by Velimir Lackovic
David Stipp of Fortune has referred to climate change as "the mother of all national security issues (2004)." I see no reason to disagree, since as explained in my new textbook (2007), a peaking of global oil production in the near future could be labeled the father. Moreover, these are related, because when oil becomes less available, the use of coal will be drastically boosted, and among other Jeffrey Michel (2008) clarifies what this means. I also emphasize that one difference between a climate meltdown and a peaking of global oil production is that many readers of this contribution are certain to experience the latter; and although less traumatic than the former - should the former take place - it will not be the kind of rendezvous that Frank Sinatra described in those marvellous songs that accompanied our après ski revels at Courchevel and St Anton.
Unfortunately, when the topic is (presumptive) anthropogenic (or man made) global warming (AGW), we have a situation where politics and psychology play a role that cannot be ignored, which means that we cannot always call on altruism or logic to provide us with optimal guidelines. Increasing numbers of people are willing to sacrifice a modest amount of money and/or comfort in order to help keep the environment in a seemly condition, but when the bad news might originate dozens or hundreds of years in the future, of unknown extent, involving societies whose compositions are unknown, then taxpayers and legislators might hesitate to endorse even small expenditures. As Professor John Kay once pointed out, "the burden of caring for all humanity, present and future, is greater than even the best-intentioned of us can bear."
It has certainly become greater than this humble teacher of economics and finance can shoulder. As a result I would be more than happy if formulating tactics and strategy that would be useful in the global-warming battle were taken out of my caring hands, and turned over to high ranking governmental officials - bypassing if possible mastodon conferences where the majority of participants lack a relevant technical background, and many would be perplexed by freshman mathematics at Boston Public.
For instance, a majority of the delegates attending the Kyoto talkathon (in l997) did not have the slightest intention to do the kind of reading and thinking that is necessary to comprehend the economic and political implications of global warming. I am certain of this, because serious people would have insisted upon immediate action, and under no circumstances would have welcomed the introduction of a measure as senseless as emissions trading. What most of those ladies and gentlemen were primarily concerned with was obtaining a ticket to the next global warming jamboree. Readers who want an important insight into this issue should refer to the work of the Carbon Tax Center where the many shortcomings of emissions trading are examined in some detail.
My side of the coin
My approach to global warming turns on some conclusions I absorbed when studying and teaching theoretical welfare economics and game theory: the basic issue is rationality! It has to do with whether voters and concerned politicians - or for that matter non-voters and political hacks - adopt or accept political and economic programs that are consistent with their ambitions in life, love, and the pursuit of money or power. As I have found out over the past few years, this is asking for a great deal. Instead, regardless of beliefs about the authenticity of AWG, persons who enjoy thinking that they possess something valuable to contribute to this debate are similar in at least one respect: they are vulnerable to systematic manipulation and self-delusion.
Too many AGW partisans want the main attack against climate problems to be carried out with renewables. They inevitably proclaim that nuclear energy is dangerous or relatively expensive, and they show an unreasonable tolerance toward half-baked schemes like emissions trading. I prefer to believe that crank convictions of this nature should be discouraged at the highest scientific and journalistic levels, since in reality they have been accepted by many politicians and civil servants only because of their political currency. For instance, the resort to emissions trading hardly deserves to be called "foolish simplicity", which, as the Nobel Prize physicist Wolfgang Pauli added when he coined the term," is beyond all help."
Similarly, almost all the climate commentators working the wrong side of the global warming street are believers in the long run availability of oil and gas. Dr Björn Lomborg once stated publicly that oil will last at least 100 years. Actually, if it were close to a thousand it would make little or no difference, because the two basic issues here are the geographic distribution of reserves and the peaking of the world oil output, and peaking could - could, not will - take place during the coming decade. In other words, it makes sense to disregard the way that resource scarcity is generally treated in most of the academic economics literature, where despite the algebra readers are presented with a soap-opera rather than a scientific exposition. It should also be noted that in Stipp's article the Pentagon plays the role of attentive observer to the climate warming drama, which suggests to me that any indication that oil production was peaking or about to peak would cause the lights to burn later than usual in that impressive structure. This is something we don't want, because going to war for oil is not a healthy option.
The bottom line
In a recent letter to EnergyBiz Insider, a hard-core member of the denial lobby classified talk about AGW as an integral part of the international socialist conspiracy, following which he insinuated that placing limits on the emission of greenhouse gases would eventually lead to the placing of limits on economic growth. More surprising, some very intelligent technicians, engineers, businesspersons and commentators associated with the important forum EnergyPulse have called AWG a hoax, scam, nonsense, foolishness, etc.
I accept AGW regardless of what it is called, or by whom, because working to suppress greenhouse gases is perhaps the best approach to the installation of a new energy economy - which I regard as essential. I was also informed recently that 400 prominent "scientists" have put their names on a document saying that global warming is hogwash. What we have here is a farce similar to that in the U.S. presidential election in 2004, when a posse of "Swift Boat Captains" was rounded up to question the bona fides of Senator John Kerry. The difference between President Bush's sailor supporters and the above mentioned scientists is that the former were actually captains, though seriously confused about the role of Senator Kerry in the war, while a majority of the 'scientists' had as much right to that designation as citizens who received bogus titles at the masquerade balls held in Paris the night the Bastille changed management.
Some AWG sceptics are often cited in the journal Energy and Environment. A few of those ladies and gentlemen possess impressive academic credentials, although most of them belong in the same category as the foot-loose 'boffins' summoned to Dr Lomborg's 'Copenhagen Consensus', and who - before proceeding to the marvellous Tivoli to drink beer - were provided with a bizarre opportunity to challenge the research of important physical scientists. As good luck would have it though, the gradual discrediting of Lomborg and a gallery of know-nothings and wannabees in other parts of the world means that even if real scientists are wrong about AGW, we could still end up with the energy system we deserve. The matter of who knows what where this topic is concerned has been examined by Barry Naughten of the AustralianNational University (2007).
It seems clear that to satisfy future energy requirements and to deal with (actual or hypothetical) AWG, a comprehensive portfolio of 'green' energy sources should be acquired as soon as possible: e.g. solar, wind, optimal amounts of biofuels, and perhaps hydrogen. In addition, according to Jim Beyer (2007), a more sophisticated access to and utilization of large amounts of methane is desirable. My focus though is on nuclear, because as far as I am concerned the solution to the distasteful energy dilemma that might be just over the horizon, as well as a partial solution to a possible climate calamity, is as follows: a base of reliable and comparatively inexpensive nuclear, on top of which is a large and variegated slice of renewables. Unfortunately, there would also have to be another non-nuclear bundle consisting of gas and clean coal, but its size and composition will have to be discussed by somebody else.
An example might be useful. In the Swedish city of Växjö, greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by 30 by 2010. Careful attention to best practices technology and management, to include a large increase in biofuel consumption, is supposedly the key element in this program. But I suspect that another pivotal element is the large amount of energy produced in Sweden with e.g. nuclear, even if Växjö may not be a major producer or consumer of this energy source. As suggested above, Nuclear energy (and hydro) provide the base on which other constituents can display a maximum utility! In fact, if the Swedish government were friendlier to the friendly atom, a comparable success might be possible for the entire country, without stresses on industrial output and employment that could burden everybody. The point is that nuclear energy in Sweden has paid its own way! The flexibility inherent in very large amounts of electricity has meant higher employment, lower costs for energy intensive industries, less greenhouse gas, etc, and consequently larger tax returns to finance things like health care and education.
Let me emphasize that what we should avoid is an offbeat foundation of biofuels, wind, sun, 'small' hydro, etc, in phase with a nuclear retreat, which is the goofy formula that hypocrites and deadbeats in Brussels (and elsewhere) obviously favour, and as far as I can tell could mean a drastic fall in the standard of living for many of us. As former Prime Minister Tony Blair indicated, even environmentalists should logically prefer nuclear to a decline in their disposable incomes. This might be one of the reasons why we now hear so much these days about a renewed interest in nuclear-based electricity, and this interest is conspicuous in virtually every corner of the industrial world.
According to Robert Frank (2006) in his important textbook, "if a single agency had the power to enact globally binding environmental legislation, it would be a straightforward, albeit costly matter to reduce the build-up of greenhouse gases. But in our world of sovereign nations, this power does not exist."
This conclusion can be adjusted. If a miracle had taken place, and the Kyoto delegates had specified that climate issues should be exclusively dealt with by heads of governments and senior civil servants from the major greenhouse gas emitting countries, meeting several times a year, we might already be in possession of optimal environmental legislation, instead of the sub-optimal trivia that was eventually cranked out. Moreover, the cost mentioned by Professor Frank might have been quite tolerable. As a bonus, observers like myself might have the satisfaction of knowing that the self-important climate vigilantes yawning and waffling at assorted talk-shops were denied the luxury of flaunting their tiresome amateurishness in international forums.
An adviser of President Putin once said that emissions trading was about making money, and not suppressing greenhouse gases. This should never be forgotten, because when that statement was made, the efficacy of emission trading was in doubt. This is no longer the case. It is a scam that will be perpetuated by, among others, the Nordic Electricity Exchange, whose ulterior purpose is to make fools of the lethargic voters and politicians who have come to believe that countering things like peak oil and climate warming with what amounts to a lottery can make their lives sweet and prosperous.
Velimir Lackovic
http://www.energetika.co.yu
March 29, 2008
Still Another Look At Global Warming
March 25, 2008
The Unknow Facts About Global Warming
by: James Heimler
The issues about global warming and the effects of global warming are continuously under debate. Somehow the debate has made its way into virtually every aspect of our lives. There is even thought that the issues about global warming are also applicable to the beliefs that other beings from other planets were forced to make themselves to Earth as their planet began to deteriorate, due to global warming.
It is all around us. It is on the weather stations. It faces us when we decide to purchase a new car or even a cleaning product. The real issues come when trying to learn about global warming. There is a lot of conflicting information on the internet and there is not one group that can agree on all aspects of the global warming debate.
Over the past century, with out a doubt, global temperatures have risen. While the rise in temperature has been only a degree or so, the concern is whether the Earth's temperatures will continue to rise and what impact that will have on the environment. The controversy about the warming of the earth is a result of conflicting evidence.
The fact that global warming also occurred in the prehistoric era is a scientific point. Some think a large meteor hitting the planet caused an big change in the earth's temperature. Is that what killed the dinosaurs? Science cannot prove this conclusively yet. The political and industrial lobbies further complicate conversations about global warming. The contention of these groups is that, we currently do not know enough about the effects of global warming to limit industrial emissions.
When will we know the full facts about global warming and will the global warming issue be resolved anytime soon? Unfortunately the answer is no. There will continue to be studies performed and there will always be a measure of doubt clouding the minds of citizens around the world. Perhaps, when enough data comes through, we will be able to make a determination based on scientific fact rather than theory. Until then we can continue to monitor the progress of scientists and try to do our part in conserving the environment.
The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_497.shtml
The issues about global warming and the effects of global warming are continuously under debate. Somehow the debate has made its way into virtually every aspect of our lives. There is even thought that the issues about global warming are also applicable to the beliefs that other beings from other planets were forced to make themselves to Earth as their planet began to deteriorate, due to global warming.
It is all around us. It is on the weather stations. It faces us when we decide to purchase a new car or even a cleaning product. The real issues come when trying to learn about global warming. There is a lot of conflicting information on the internet and there is not one group that can agree on all aspects of the global warming debate.
Over the past century, with out a doubt, global temperatures have risen. While the rise in temperature has been only a degree or so, the concern is whether the Earth's temperatures will continue to rise and what impact that will have on the environment. The controversy about the warming of the earth is a result of conflicting evidence.
The fact that global warming also occurred in the prehistoric era is a scientific point. Some think a large meteor hitting the planet caused an big change in the earth's temperature. Is that what killed the dinosaurs? Science cannot prove this conclusively yet. The political and industrial lobbies further complicate conversations about global warming. The contention of these groups is that, we currently do not know enough about the effects of global warming to limit industrial emissions.
When will we know the full facts about global warming and will the global warming issue be resolved anytime soon? Unfortunately the answer is no. There will continue to be studies performed and there will always be a measure of doubt clouding the minds of citizens around the world. Perhaps, when enough data comes through, we will be able to make a determination based on scientific fact rather than theory. Until then we can continue to monitor the progress of scientists and try to do our part in conserving the environment.
The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_497.shtml
March 19, 2008
The Ultimate Way To Stop Global Warming
by: Jessica Brown
The Earth’s surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases—primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties exist about exactly how earth’s climate responds to them.
Energy from the sun drives the earth’s weather and climate, and heats the earth’s surface; in turn, the earth radiates energy back into space. Atmospheric greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other gases) trap some of the outgoing energy, retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse.
Without this natural “greenhouse effect,” temperatures would be much lower than they are now, and life as known today would not be possible. Instead, thanks to greenhouse gases, the earth’s average temperature is a more hospitable 60°F. However, problems may arise when the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth’s atmosphere. Consequently, the temperature of the planet earth is rising.
Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of world carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. All these have dramatically reduce the lifespan of living earth.
The quest for efficient energy affects every country on the planet. Worldwide there is an increasing interest in developing clean, reliable alternatives to petroleum fuels. Many smart, safe, and clean alternative power sources are available in the market.
People can easily install these clean power sources at their home as alternative energy to help reducing carbon dioxide emission as well as reducing their utilities bill.
In recent year, people has come up with alternative power sources run their cars in order to reduce the spending on petrol gas and of course, reduce the carbon dioxide emission.
Please play your part on global warming. It is easy and at the same time, you could save money!
The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_488.shtml
Energy from the sun drives the earth’s weather and climate, and heats the earth’s surface; in turn, the earth radiates energy back into space. Atmospheric greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other gases) trap some of the outgoing energy, retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse.
Without this natural “greenhouse effect,” temperatures would be much lower than they are now, and life as known today would not be possible. Instead, thanks to greenhouse gases, the earth’s average temperature is a more hospitable 60°F. However, problems may arise when the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth’s atmosphere. Consequently, the temperature of the planet earth is rising.
Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of world carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. All these have dramatically reduce the lifespan of living earth.
The quest for efficient energy affects every country on the planet. Worldwide there is an increasing interest in developing clean, reliable alternatives to petroleum fuels. Many smart, safe, and clean alternative power sources are available in the market.
People can easily install these clean power sources at their home as alternative energy to help reducing carbon dioxide emission as well as reducing their utilities bill.
In recent year, people has come up with alternative power sources run their cars in order to reduce the spending on petrol gas and of course, reduce the carbon dioxide emission.
Please play your part on global warming. It is easy and at the same time, you could save money!
The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_488.shtml
Global Warming
by: Daniel J.M. Galpin
This issue is receiving much attention in the news with many declaring the end of the earth as we know it and insisting that we take immediate action or it will be too late. They enlisted many entertainment professionals to aid in their declaration, but is it fact or fiction? One thing is curtain, haste makes waste.
I raise this question for many reasons. One being that while many scientist claim it is fact, many others claim it is not. One side says if you listen to real scientist, you will see that they say it's true, but the other side claims to have real scientists too. Apparently real scientist are in disagreement, thus I repeat, haste makes waste. Secondly, 20 years ago scientists were claiming the next ice age and that we must be ready and 15 years before that they warned of global warming and prior to that the next ice age. Thus can we really trust those groups currently claiming global warming? Thirdly, those same scientist claim that evolution is how we all got here and they claim it to be science, yet true science is defined by something that is testable, observable and repeatable. Neither evolution or creation, for that matter, fall into the definition of science. Both are merely beliefs of how we got here. Beliefs, while good intentions are not science! Therefore can the scientists be trusted to evaluate climate conditions? And if the beliefs of evolution is true, why would we be fighting the next step? Again, haste makes waste.
I will concede to the fact that weather conditions appear to be changing. We are having hotter days and colder days. We are having cold when it should be hot and hot when it should be cold. The past two winters where I live have been much warmer than many before them and this summer seems to be cooler. The climate patterns we are accustomed to seem to be changing. In addition, frequency and intensity of natural disasters seem to be growing. However, is that due to human activity or is there another possible answer?
I propose just as there is a long standing debate regarding our beginnings: Evolution Vs. Creation, there is also another possible explanation for the climate changing conditions. Those that claim global warming, warn that the end is near, if we don't do something soon. While I disagree about their conclusions regarding what is causing climate change, I do agree, the end may be near. The most accurate history book available to the human race also declares meteorological disasters will increase towards the end of time as we know it. The Bible warns they are like a woman's birthing pains. Thus, disasters will increase.
I leave this as a second possible cause for our planets change in climate. While we can see the changes taking place and observe them, compare them to past records and thus conclude such change is occurring, we merely believe and cannot prove that humans are responsible. This would require us to test, observe and repeat the past actions of our ancestors and that is something we can not do. I place my belief in a trusted source, the most accurate history book in history, the Bible. I do believe we need to prepare for the end, although the end that is coming is unavoidable and certain. Humankind cannot fix it. We will have to endure it and either accept or reject the one that is causing it: the Lord and Savior of all humanity, Jesus Christ.
The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_484.shtml
I raise this question for many reasons. One being that while many scientist claim it is fact, many others claim it is not. One side says if you listen to real scientist, you will see that they say it's true, but the other side claims to have real scientists too. Apparently real scientist are in disagreement, thus I repeat, haste makes waste. Secondly, 20 years ago scientists were claiming the next ice age and that we must be ready and 15 years before that they warned of global warming and prior to that the next ice age. Thus can we really trust those groups currently claiming global warming? Thirdly, those same scientist claim that evolution is how we all got here and they claim it to be science, yet true science is defined by something that is testable, observable and repeatable. Neither evolution or creation, for that matter, fall into the definition of science. Both are merely beliefs of how we got here. Beliefs, while good intentions are not science! Therefore can the scientists be trusted to evaluate climate conditions? And if the beliefs of evolution is true, why would we be fighting the next step? Again, haste makes waste.
I will concede to the fact that weather conditions appear to be changing. We are having hotter days and colder days. We are having cold when it should be hot and hot when it should be cold. The past two winters where I live have been much warmer than many before them and this summer seems to be cooler. The climate patterns we are accustomed to seem to be changing. In addition, frequency and intensity of natural disasters seem to be growing. However, is that due to human activity or is there another possible answer?
I propose just as there is a long standing debate regarding our beginnings: Evolution Vs. Creation, there is also another possible explanation for the climate changing conditions. Those that claim global warming, warn that the end is near, if we don't do something soon. While I disagree about their conclusions regarding what is causing climate change, I do agree, the end may be near. The most accurate history book available to the human race also declares meteorological disasters will increase towards the end of time as we know it. The Bible warns they are like a woman's birthing pains. Thus, disasters will increase.
I leave this as a second possible cause for our planets change in climate. While we can see the changes taking place and observe them, compare them to past records and thus conclude such change is occurring, we merely believe and cannot prove that humans are responsible. This would require us to test, observe and repeat the past actions of our ancestors and that is something we can not do. I place my belief in a trusted source, the most accurate history book in history, the Bible. I do believe we need to prepare for the end, although the end that is coming is unavoidable and certain. Humankind cannot fix it. We will have to endure it and either accept or reject the one that is causing it: the Lord and Savior of all humanity, Jesus Christ.
The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_484.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
