Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Dotini]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ice ages preceeded by periods of warming?

Yes, ice ages, which have been the norm for Earth for a very long time, are interrupted by periods, or interregnums, of warming. We are within such an interregnum right now, for which we should be grateful.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[homeforsummer]

I think NEO is being quite broad, but not the point. Technically, you could consider it a "money scheme", but only while it lasts. With Carbon taxation, carbon credits, and what have you, governments/government groups have generated over $75 billion (Which I think I may have stated earlier). It's a bit of a stretch, but I see what he means.

I think my beef is that he's implying the whole concept is made up for the sake of making money from it. My own belief is that global warming is real - it's just the case that politicians see it as something to make money off. I don't believe politicians as an entity are intelligent enough to create a whole environmental concept for the sole purpose of making money. They're much more likely to take advantage of a situation that already exists.

Though again, how much that's really the case is another argument entirely. If the whole world suddenly decided to "go green", governments relying on "green taxes" would quickly find themselves massively out of pocket.

So then you have the countermeasures: Government introduces CO2-based tax for vehicles. People buy vehicles with lower CO2. Government gets less tax. Government raises speed limit by 10mph to take advantage of people using more fuel...

I personally put a more positive spin on it. It's not "global warming", it's "ice-age prevention"

Someone's glass is always "half full"...

 

[Sam48]

Though again, how much that's really the case is another argument entirely. If the whole world suddenly decided to "go green", governments relying on "green taxes" would quickly find themselves massively out of pocket.

But that's the point. The government knows we can't actually "go green". For example, the government puts massive taxes on cigarettes in the US (And most other countries). They claim they do this because they know cigarettes lead to lung cancer and what have you. However, they also know that you won't stop smoking because smoking is an addiction. Therefore, they generate billions in tax revenue off the fact that they know you can't stop, rather than the fact that they know it's bad for you. Point in case, they know most of us can't yet afford a fully electric vehicle (With cars like the Volt or the Leaf starting at around $41,000). However, they claim that they must tax you for driving anything else due to the fact that they believe it causes global warming (Or in my example, lung cancer). The fact of the matter is, that's not what they really tax you for. They tax you because they know you can't afford the electric car yet (In the same way that they know you can't stop smoking). And frankly, the electric car has always been the car of the future (Since the 70s really).

 

[homeforsummer]

However, they claim that they must tax you for driving anything else due to the fact that they believe it causes global warming (Or in my example, lung cancer). The fact of the matter is, that's not what they really tax you for. They tax you because they know you can't afford the electric car yet (In the same way that they know you can't stop smoking). And frankly, the electric car has always been the car of the future (Since the 70s really).

Fuel has been taxed long before anyone gave a monkeys about global warming. I'd go as far as saying tax on fuel is absolutely zero to do with global warming, and that it's more to do with exactly the example you used with the cigarettes - we're addicted to it, so they know they'll always make money off it.

 

[Sam48]

Fuel has been taxed long before anyone gave a monkeys about global warming. I'd go as far as saying tax on fuel is absolutely zero to do with global warming, and that it's more to do with exactly the example you used with the cigarettes - we're addicted to it, so they know they'll always make money off it.

I guess I forgot to point out that I wasn't referring to fuel tax, I was referring to the carbon tax (Something you don't have to pay much of when you own an electric car).

 

[homeforsummer]

I guess I forgot to point out that I wasn't referring to fuel tax, I was referring to the carbon tax (Something you don't have to pay much of when you own an electric car).

True, though it's worth pointing out that carbon tax also existed before mainstream electric cars were available for sale. Certainly in the UK, where we've been paying CO2-based car tax since 2001.

 

[Sam48]

True, though it's worth pointing out that carbon tax also existed before mainstream electric cars were available for sale. Certainly in the UK, where we've been paying CO2-based car tax since 2001.

Yes, but before electrics, we had hybrids. And in 2001, they were the practical electric of their time, and still are today. Anyway, I'm glad you see my point now that I've cleared things up.

 

[homeforsummer]

Yes, but before electrics, we had hybrids. And in 2001, they were the practical electric of their time, and still are today. Anyway, I'm glad you see my point now that I've cleared things up.

I don't want to be hugely pedantic here (I can feel myself failing already! ) but even hybrids were hardly a massive thing back in 2001 (we had the Mk1 Insight and the Mk1 Prius, and that's it) and I still don't think much policy was influenced by their existence. In the UK we had a grant towards them a little like EVs do at the moment, and I think they were initially congestion charge exempt in London, and congestion charge has always been about CO2 (a few years back they changed it so hybrids weren't automatically exempt, instead cars producing fewer than 100g of CO2 per kilometre were).

To be fair on both those early hybrids, in terms of usage emissions they were easily the two cleanest cars on the road back then, and after about three or four years of use even the extra energy used in their construction (and shipping) had been made up for through their daily reduction in energy use.

Of course, none of that is directly relevant to the CO2-based tax argument but it shows that at least the manufacturers' hearts were in the right place (the original Insight was arguably one of the most thoroughly-engineered Hondas ever made, up there with the NSX), even if the government is a set of money-grabbing gits.

Indeed, I don't think we'll see electric cars receding again now. Car companies aren't stupid (well... maybe Chrysler and GM are, a little, but they've learned their lesson) and even with heavy regulation you wouldn't get companies like Nissan spending billions making an electric car if they didn't think they could make money from it. They're no longer "the future", just a part of the present.

 

[Famine]

in the UK, where we've been paying CO2-based car tax since 2001.

and congestion charge has always been about CO2 (a few years back they changed it so hybrids weren't automatically exempt, instead cars producing fewer than 100g of CO2 per kilometre were)

Just for my own moment of pedantry here... our VED is labelled as CO2 emission-based taxation, but in fact it isn't. There's myriad really excellent reasons for this...

First, there's absolutely no allowance made for how far you drive your car - a hybrid going 100,000 miles a year puthers out more CO2 than a BMW 540 V8 doing 7,000 miles a year. That's not really the biggest issue - since it's measured as an average rating and the assumption is that someone owning a BMW 540 who switches to a CR-Z for some reason will drive the same distance. It's not a sound assumption - I can see why the V8 owner would consider driving less often with £1.40 gas and I can see why they would consider driving more often with a big, climate-controlled sofa, isolated from the world by 9 feet of soundproofing - but we'll call it "fair enough".

Probably more importantly, there's absolutely no allowance for how you drive your car. Put your car through 7,000 miles a year of stop-start city traffic and it will be churning out so enough CO2 to outweigh itself... Check out your idle/fast idle emissions data next MOT. Accelerate up through your gears and hit cruising speed and you'll produce less CO2 - allow the car to chug up to speed in 5th and you'll produce more. A poorly maintained car running too rich will chuck out more CO2 - a decatted car will chuck out less*.

This brings us to the point. There is no way to measure how much carbon dioxide a specific car makes over its lifetime unless you put an emissions probe into the backbox of it. So VED isn't really a tax on how much carbon dioxide your car makes. So how is it arrived at?

It's quite simple. Manufacturers report their combined cycle fuel economy test. This is then converted using a simple calculation which assumes a set of perfect conditions (including the engine running at perfect lambda [stoichiometric fuel:air ratio]) to determine how much fuel is burned and how much air is required to fully burn it (at lambda = 1.0) and thus how much carbon dioxide would come out of the exhaust - the higher the combined cycle fuel economy, the lower the "CO2 emissions" and vice versa. You can do the math yourself really easily. What actually comes out of your car is irrelevant.

What actually is VED? It's a tax on your theoretical fuel economy in a set of laboratory conditions.

"But hang on, Famine. Don't we already have a tax on fuel economy?". Why yes, yes we do. We pay about 58p per litre in "Fuel Duty" - the more fuel we use the more we pay (this is wholly fair). We also pay about 23p per litre in purchase tax on the fuel (which is notionally wholly fair too), although 11p of that is purchase tax levied on the fuel duty tax (which is completely unfair). So why do we have a tax on what manufacturers say our fuel economy would be in contrived conditions when we already have a tax on our fuel economy, another tax on our fuel economy and a tax on the tax on our fuel economy?

Answers on a postcard please.



*Important pedantic note: Some time in the 1980s, we were told how smog from leaded petrol was choking our cities, causing acid rain and killing Bambi. All, I will add, true. To combat the smog and acid rain - caused by oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and partially burned hydrocarbons - cars were fitted with a wonderful new device called a "catalytic convertor" (available since the 1970s) and the fitment was required by law from new. As a byproduct, leaded petrol was phased out as the lead anti-knock agent would coat the cat's core and render it inactive.

What catalytic convertors do is convert CO, NOx and HC into water vapour, nitrogen and carbon dioxide. More specifically, "harmless carbon dioxide, a natural part of the atmosphere", as we were informed with glee by governments and manufacturers alike. As a result, we all now have a legally mandated box under our car making more carbon dioxide than the engine should and we're taxed on those increased and now-harmful emissions.

Genius, ain't it?

 

[homeforsummer]

Oh, don't get me wrong I'm fully aware how CO2-based tax works and I hate it to the very core, but as you say we're essentially taxed on the CO2 produced over a kilometer by our cars when doing the EU fuel consumption tests, based on the combined figure.

It's a constant irritation that, as someone who hits the manufacturer's quoted MPG figure with regularity, I still pay the same as someone who drives like their knob is on fire and gets 10mpg less, because that 10mpg less means they're using a fifth more fuel, give or take. And they're paying the extra in fuel - which is fair enough - but they pay no more in tax - which isn't.

It also makes shopping for cars an almighty pain in the hole, because a post-2001 car I like might have vastly higher road tax than a pre-2001 car, even if it's more economical and better in several other areas too. And when, like me, you're trying to get the most you can for the least amount of dosh, an extra £100 or so on VED can really spoil the sums.

Call me odd if you will, but I'd prefer to control the amount of CO2 coming out of a car myself by driving it economically, rather than being charged for it regardless of how I drive it.

It's almost enough to make you want a Prius

 

[Danhawn]

There is no such thing as global warming, all that's going on, is the government trying to instill fear into you!

 

[slims]

 

[Sam48]

Claiming that human activities have created more severe weather is like claiming an increase in the number automobiles has created more car accidents. The fact is, we haven't found a real correlation between human produced Co2, and a change in weather. By the way, this happened before in the 70's when we had global cooling.

EDIT: The climate is changing. Always has been, always will. The earth could care less about what we do.

 

[hampus_dh]

We are polluting cities there´s no question about it.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

We are polluting cities there´s no question about it.

Nobody denies here that we do influence pollution I believe.
The main point is what is the effect of our pollution. If we change our behavior will it have the effect we expect.

I strongly believe that we should think more local, act more environmentally friendly, etc....
However I do not believe that will necessarily have a major influence on global warming. However I still have a tendency to gamble that it will have a positive influence.

 

[hampus_dh]

true,

My feeling is that we are contributing to global warmth. But not a huge %.

 

[Keef]

We are polluting cities there´s no question about it.

When my dad was a young boy in the late 50s here in the heavily industrial city of Dayton, he couldn't play outside all day without showering before bed, because he'd smell like a workshop and his white shirts would have the tinge of soot on them. He'd never even seen a rabbit in his neighborhood until he moved to a different one in his teens, because most wildlife hardly existed outside the woods.

Today we don't have any of that. Our cities are cleaner than they've ever been since before the industrial revolution. I've seen one - just one - coal-fired powerplant actually venting visible smoke, and that was clear on the other side of Ohio. Beyond that, I see nothing but steam and blurry heat. There are so many animals cruising my backyard that it gets on my nerves. Dayton's homeless people are dirtier than the industrial city around them.

 

[hampus_dh]

Our cities are cleaner than they've ever been since before the industrial revolution.

....aaaaaaand now you wake up...

 

[ScouserInExile]

By the way, this happened before in the 70's when we had global cooling.

When it comes to global cooling (I can remember when we were being told we were heading into another ice-age), the is a simple explanation as to why it didn't happen: the computers used to run the simulations and to make the predictions were rubbish. The scientists involved in the research will freely say "we punched the numbers in and that's what the computers came up with, they just weren't powerful enough to model what would actually happen". Malkes you wonder if this will be said again in 20 years?

 

[homeforsummer]

When it comes to global cooling (I can remember when we were being told we were heading into another ice-age), the is a simple explanation as to why it didn't happen: the computers used to run the simulations and to make the predictions were rubbish. The scientists involved in the research will freely say "we punched the numbers in and that's what the computers came up with, they just weren't powerful enough to model what would actually happen". Malkes you wonder if this will be said again in 20 years?

This, with a caveat on the last line.

It's the thing people don't seem to understand (or ignore, unless it suits them otherwise) about scientific research, which is that it's okay to be wrong and decide that a different outcome is more likely.

Global warming is more likely, given that it's actually happening, as supported by the data (note: I'm referring to global warming due to any cause, not just humans).

The data compiled in the 70s also didn't take into account the damage we did the the ozone layer in the 1980s which did its fair share for warming the Northern hemisphere. You can kind of forgive the scientists in the 70s for missing that one. Research can be used to predict things but it's not psychic.

As for what'll happen in another 20 years, the reliability of modern data makes any vast change from current estimates much less likely. That is, unless there's some big catastrophic event in the next 20 years, or some huge breakthrough in technology that changes our impact on the planet, both of which could feasibly make current estimates inaccurate.

As an aside:

A program I was watching the other day reminded me of the old "volcanoes produce more CO2 than humankind" argument.

I never genuinely knew the answer to this but it provoked me into doing a little research when I saw the TV program. Found these numbers on the website of the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory:

Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value

The counter for 2011 on Worldometers is reading something over 28 billion tons so far this year.

Obviously CO2 is only one of the greenhouse gases, and not the strongest, but interesting nonetheless. Puts a myth to bed at least.

 

[Keef]

....aaaaaaand now you wake up...

What are you on about? The first industrial revolution was 250 years ago. The world's population was 1/7 of what it is today, and yet pollution in populated areas was far worse than it is today. Per capita, pollution was at least 7 times worse back then than it is now.

I'd say that's a pretty good reason for it to stop being front page news.

 

[homeforsummer]

What are you on about? The first industrial revolution was 250 years ago. The world's population was 1/7 of what it is today, and yet pollution in populated areas was far worse than it is today. Per capita, pollution was at least 7 times worse back then than it is now.

I'd say that's a pretty good reason for it to stop being front page news.

Apart from, as you point out yourself, there being an extra six billion people on the planet now, a large proportion of whom are individually responsible for a great deal more energy consumption than people 250 years ago were. Unless I've missed something and people back then had plasma TVs, drove 50 miles to work and back, consumed food grown half way around the world, etc etc...

Yeah, inner city pollution sucked for a great many reasons (not least horses crapping in the middle of the road and peasants crapping at the side of the road) but just because something isn't as bad as it used to be doesn't mean it's okay to just forget about it.

The number of people dying from malaria goes down each year but for the people still doing the dying I suspect it's still an issue...

Incidentally, source on this?: "Per capita, pollution was at least 7 times worse back then than it is now"

 

[Sam48]

When it comes to global cooling (I can remember when we were being told we were heading into another ice-age), the is a simple explanation as to why it didn't happen: the computers used to run the simulations and to make the predictions were rubbish. The scientists involved in the research will freely say "we punched the numbers in and that's what the computers came up with, they just weren't powerful enough to model what would actually happen". Malkes you wonder if this will be said again in 20 years?

And I'm sure it will be. In fact, I believe the whole idea of anthropogenic climate change will be forgotten all together within the next 15 years.

 

[slims]

Keef is right though homeforsummer, obviously most cities are cleaner due things like garbage collection and sewage and waste disposal systems being much more advanced than they were back then. Not to mention the large number of industrial factories that were located near or in certain cities. However that doesn't mean that there is less pollution on a whole. For example, I could be wrong but I don't think there was any great pacific garbage patch 250 years ago or issues with proper e-waste disposal.

 

[Keef]

Apart from, as you point out yourself, there being an extra six billion people on the planet now...

And less pollution in any of their major cities than there has been in many decades past.

...but just because something isn't as bad as it used to be doesn't mean it's okay to just forget about it.

No no, despite a problem improving I would never forget about the original problem. But I would stop spending an ever-increasing amount of money enacting ever-stricter government regulation trying to solve a problem that is as good as it has ever been for hundreds of years. Sounds like something Scumbag Steve would do.

The number of people dying from malaria goes down each year but for the people still doing the dying I suspect it's still an issue...

It is an issue for them, yes. That doesn't mean my well-being should be sacrificed without my consent in order to solve a problem that effects a relatively tiny number of people. There's a reason I don't donate toward environmental causes, or malaria research. But then, I don't have to because my government does it for me. That blows.

Incidentally, source on this?: "Per capita, pollution was at least 7 times worse back then than it is now"

Do I need a source to assume that if the problem was at least as bad with 1/7 the amount of people, that per capita the problem has now improved seven-fold? Sounds like 4th grade logic to me.

 

[hampus_dh]

Yea sources would be nice actually.

I can´t see how cities like Bangkok is cleaner now then in the 70´s for example.
Or any other asian city where traffic is a huge problem.

 

[homeforsummer]

And less pollution in any of their major cities than there has been in many decades past.

Apart from Mumbai. Or Beijing. Or any number of other developing world cities, that are getting worse - not better. I'm sure it's nice and comfortable to sit back in the U.S. and think "well, our work here is done" but that'd be missing the bigger picture somewhat.

No no, despite a problem improving I would never forget about the original problem. But I would stop spending an ever-increasing amount of money enacting ever-stricter government regulation trying to solve a problem that is as good as it has ever been for hundreds of years. Sounds like something Scumbag Steve would do.

Again, that's just an assumption that you can get down to a certain point and then forget about it. "It's okay, we're down to just a few hundred thousand tons of oil leaking into the ocean now, rather than several million".

It is an issue for them, yes. That doesn't mean my well-being should be sacrificed without my consent in order to solve a problem that effects a relatively tiny number of people. There's a reason I don't donate toward environmental causes, or malaria research. But then, I don't have to because my government does it for me. That blows.

Oh give me a break. At what point as an individual has your well-being ever been affected to any measurable degree by anything like that?

If you're being affected at all it's to the degree of fractions of a penny on the dollar in your taxes. And before you start with the "it all adds up" argument, think carefully and consider whether "it all adds up" is one of the arguments you've been completely ignoring when it comes to something like pollution.

Do I need a source to assume that if the problem was at least as bad with 1/7 the amount of people, that per capita the problem has now improved seven-fold? Sounds like 4th grade logic to me.

You need a source for any baseless claim, yes. Particularly when you're still ignoring that despite there being more of us, we're also consuming more resources per person than we ever have, so the reduction won't be anything like the 1/7th you're claiming.

It's a pity you missed your 4th grade mathematics class to come up with that 4th grade logic...

 

[ScouserInExile]

The number of people dying from malaria goes down each year but for the people still doing the dying I suspect it's still an issue...

Going off topic a touch here, but this is a stat I find interesting. Next time there's a new flu pandemic, a couple of hundred people die and the world goes nuts, shouting "we're all doomed!", condier this: do you know how many people die from malaria every day in sub-saharan Africa? 10,000. Every day. And that's not even world-wide.

 

[Keef]

I'm sure it's nice and comfortable to sit back in the U.S. and think "well, our work here is done"...

With a glass of bourbon and a Marlboro.

Again, that's just an assumption that you can get down to a certain point and then forget about it. "It's okay, we're down to just a few hundred thousand tons of oil leaking into the ocean now, rather than several million".

Great news everybody, we're making excellent progress solving this problem. Mishaps have been reduced and the process is more efficient than ever. Now let's use scare tactics to con government officials into making even stricter laws that do more economic damage than environmental good, because, hell, the economy might fall into shambles and everybody might be broke but at least they can breath easy and feel smug!

Oh give me a break. At what point as an individual has your well-being ever been affected to any measurable degree by anything like that?

If you're being affected at all it's to the degree of fractions of a penny on the dollar in your taxes. And before you start with the "it all adds up" argument, think carefully and consider whether "it all adds up" is one of the arguments you've been completely ignoring when it comes to something like pollution.

Any effect above 0 is wrong and immoral. Forcing anybody to help any cause against their will is immoral, no matter how infinitesimally small the effect.

You need a source for any baseless claim, yes. Particularly when you're still ignoring that despite there being more of us, we're also consuming more resources per person than we ever have, so the reduction won't be anything like the 1/7th you're claiming.

I did not claim it, I deduced it through simple mathematics. You are the one claiming that the reduction "won't be anything like" what I deduced.

Fact: Urban centers were dirtier 250 years ago. Fact: The population was 1/7 what it was 250 years ago.

Going off topic a touch here, but this is a stat I find interesting. Next time there's a new flu pandemic, a couple of hundred people die and the world goes nuts, shouting "we're all doomed!", condier this: do you know how many people die from malaria every day in sub-saharan Africa? 10,000. Every day. And that's not even world-wide.

Do you know how many people in America die of death? 100%. And that's not even world-wide. I feel strongly about this issue, and I believe that somebody else should decide how much of my income to take against my will in order to help solve the problem.

Stealing somebody else's money to solve death? Impossible. Stealing somebody else's money to solve disease? Impossible. So why is this immoral act being done? Why are individuals not allowed to donate to their pollution or disease research organization of choice as they see fit?

 

[hampus_dh]

"Urban centers were dirtier 250 years ago."

How about cities that did not exist 250 years ago but now is filled with 500.000 moped drivers trying to get to work?