342
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 26 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    I recommend seeing the film "The End of Suburbia"...both very convincing and very scary.
    http://www.endofsuburbia.com/

  10. #10
    God/dess scarlett_vancouver's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    6,699
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 22 Times in 20 Posts

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    Since we're dealing with a resource that will ultimately run out, it just seems prudent - not PC, not tree-huggerish, but truly conservative - to slow down our consumption of that resource and invest in more abundant or renewable energy sources. It won't be a quick payoff, probably, but having all our eggs in one energy basket isn't going to look very smart when the basket is depleted. Or broken.
    What kind of renewable energy sources do you suggest? They all have their pros and cons. Nuclear makes the most sense to me, but it's got a ton of negatives too. Wind- not going to happen. Solar- takes up craploads of space (=$$). Hydrogen- requires an additional source of electricity anyways...good for reducing emissions, but actually requires more net energy input. Hydroelectric- short lifespan w/ high cost, messes up ecosystem.

    Fossil fuels are finite...when cost becomes prohibitive, that's when people/nations will resignedly move on to other sources.

    Feature costumes for sale!

  11. #11
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    Nuclear makes sense to me, too. It's got negatives. So does everything. With all the Three Mile Island handwringing, a lot fewer people have died from nuclear power generation than fossil fuel power generation. None of that takes into account fusion energy, which is not practically applicable as of yet, but worthy of serious research

    Wind is not the answer, but it is part of the answer. Wind power is available where I live. Every kilowatt generated by a wind turbine is something that a fossil fuel isn't burned to directly produce.

    Solar. I dunno. Massive solar sails and collectors where they won't eclipse any part of the planet, with microwave transmissions of the power to the surface? Solar incorporation on a smaller, private level, where we already have instances of "negative energy use" house? The whole planet is driven on solar energy.

    Hydrogen. I do not agree with the notion that it necessarily takes more usable energy to produce than you can extract with hydrogen. If that were absolutely true, the sun wouldn't exist. But humor aside, this is explored at Go to #3.

    Hydroelectric. No, I'm generally not impressed, although if you enjoy seeing the lights of Las Vegas as you fly in, you can thank the Hoover Dam for its share of that.

    I agree with your last sentence. Money talks, much more than foul air, ocean levels, or climactic changes.

  12. #12
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    nuclear - positives are that statistically speaking, it works well, it's the 'best' short term option, it has very low impact on the environment (assuming spent fuel and containment are properly managed), and it has a return on investment that isn't a total joke. negatives are that when mismanaged, improperly maintained, or physically attacked in a major way it has the potential for 10,000+ years worth of environmental complications. Fortunately, quite a few new nuclear power plant permits are now being applied for. Unfortunately, because of NIMBY and a seemingly infinite progression of environmental impact hurdles, few new nuclear power plants are likely to actually become reality in the USA. However, they are very popular in certain other countries lately ... particularly countries who have 'alternate uses' for highly enriched uranium !!!

    wind and solar - they both work from a technical standpoint, but they both have return on investment equations that ARE a joke (without massive gov't tax breaks and subsidies anyhow). However, as they are both politically correct such that the gov't is willing to fund such tax breaks and subsidies, lots more new generating facilities will be built. Unfortunately, because or geographic restrictions re sunlight exposure and average wind velocity vs locations where additional power is actually needed, these will never account for more than a few percent of total electrical energy needs (assuming that nobody changes their minds about allowing wind turbine farms to be located off the Atlantic coast where they would obstruct the view of rich residents of Martha's Vineyard, The Hamptons etc.)

    Hydroelectric - capital intensive but workable technology. Unfortunately, large scale future development requires massive ecological alterations i.e. turning many square miles of land into many square miles of lake bottom behind a huge new dam. All of the 'low hanging fruit' in the USA has already been developed i.e. Niagara River, Colorado River, St. Lawrence River and many others, thus not much realistic potential for large scale increases in available hydropower.

    Hydrogen - if you run the theoretical numbers hydrogen is a net 'energy waster'. However it is popular because at the point of use it is very clean in terms of pollution generated. What generally goes unspoken is that in exchange for the point of use enjoying a clean motor fuel, the point of manufacture typically must absorb a lot of pollution (typically increased load on coal fired midwest power plants, which are allowed to operate with marginal scrubbers thus produce electricity at a low enough cost to make the cost of hydrogen produced somewhat practical). The other option for producing hydrogen is to 'crack' natural gas, which of course is no better in the final analysis re fossil fuel use and total pollution than just using the natural gas instead (other than relocating pollution away from the point of end use and back to the point of production instead, which the 'tin foil hat crowd' will tell you is the primary impetus behind hydrogen fuel anyhow).

    Nuclear fusion - so far $500 billion in gov't research investment over 50 years has led to nada in terms of practical results. Oops I take that back a very promising avenue of research i.e. the Fusor or electrostatic fusion vessel did appear to be on the verge of practical results in the 70's but for 'some mysterious reason' this 'private project' was bankrupted and swept under the rug.

    Fossil fuels are finite...when cost becomes prohibitive, that's when people/nations will resignedly move on to other sources.
    Again, circling around to the original topic, ALL of the investment made in using the above electric generation technologies in order to reduce fossil fuel consumption, to reduce air pollution etc. can and will be totally overridden by other countries continued expansion of virtually unregulated lowest cost generation technologies such as Chinese coal fired power plants. For a fact coal is plentiful and coal fired power is very cheap ... providing that the use of expensive pollution control technologies such as fume scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators etc. are not mandated by the local gov't as is the case in China but (with the exception of grandfathered midwest coal fired power plants) is NOT the case in the USA. Arguably, much of America's emphasis on the use of expensive oil and natural gas is a direct result of the environmental compliance costs America now imposes on the use of otherwise cheap coal, something which China does not do.

    Thus the 'tin foil hat crowd' would tell you that unilateral action on the part of one nation or group of nations to attempt to solve this problem at massive extra expense to themselves alone is akin to stopping a war by one side deciding to commit mass suicide. Until our gov't finds a way to build a border fence that keeps out foreign generated pollution molecules as well as cheap foreign products (which are made cheap because they don't carry a similar burden of environmental compliance costs as equivalent domestic products), we're literally 'pissing into the wind'.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 10-30-2006 at 11:59 PM.

  13. #13
    God/dess scarlett_vancouver's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    6,699
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 22 Times in 20 Posts

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    I do not agree with the notion that it necessarily takes more usable energy to produce than you can extract with hydrogen.
    I meant the energy lost in conversion.

    Feature costumes for sale!

  14. #14
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    ^^^ the big missing link in the hydrogen equation is transportation energy consumption. Unless and until a hydrogen pipeline system were to be installed for nationwide distribution, the hydrogen equation must also include the energy use and costs of 'trucking' hydrogen produced cheaply in the midwest (thanks to cheap coal fired electricity from 'grandfathered' power plants) to the point of end use (typically west coast).

  15. #15
    Veteran Member StuartL's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2006
    Location
    European Man Of Mystery
    Posts
    648
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 21 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    This debate has been cranking up in the UK for a while - whenever the Iraq discussions die down temporarily. Blair seems to be convinced about nuclear power. I find it hard myself. The suggestions in the UK are to build new nuclear power startions and spend some huge amount, I forget how much ... it's £20 or £25 billion or something like it.

    The odd thing is that the arguments seem to be that renewables don't work, but I bet that if you spent £20 billion, you could generate a heck of a lot of power, very cleanly and for a long time to come. For that amount of money you could add a solar panel to most or all homes in the UK. It wouldn't be the whole solution, but noone seems to think that nuclear power is the whole answer either.

    You know the funny thing about the above discussion? I don't want to pick a fight here, so this will probably be my last post in this thread ... but in Europe, we don't think of China as being the big polluter. I know they are a very big polluter, very big, but we all think of the USA instead as being the problem child. Most Europeans would happily build a border around the US to stop pollution as you suggested Melonie, if it were possible, but it wouldn't be to keep things out of the US, it would be to keep things in the US.

  16. #16
    God/dess scarlett_vancouver's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    6,699
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 22 Times in 20 Posts

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    The odd thing is that the arguments seem to be that renewables don't work, but I bet that if you spent £20 billion, you could generate a heck of a lot of power, very cleanly and for a long time to come.
    Yeah- like with nuclear fission.

    It's expensive, and those quotes are probably not terribly exagerrated (the last quotes I read for Canada were $5-10 billion per plant, but I think it's pretty common for those projects to go waaaaay over budget).

    I definitely don't think that nuclear is the whole answer...I think the eventual 'whole answer' (if there ever is one) will be moderate use of a range of sources...a diversified energy portfolio, if you will .

    Feature costumes for sale!

  17. #17
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    Quote Originally Posted by scarlett_vancouver
    I think the eventual 'whole answer' (if there ever is one) will be moderate use of a range of sources...a diversified energy portfolio, if you will .
    Yup.

    Zero-energy homes are being developed. They'd be out of the cost range of regular people right now, but the laptop that I'm typing this on wasn't available 20 years ago, nor would it have been affordable if it had been available then. As the market opens up, the supply will rise and the prices will fall. The same with other energy producers.

    I didn't get my question answered in post #6, but it sounds like "yes."

  18. #18
    God/dess
    Joined
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,352
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    I think coal would work fine if used in power plants with the proper srubbers installed that exaust clean air - they however shut-down a SCE plant 5 miles from me because they decided to not change the scrubbers . We have lots of coal ! Every energy used has some kind of bad byproduct , not sure I am sold on nuclear waste dumps yet - but I hope they can someday find a way to eliminate the waste .

  19. #19
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    ^^^ yes, America has something like a 250 year supply of coal ... but at the moment the environmental compliance regulations applying to coal in the USA make it less expensive to use imported oil or short supply natural gas instead of coal. Thus you get decisions from corporate board rooms such as the one you just mentioned, to shut down a coal fired power plant and increase load on oil and/or gas fired power plants instead, because the huge capital cost of installing the mandated fume scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators greatly exceeds the (momentary) cost premium on imported oil. Considering that electric utilities are always allowed to pass on their operating costs to customers (eventually), the power company comes out ahead. The 'losers' of course are the electric customers of that utility plus everyone else who must now buy oil / heating oil / gasoline / natural gas at a marginally higher price.

    Now if only the US gov't would pony up the same number of billions in subsidies for the installation of fume scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators as they already do for windmill farms and solar energy installations !

  20. #20
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    Coal is a finite aid to the problem. If it can produce energy cleanly and the mining remediated, I have no great issues with that.

    Ultimately, though, it's like living off of a static bank account. Sooner or later, that account will be gone. It's preferable to live off an income stream.

  21. #21
    Senior Member Fan_Dancer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The Land of Enchantment
    Posts
    164
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    It's preferable to live off an income stream.
    Agreed and I think one that we can plant and grow time and time again is a great place to start in terms of alt. energy.

  22. #22
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    ^^^ I agree in theory. However, an unfortunate reality has to be taken into account ...



    (snip)""We think morally it is inappropriate because what we are doing here is using food and turning it into fuel. If you look at Africa, there are still countries that have a lack of food, people are starving, and because we are more wealthy we use food and turn it into fuel. This is not what we would like to see. But sometimes economics force you to do it."

    The world's top commercially produced biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel.

    Ethanol, mostly used in the United States and Brazil, is produced from sugar cane and beets and can also be derived from grains such as corn and wheat. Biodiesel, used in Europe, is extracted from the continent's predominant oil crop, rapeseed, and can also be produced from palm and coconut."(snip)


    The point being made is that there are only X amount of acres of productive farmland available, that every acre of farmland can either be devoted to feeding 10 people for a year or producing corn / cane / rapeseed based alternative fuel to drive one car 200 miles, and that choosing the latter is harmful to the former (either in terms of increasing food prices due to tight supply, or in the form of hunger due to inadequate supply).

    In essence, this is a modern day version of the 1930's Colorado River argument ... where the 'upstream' US residents got to use the water resource for irrigation and power generation, and as a result the 'downstream' Mexican residents were left with a muddy stream.

    Because a large amount of corn grown in previous years was sitting in storage silos prior to the US gov'ts passage of MBTE versus Ethanol legislation last February, and because the amount of ethanol refineries that are actually in operation was relatively small, there was no 'supply' problem in 2006. As such, no discussion has taken place regarding the steady state requirements of farmland acreage necessary to supply 'raw materials' to future ethanol refineries to actually produce enough ethanol to contribute the 10% of total US gasoline volume needed. However, in 2007, there won't any previous year's corn left sitting in silos and there are a lot of new ethanol refineries coming online requiring a much larger supply of 'raw materials', such that real shortages of corn for worldwide food use are expected (due to zero surplus US corn remaining for export).
    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 11-04-2006 at 04:52 AM.

  23. #23
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    ^^^ unfortunately, two key issues with 'controlling' the forces causing climate change are A. that it is extremely expensive to switch to less climate changing substitutes, and B. that our global environment assures that the policies of other nations or lack thereof (i.e. China's constructing a new coal fired power plant ever week) can completely cancel out the extremely expensive 'control' measures taken by other countries in a heartbeat.
    Global warming is certainly a global issue - but if I may point out, China is at the international table and the US and Canada - the largest and second largest per capita consumers of such energy - are not. The US, as well, is the largest past consumer, the largest present consumer and the largest projected future consumer (yes, still greater than China and India). By a LOT. So, the US making the tough choices and making real reductions actually WOULD have a huge impact globally (36% of total emissions!). Yes, it is expensive (and now we can all cry over the billions of dollars our joint governments have thrown away trying to show that climate change wasn't actually happening). As well, the link that GCG provided is how expensive climate change is going to be if we DON'T repair it; not how expensive it will be if we do.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  24. #24
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    ^^^ yes, it's no 'skin off their own a$$' for China and India and Mexico to sit at the Kyoto Protocol table, because as 'developing countries' they are EXEMPT from it's restrictions !!! Therefore every provision of the Kyoto Treaty that raises energy costs and taxes encourages outsourcing or relocation of European, American, Australian, Canadian and Japanese manufacturing jobs to China and India and Mexico - and ultimately results in MORE CO2 and more pollution being generated (especially toxics) due to lack of enforcement of whatever lip service laws the Chinese and Indian and Mexican govt's publicly profess to support - is to the benefit of China and India and Mexico !



    ... and as I attempted to express earlier, research is showing that this 'developing country' pollution does NOT stay put near where it is generated, but instead travels halfway around the world ...

    (snip)"While haze hovers over other parts of the world, including America and Europe, what surprised scientists was just how far the cloud extended, and how much black carbon was in it, according to A P Mitra from India's National Physical Laboratory.

    Asia's brown haze is altering the weather, creating acid rain

    A cocktail of aerosols, ash, soot and other particles, the haze's reach extends far beyond the study zone of the Indian subcontinent, and towards East and Southeast Asia.

    While many scientists once thought that only lighter greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, could travel across the Earth, they now say that aerosol clouds can too.

    "Biomass burning" from forest fires, vegetation clearing and fossil fuel was just as much to blame for the shrouding haze as dirty industries from Asia's great cities, the study found.

    A large part of the aerosol cloud comes from inefficient cookers, where fuels such as cow dung and kerosene are used to cook food in many parts of Asia, says Mitra."(snip) from


    Basically, to the extent that global warming and resulting climate change actually do constitute an acute problem (and that is far from being a scientific 'given' at this stage), selling Americans, Canadians, Western Europeans, Australians, and Japanese citizens on the idea that they should accept a 30% decline in their standard of living plus pay a hefty 'carbon tax' besides (embedded in the form of increased prices for everything produced domestically) will be an impossible sell.

    Even the Russians know the 'real deal' here ...

    (snip)"75 percent of the world's CO2 is emitted by the 89 percent of the world's population living in countries not "handcuffed" by Kyoto's restrictions."(snip) as well as

    (snip)"He also contended Kyoto is "devastating" to economic growth, because limiting emissions means limiting energy consumption, economic activity and technological progress.

    Kyoto's followers already are paying a heavy price, he says, noting that since 1997, slower emissions growth in 17 pro-Kyoto, high-income countries coincided with slower growth in gross domestic product in comparison to non-Kyoto nations such as the U.S., Australia and South Korea.

    Illarionov warned enforcement of Kyoto would remind Russians of the days of the communist Soviet Union.

    "The Kyoto protocol requires a supranational bureaucratic monster in charge of rationing emissions and, therefore, economic activities," he said in the Financial Times piece. "The Kyotoist system of quota allocation, mandatory restrictions and harsh penalties will be a sort of international Gosplan, a system to rival the former Soviet Union's."(snip)


    Probably the most prophetic work on the subject is the documentary film "The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream" ... see . It basically paints a future picture of rising energy and environmental costs forcing a 'return' to urban life or rural life with suburbia becoming a thing of the past. This will not be an easy sell to any suburban family i.e. being forced to move into a small urban apartment, being forced to limit themselves to 2 children maximum to avoid living in abject poverty, being forced to live without the joys of air conditioning, living in a stagnant economy reminiscent of the 1930's ... hmmm, sounds just like most 'poor' people in China and India and Mexico prior to the 1997 introduction of the Kyoto Protocol !!!

    And the 'rural' option isn't any better ...

    (snip)"We estimate that compliance with the Protocol would increase U.S. farm production expenses between $10 and $20 billion per year and decrease farm income by 24 to 48 percent. The Kyoto Protocol, all by itself, could cost the average farmer between one-quarter and one-half of his or her annual income."(snip) from

    Now, it might actually be 'worth it' for Americans, Canadians, Western Europeans, Australians and Japanese to take this giant step 'backwards' in regard to living standards if in fact it would lead to a real decrease in global warming and pollution levels. However, given the ineffectiveness of the Chinese, Indian and Mexican gov'ts to even begin to enforce their own rules / laws in these areas, as well as the ineffectivness of UN agencies to enforce anything at all, what's far more likely is that we'll have traded our standard of living away in exchange for just as much (and probably more) global warming and pollution being generated by 'developing countries' rather than ourselves.


    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 11-04-2006 at 10:26 AM.

  25. #25
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Climate Change and the Economy

    However
    -past emissions effect current climate change. This means, that as a matter of fact, the problem has been caused by developed nations. There is not scientific or even political debate about that.
    -Mexico, China and India are responsible for a much smaller portion of emissions than the United States and Canada - but, you know, especially the United States, both past and present - and if current trends are any indication, future.
    -Just as THEIR emissions don't stay put, OUR'S don't either.
    -There is no question that if developed nations had REAL caps - that is, actually reduced instead of buying credits - there would be REAL reduction. The "it's not fair if THEY don't have to do it" argument is only relevant if you ignore all of economic and pollutant history
    -The reduction that Kyoto demanded was miniscule. It was (as it was intended to be) a little, tiny first step in dealing with the greater problem which will eventually require a HUGE reduction
    -As developing countries "develop" they are enveloped by Kyoto. As well, in theory, technology and information sharing should help them develop in a way that is not as universally harmful as development has been heretofore.
    -Nobody - absolutely no legitimate scientist - is, at this point, either saying that climate change isn't happened, or that it is not because of human intervention. The US spent billions of dollars trying to prove that, and came up empty, which is why the current argument is, rather than "It's in your imagination", "it's not fair."
    -International cooperation is essential. It is not legitimate for the US and Canada to claim, after they have developed on fossil fuels, to demand that Cameroom (for example) remain undeveloped so that they can maintain current trends of consumption. That is irrational on all fronts.
    -Seeing as the US is responsible for 25% of current existing emissions in the atmosphere, and something like 36% of yearly global emissions, the reason that 75% of global emission are not emcompassed by Kyoto-bound countries is specifically because the US didn't ratify. So that argument is a little disingenuous.
    -Finally - back to the original post - NOT making a strong, concerted global effort against climate change will be MORE expensive - not less - than making one.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-08-2009, 10:05 PM
  2. BC Climate Change refund? ( new B.C. Carbon Tax )
    By scarlett_vancouver in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-08-2008, 07:35 AM
  3. Al Gore Petition for climate change.
    By Scarlett.Oz in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-12-2007, 10:39 AM
  4. Al Gore Petition for climate change.
    By Scarlett.Oz in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-10-2007, 11:04 AM
  5. timely news release from NASA re climate change...
    By Melonie in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2007, 09:20 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •