What should be done about global warming?

[Mr Skeptic]

For the purposes of this thread, assume that global warming is happening, or at the very least, is likely. If you want to debate whether global warming is actually is happening, there are already threads here, here, and here. Since threads about whether global warming is happening or not tend to get quite heated, I would rather this one keep only about what to do about global warming given that you accept it is happening.

 

There have been several ideas about what to do about global warming. For example:

Reduce waste (ie, efficiency)

Reduce our carbon output (ie, stop burning fossil fuels)

Increase carbon uptake (ie, grow more plants)

Sequester carbon dioxide (ie, keep burning fossil fuels, but put the carbon dioxide underground or underwater)

Reduce solar irradiation (ie, big space umbrella, or lots of dust)

Deal with it later with future technology (ie, in 50 years when we have fusion power )

Let global warming happen, and adapt to it (ie, Wait for California to move to me in my old age rather than the other way around )

 

Of course, these are not mutually exclusive, and you could do a little bit of each of the above. More important than the general idea is the specific methods that we could do, keeping in mind the cost of each method (we would want the cheapest method, I presume).

 

Some specific examples:

Fertilize the ocean with iron, increasing algae growth (algae in some parts of the ocean are restricted by the amount of iron)

Pumping CO2 into old gas wells.

Putting charcoal into the soil (terra preta), which would also help with fertility.

Growing forests.

Carbon taxes/credits/trading (a socio-economic meta-solution, with the actual implementation left up to the free market)

Biofuels.

Big space umbrella for the earth.

 

There's countless methods we could reduce CO2. Which do you think are the best?

[Pangloss]

- Fix broken recycling programs that don't recycling anything (national initiative?)

- Federal funding for local power company efficiency incentive plans

- Federally mandated shift to time-based rate pricing (i.e. power costs you more during peak hours, less during off hours)

- Increased federal funding for solar power, including a national program to convince businesses to install solar generating capacity on now-empty rooftops (ala Germany)

- Federal regulation and oversight for carbon credit offset purchasing

 

And let's buy Mr. Skeptic's "big space umbrella", for sure.

[Sisyphus]

Since threads about whether global warming is happening or not tend to get quite heated,

 

Har har.

 

Anyway, the best things we can do, I think, are to focus on efficiency and clean power. Efficiency does mean things like efficient architecture and automobiles, but what would make a much bigger difference, and is usually overlooked, is sensible urban planning: try to begin reversing suburban and exurban sprawl, build towns for pedestrians instead of cars, invest heavily in mass transit.

 

Clean energy is something we need to take seriously, too, which right now we are NOT. It is all fogged by politics. We spend huge amounts on government subsidies for wildly inefficient ethanol whose main effect is to raise food prices, all to appease farmers with pork-barrel spending. We don't seriously try to break our addiction to oil, because the ones selling the oil are too influential. We don't build nuclear power plants, because we give in to irrational fears. And we think offshore wind farms are a great idea, just not where rich people might see them. Seriously, what has to happen before enough people get angry to blow away the bullshit?

[ecoli]

- Fix broken recycling programs that don't recycling anything (national initiative?)

- Federal funding for local power company efficiency incentive plans

- Federally mandated shift to time-based rate pricing (i.e. power costs you more during peak hours, less during off hours)

- Increased federal funding for solar power, including a national program to convince businesses to install solar generating capacity on now-empty rooftops (ala Germany)

- Federal regulation and oversight for carbon credit offset purchasing

 

And let's buy Mr. Skeptic's "big space umbrella", for sure.

 

I disagree with almost every one of these ('cept maybe #1)...

 

Remove subsidies for oil companies (and ethanol, I currently think)

Allow states more control over environmental standards,

Deregulate markets that favor fossil fuels over alternatives,

More local controls,

[iNow]

Education. It's hard to fool someone with false claims when that someone has a clue to the science behind it.

 

This is one approach that should be taken in parallel with many others, but it hadn't yet been mentioned.

 

 

Education. Knowldege is power.

[Mr Skeptic]

Let me preemptively say, behave yourselves, iNow and SkepticLance. Please don't bring that argument here too. This is not about whether or not global warming is real, it is about what you would do about it assuming it is real.

 

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html

According to MIT, goethermal could be a major source for the US's power needs.

[doG]

For the purposes of this thread, assume that global warming is happening, or at the very least, is likely.

 

I have always believed that the planet is warming but am generally of the opinion that it is caused by solar variation and increased animal populations across the globe. This seems to be consistent with previous warming cycles. Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.

 

OTOH, even if we are not causing any measurable warming we are causing quite a bit of pollution which cannot be good for us or the plants and animals we ourselves depend on for life. We should make efforts in all areas to clean up our act, even though it will likely have no change on our warming cycle. Alternate energy sources, wind, solar, wave generators and nuclear technology could go a long way in this effort.

 

In regards to warming, if you can't stand the weather you better learn how to because there's a lot more to it than we can currently attempt to control with our current technological ability. We should explore what things we can do to make adaptation to future climate conditions more bearable.

[iNow]

Let me preemptively say, behave yourselves, iNow and SkepticLance. Please don't bring that argument here too. This is not about whether or not global warming is real, it is about what you would do about it assuming it is real.

 

Wasn't I? Good grief. You fight for something you're passionate about and you get a reputation.

 

 

I'd forgotten completely about Lance when I made that post.

 

 

I think education is a HUGE component to doing something about global climate change, education both about the change itself and technology and social engineering to mitigate it's risk.

 

 

Sorry if you feel I was treading on your thread. No offense, no distraction intended.

[Realitycheck]

Federal mandate that all houses and businesses have extensive solar panelling.

Federal mandate that all houses and businesses have wind turbines.

Sell the idea that this saves people money and is the cool thing to do. Right now, it's just not in style.

Federal mandate that all cars be hydrogen based or cleaner. (This will make them less expensive.)

Federal mandate that all hydrogen processing plants are to be energized by clean methods.

 

It's the only way to make it happen,

 

Or

 

Make the earth so hot that all of the humans die.

Convert all of the oxygen into ozone so all of the humans die.

Increase the intensity of all the weather till all of the humans die.

[Dak]

make it so that plugs have little energy-counters on them, so people can see how much they're paying for electricity. I think that's why people get why a car that does more than one mile to the gallon is good, but don't get why it's every-bit as economically and environmentally important to have electricity-efficient appliances: because the whole electricity-use thing is somewhat abstracted and less visable.

[CDarwin]

Obviously this is a huge issue with a lot of good proposals, but the single most effective solution that the US can implement is a carbon tax. It's better than cap-and-trade schemes because businesses can incorporate carbon taxes into thier long-term planning in ways they can't with the variable price of carbon credits. You get the most eco-bang for the economic slowdown. Complement that with subsidies for green techonologies.

 

Ultimately, the only good approach to something like this is one that works with the free-market. A lot of people are proposing "make people do X" solutions, but just look at the state of environmental regulation in this country and you can see that those aren't the best options. You've got to make green technology less expensive than carbon-technology. That's the only way the market is going to respond.

[Reaper]

make it so that plugs have little energy-counters on them, so people can see how much they're paying for electricity. I think that's why people get why a car that does more than one mile to the gallon is good, but don't get why it's every-bit as economically and environmentally important to have electricity-efficient appliances: because the whole electricity-use thing is somewhat abstracted and less visable.

 

Not really. Most electronic appliances, when bought, does have a label that states how much power in watt-hrs it requires. Same with lightbulbs. And n any case inefficient electricity use does show up in the bills. Of course, people with lots of money aren't necessarily going to care...

 

Education. It's hard to fool someone with false claims when that someone has a clue to the science behind it.

 

This is one approach that should be taken in parallel with many others, but it hadn't yet been mentioned.

 

 

Education. Knowldege is power.

 

I'm not sure how it was taught back in your day, but I'm pretty sure that most of the schools, colleges, media, etc. are being very aggressive about this. And yet, progress in this area is still as slow as ever. If anything, I find that this makes people even more cynical and less likely to believe it.

[Dak]

Not really. Most electronic appliances, when bought, does have a label that states how much power in watt-hrs it requires. Same with lightbulbs. And n any case inefficient electricity use does show up in the bills. Of course, people with lots of money aren't necessarily going to care...

 

yeah, but with a car you can phisically see the fuel-guage drop as you drive, you phisically fill the tank up for your one car yourself and pay for it immediately, which makes it kinda hard to escape how much fuel costs, how much going x miles costs, and how much financial difference their is between a car that does y miles/gallon and a car that does z miles/gallon.

 

with electricity, even tho most appliances state their energy consumption, you dont actually see them use electricity, you don't see how fast they eat electricity, and you pay for all of your aggregated electricity consumption once per month (and to make matters worse, in the UK the power companies try to charge you the same every month -- e.g., you use more in the winter for central heating, but you usually pay for more than your using in the summer and less than your using in the winter so that the bill remains more-or-less constant every month), all of which makes the concept that your TV is burning money a lot less real and understandable than the fact that your car is burning money.

 

eg: in standby mode, some TVs use 2/3rds the power that they use when they're fully on. if you watch, say, 4 hours of TV a day and leave it on standby the rest of the time, your using enough electricity to run the TV for 4 hours whilst watching it, and the equivelent of enough electricity to run it for about 14 hours during the 20 hours it's on standby. when you think of CD players, which can easily only actually be on for an hour every few days, it's absolutely retarded to leave it in standby, and you end up paying for enough electricity to run it for a whole day for every hour it's actually playing music.

 

yet people do this even tho they'd only have to get off their asses and poke the on/off button on the box when they turn it on/off, even tho those same people wouldn't dream of leaving their car running over night just to save them the effort of turning the ignition whenever they start/stop using their car; also, people will pay an extra grand for a car which is more fuel-efficient, whereas they won't pay an extra £100 to buy a more energy-efficien TV, even if the saving is equivelent in both cases

 

that's why i think people need a per-appliance metre. 'omg, we spent 42p running the TV since we put it in standby-mode yesterday, do we actually want to pay about £3/week just to avoid having to get up, go to the TV, and poke the button (bearing in mind that if we're stopping watching TV we'll probably be having to get up out the chair anyway to do whatever we stopped watching TV to do), hmmm y'know i don't think we do'.

 

but, as long as people can't see that they're wasting electricity and money, they will continue to do so, and they'll continue to buy into the false economy of slightly cheaper to buy but more expensive to run electrical appliances.

[Mr Skeptic]

Obviously this is a huge issue with a lot of good proposals, but the single most effective solution that the US can implement is a carbon tax. It's better than cap-and-trade schemes because businesses can incorporate carbon taxes into thier long-term planning in ways they can't with the variable price of carbon credits. You get the most eco-bang for the economic slowdown. Complement that with subsidies for green techonologies.

 

Ultimately, the only good approach to something like this is one that works with the free-market. A lot of people are proposing "make people do X" solutions, but just look at the state of environmental regulation in this country and you can see that those aren't the best options. You've got to make green technology less expensive than carbon-technology. That's the only way the market is going to respond.

 

I agree with this, that carbon taxes and credits are a far better idea than specific regulations. The problem with regulations is that they can be stupid, slow, and overspecific, so if a better solution comes around, the law will still require the old one. The regulations also trample a bit on people's freedoms, whereas the carbon taxes and credits are simply ensuring that externalities get paid for, so it seems like a proper free market solution.

[doG]

Reading through the thread I get the impression that many have "concluded" that carbon IS the cause of global warming. What will your proposed solutions amount to if carbon is not a primary cause?

[Mr Skeptic]

Reading through the thread I get the impression that many have "concluded" that carbon IS the cause of global warming. What will your proposed solutions amount to if carbon is not a primary cause?

 

I thought that was the consensus. Regardless of whether it is the main cause, it is certainly a cause. Anyhow, I was wanting to keep this thread from getting into one of those arguments where people make a lot of noise and no one changes their mind, which was the reason I mentioned at the start that it is about solutions rather than whether it is actually happening or not. I did offer one suggestion that doesn't involve CO2. I take it you would be a big fan of the giant space umbrella?

[doG]

I thought that was the consensus. Regardless of whether it is the main cause, it is certainly a cause.

 

I don't know that we can draw that conclusion as a certainty.

 

I mentioned at the start that it is about solutions rather than whether it is actually happening or not.

 

And I'm not claiming that it's not happening, I stated that I do believe warming is real. Solutions must address the cause though. Several studies have identified several "possible" candidates but I don't think any can claim with certainty a definitive cause. If we spend our time and energy chasing solutions for the wrong cause will it get us where we need to be when we need to be there?

 

I do think it is important that we also acknowledge the fact that the planet has gone through tropical cycles in the past as well as ice ages with no influence by man. This cycle will probably continue and I'm not sure there's a whole lot we can do about it except to adapt to it. If our current warming trend is another of these natural warming cycles then our solutions should address that instead of greenhouse gases or other causes.

 

FWIW, a space umbrella could be a good solution if solar variation is one of the main culprits. Somewhere I remember someone actually suggesting that we simulate volcanic activity by pumping material into the atmosphere to cool the planet in the same way that most of the ice ages are believed to have come about. IMO, this is an incredibly unsafe approach to the problem and a space umbrella would be a much better option to achieve the same goal.

[Severian]

The obvious thing to do would be to pump more energy into fundamental physics research, so that we might come up with a better long term energy solution. But we won't do that because the governments are only interested in things which happen on the timescale of their tenure.

[iNow]

Somewhere I remember someone actually suggesting that we simulate volcanic activity by pumping material into the atmosphere to cool the planet in the same way that most of the ice ages are believed to have come about. IMO, this is an incredibly unsafe approach to the problem and a space umbrella would be a much better option to achieve the same goal.

The stimulating volcano idea is pretty silly, and stupid. One question though...

 

 

In this case, wouldn't the "space umbrella" be better described as a "parasol?"