Skepticism about Climate Change

[Robert Roaldi]

Here's a question.  How do you execute a 100 year plan to change the earth's climate?

Probably in a similar way that we've been addressing market failures since forever, we find ways to increase the price of bad things and decrease the price of good things (where good and bad in this case refer to climate change harm). We (humanity) have a long history of finding ways to fund things that are important. But I presume that you're asking the question from the point of view of a taxpayer who doesn't want government to do things because you don't believe it can, despite thousands of years of history that prove the opposite.

It's a variation of the "commons" problem and it might turn out that this one is too big to solve cooperatively. The planet will survive, that's a given. Whether humans do is an open question. We don't have a divine right to be here, the species will only survive so long as we don't destroy the environment that sustains us. This is not an answer to your question of course, you were probably looking for something more specific.

I think of it this way. Imagine a bar conversation among a bunch of blacksmiths in 1896, talking about horseless carriages. You know that somewhere along the line one guy would have piped up and said that he didn't believe that they would ever catch on, because how in the world would we ever dig up oil all over the planet, refine and ship it to every street corner so that people could buy the petroleum for their cars. And who wold build all the factories to build all those cars. And who would train all the mechanics to service them. It will never happen, I'm sure they all agreed.

[Alan Klein]

Probably in a similar way that we've been addressing market failures since forever, we find ways to increase the price of bad things and decrease the price of good things (where good and bad in this case refer to climate change harm). We (humanity) have a long history of finding ways to fund things that are important. But I presume that you're asking the question from the point of view of a taxpayer who doesn't want government to do things because you don't believe it can, despite thousands of years of history that prove the opposite.

It's a variation of the "commons" problem and it might turn out that this one is too big to solve cooperatively. The planet will survive, that's a given. Whether humans do is an open question. We don't have a divine right to be here, the species will only survive so long as we don't destroy the environment that sustains us. This is not an answer to your question of course, you were probably looking for something more specific.

I think of it this way. Imagine a bar conversation among a bunch of blacksmiths in 1896, talking about horseless carriages. You know that somewhere along the line one guy would have piped up and said that he didn't believe that they would ever catch on, because how in the world would we ever dig up oil all over the planet, refine and ship it to every street corner so that people could buy the petroleum for their cars. And who wold build all the factories to build all those cars. And who would train all the mechanics to service them. It will never happen, I'm sure they all agreed.

There's a difference when a bunch of local business people get together to control a market.  It's another thing to expect 130 countries to agree to a plan that will operate for 100 years.  I'm not saying that clean energy is doomed without it.  It will happen but at a place that makes sense from a free market standpoint.  But to get nations to spend their money on something so abstract and distant with no immediate response, seems like a bridge too far.

[Robert Roaldi]

You need to look at the bigger picture. The world oil economy was not built by local businesses trying to control a market. It took about a hundred years and involved every country, every industry, every person on earth, more or less. And they didn't sit down beforehand to design the system they wanted at a meeting, it came about by fits and starts with a mixture of free market incentives and targeted government policy, the same way we do everything, whether the individuals involved realize this or not. I'm saying that if we decide we want to, we can do it again. It's more difficult now because there are more people involved, but the stakes are higher too so the incentive is there.

[EricV]

Humans are not very good at prioritizing long term benefits over short term benefits.  Governments fail to balance the budget and instead borrow money and go into debt in order to provide immediate benefits, knowing full well that this is an unsustainable policy in the long term.  Corporations are frequently more concerned with results for the next quarter than for the long term, in part because the stock market rewards such behavior.

One good counter-example I can think of is environmental regulation.  Air pollution in the Los Angeles basin made that area almost unlivable a few decades ago, until anti-smog regulations were passed and enforced.  Free market capitalism would never have achieved this result.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Humans are not very good at prioritizing long term benefits over short term benefits.  Governments fail to balance the budget and instead borrow money and go into debt in order to provide immediate benefits, knowing full well that this is an unsustainable policy in the long term.  Corporations are frequently more concerned with results for the next quarter than for the long term, in part because the stock market rewards such behavior.

One good counter-example I can think of is environmental regulation.  Air pollution in the Los Angeles basin made that area almost unlivable a few decades ago, until anti-smog regulations were passed and enforced.  Free market capitalism would never have achieved this result.

Indeed. And add to that that governments (including that of my own country) have been actually indirectly subsidizing fossil fuel (by ignoring true long-term cost). And in addition, not speeding up the corrective measures immediately, will cost even more money in the medium term and long term, even to the point of creating irreversible damage (e.g. erosion and flooding), and health threats (pandemics), and famine, and social unrest, and even war.

The whole idea of 'Carbon Dividends' looks like an excellent tool to overcome lethargic governments, and there are only winners:
https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_where_all_sides_can_win

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Indeed. And add to that that governments (including that of my own country) have been actually indirectly subsidizing fossil fuel (by ignoring true long-term cost). And in addition, not speeding up the corrective measures immediately, will cost even more money in the medium term and long term, even to the point of creating irreversible damage (e.g. erosion and flooding), and health threats (pandemics), and famine, and social unrest, and even war.

The whole idea of 'Carbon Dividends' looks like an excellent tool to overcome lethargic governments, and there are only winners:
https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_where_all_sides_can_win

Cheers,
Bart

I don't understand his plan. Maybe I'm too lazy to listen to his confusing rambling.  Can you explain how carbon credits and giving carbon money to users saves the planet and that people will love the plan?

[Alan Klein]

Humans are not very good at prioritizing long term benefits over short term benefits.  Governments fail to balance the budget and instead borrow money and go into debt in order to provide immediate benefits, knowing full well that this is an unsustainable policy in the long term.  Corporations are frequently more concerned with results for the next quarter than for the long term, in part because the stock market rewards such behavior.

One good counter-example I can think of is environmental regulation.  Air pollution in the Los Angeles basin made that area almost unlivable a few decades ago, until anti-smog regulations were passed and enforced.  Free market capitalism would never have achieved this result.

Cleaning up the air was pretty quick but you weren't changing the earth's climate a more daunting task, probably impossible.  Basically they were just throwing out the garbage because they didn't want to live in filth.  But you have to convince nations from around the world to spend their money on a 100 year project and hope that it works with no guarantees.  Meanwhile, that money won't be used for cancer research or for killing mosquitoes that carry malaria, both more immediate concerns.   

Look how we're fighting over Obamacare, Medicare, etc.  These are immediate concerns of people.  Yet the American government will be borrowing and printing $600 billion just to cover our current expenses. And you want to raise the cost of energy.  Where does all that money come from?  Are you going to cut my Medicare and your Social Security payments 30 years from now.  Are you going to fore go sending your kid to college so you can hope your great great grand child 100 years from now doesn't have a sea that's a foot higher? 

[Robert Roaldi]

I just want to add one small point because it's too easy to skip past it. Whenever we talk of governments spending money, we usually think of it as a cost that taxpayers have to bear, but for some reason we never calculate the benefit. This is very odd, no business runs that way. Think of the US interstate system. Was that a cost or an investment? In how many ways has the US benefitted from that infrastructure investment? Can anyone in the US imagine modern life without it?

A similar argument can be made for health care reform. People only worry about how much it costs. But what is the benefit to society of having lots of healthier people living and working longer? Think of the multi-generational cost of having a father get sick and not be able to afford health care, what it does to the education of his kids, etc. Why don't we ever calculate the value of that? Corporations do EXACTLY that when they cost out internal fitness and health programs. If business does it, doesn't that mean that it's good? (Relax, I'm teasing.)

So, say we decide it's too costly to worry about climate warming. Okay, but what is the cost of Miami being submerged?

I watched an interesting documentary about the long-term planning going on in Holland with respect to sea levels rising. There are planning committees all over the place thinking about it, down to the neighbourhood level of deciding which homes will survive and which will be sacrificed. I am sure it's not an easy discussion, but not having it will be worse and cost more. My point being, if we think something is important, we can do it.

I remember the whining from automotive gear heads (I used to be involved in car rallying) about pollution equipment and the cost of cleaning the air and the loss of horsepower, etc, etc, etc. Have we ever had better cars than now? The worry all turned out to be nonsense. Occasionally I am stuck in traffic behind a 60s muscle car that is on the way to a cruise. The exhaust stinks so bad, I usually back off to avoid inhaling it. We used to think it was normal. Just because we're used to something working a certain way does not mean that it's the best way to do things. How many times do we need to relearn this lesson.

[Alan Klein]

I just want to add one small point because it's too easy to skip past it. Whenever we talk of governments spending money, we usually think of it as a cost that taxpayers have to bear, but for some reason we never calculate the benefit. This is very odd, no business runs that way. Think of the US interstate system. Was that a cost or an investment? In how many ways has the US benefitted from that infrastructure investment? Can anyone in the US imagine modern life without it?

A similar argument can be made for health care reform. People only worry about how much it costs. But what is the benefit to society of having lots of healthier people living and working longer? Think of the multi-generational cost of having a father get sick and not be able to afford health care, what it does to the education of his kids, etc. Why don't we ever calculate the value of that? Corporations do EXACTLY that when they cost out internal fitness and health programs. If business does it, doesn't that mean that it's good? (Relax, I'm teasing.)

So, say we decide it's too costly to worry about climate warming. Okay, but what is the cost of Miami being submerged?

I watched an interesting documentary about the long-term planning going on in Holland with respect to sea levels rising. There are planning committees all over the place thinking about it, down to the neighbourhood level of deciding which homes will survive and which will be sacrificed. I am sure it's not an easy discussion, but not having it will be worse and cost more. My point being, if we think something is important, we can do it.

I remember the whining from automotive gear heads (I used to be involved in car rallying) about pollution equipment and the cost of cleaning the air and the loss of horsepower, etc, etc, etc. Have we ever had better cars than now? The worry all turned out to be nonsense. Occasionally I am stuck in traffic behind a 60s muscle car that is on the way to a cruise. The exhaust stinks so bad, I usually back off to avoid inhaling it. We used to think it was normal. Just because we're used to something working a certain way does not mean that it's the best way to do things. How many times do we need to relearn this lesson.

You raise important points.  Certainly investments in infrastructure are valuable to help the economy if it's done cost effectively and targeted for things we need and not bridges to nowhere.  Back around 2009 we spent around $700 billion for shovel ready jobs.  What happened to all that money?  Is our infrastructure better?  Maybe Trump the builder can do a better job.  He certainly is cheap and knows how to get things done under budget.

But the main problem is that most of the budget goes to expenses like Social Security, not capital investments to improve the infrastructure.  And we're already $20 trillion in debt.  That's $60,000 for each American.  That's a quarter of a million dollars for a family of four.  The $600 billion of additional debt just this year means another $1800 for each person.  That's $7200 for a family of four.  What could you do personally if the government just gave you the money? 

Regarding Miami, you're assuming it's going under.  But with so many other issues like people not being able to buy health insurance they can afford, people just aren't thinking about 100 years from now.  Congress can't even figure out how they're going to "save" Obamacare, Medicare, etc.  And Holland has been 15 feet under sea level for centuries and had to address the issue as it's existential to them, something Miami isn't.  I remember as a kid the story of the Dutch boy who ran out of fingers to put in the holes in the dikes to prevent flooding.  But most of the world isn't in that dire position.  Maybe it's cheaper and more effective to let people build to move back away from the shore over the next 100 years.  It'll warm up so Canadians won't have to vacation in Florida any more and will tan their bodies in the winter along the Saint Lawrence Seaway instead.

[LesPalenik]

Your morning cup of coffee could be threatened by climate change.

Researchers from the Royal Botanic Gardens in the United Kingdom have found that more than half of Ethiopia's coffee production could be wiped out unless farmers move to higher ground.
.
Using a combination of climate data, satellite imagery and extensive field research, the researchers found that 39 to 59 per cent of the country's current coffee production areas could be unsuitable for coffee agriculture by the end of this century.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/coffee-climate-change-1.4169021

[LesPalenik]

"If the Paris agreement to curb climate-warming emissions is to be taken seriously, no new combustion engine cars should be allowed on roads after 2030"

A proposal to stop sales of new combustion-engine cars by 2030 has gained cross-party support in Germany's Bundesrat. A switch to sales of only zero-emission cars puts thousands of German auto industry jobs at risk since the powertrain of an electric car requires only a tenth of the staff to be assembled when compared with a combustion-engined equivalent, which needs more workers to assemble cylinders, spark plugs, and gearboxes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-germany-idUSKCN1280G7

[Alan Klein]

Your morning cup of coffee could be threatened by climate change.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/coffee-climate-change-1.4169021

Climate change has effected where people live and how they live for thousands of years.  North America had no people until >12000 years ago when the ice age lowered the sea and created a land bridge between Asia and North America where Asians travel and became the American Indian.  If it continues to warm up, then it is unfortunate for Ethiopian coffee farmers. They might have to change their crop to one that grows in a warmer climate.  Meanwhile, in other areas that couldn't grow these coffee beans because it was too cold, they now will be able to pick up the slack.  The American auto industry use to rule the world.  That's no longer true.  Gas is replacing coal to produce a lot of electricity production.   Things change.  People have to adapt.  The world doesn't stay the same. 

[Alan Klein]

A proposal to stop sales of new combustion-engine cars by 2030 has gained cross-party support in Germany's Bundesrat. A switch to sales of only zero-emission cars puts thousands of German auto industry jobs at risk since the powertrain of an electric car requires only a tenth of the staff to be assembled when compared with a combustion-engined equivalent, which needs more workers to assemble cylinders, spark plugs, and gearboxes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-germany-idUSKCN1280G7

Les, the article you linked too is 8 months old.  I can't imagine the Germans destroying their auto industry and 90% of the jobs it creates.  What's really going on about that today? 

[LesPalenik]

You are right, Alan. The original proposal was made in 2016, I just couldn't find a recent report in English.
However, a few days ago, Germany’s Bundesrat has voted to ban the sale of new fossil-fuel cars by 2030. I read about it first in Spiegel in German.
http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/winfried-kretschmann-und-die-gruenen-faktencheck-seiner-video-wutrede-a-1153812.html
 
here is another recent article mentioning it in English by Canadian National Post (4th paragraph from the bottom)

http://www.nationalpost.com/banks+electric+industry+revving+being+worth+year+2050/13473367/story.html

Interestingly, Netherlands is planning to ban the non-electric cars five years sooner. Starting in 2025, people there will no longer be able to buy a gasoline or diesel-powered car–even if they want to. By law, only zero-emissions vehicles will be on sale.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3058649/the-netherlands-will-ban-new-gasoline-powered-vehicles-by-2025


 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You are right, Alan. The original proposal was made in 2016, I just couldn't find a recent report in English.
However, a few days ago, Germany’s Bundesrat has voted to ban the sale of new fossil-fuel cars by 2030. I read about it first in Spiegel in German.
http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/winfried-kretschmann-und-die-gruenen-faktencheck-seiner-video-wutrede-a-1153812.html
 
here is another recent article mentioning it in English by Canadian National Post (4th paragraph from the bottom)

http://www.nationalpost.com/banks+electric+industry+revving+being+worth+year+2050/13473367/story.html

Interestingly, Netherlands is planning to ban the non-electric cars five years sooner. Starting in 2025, people there will no longer be able to buy a gasoline or diesel-powered car–even if they want to. By law, only zero-emissions vehicles will be on sale.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3058649/the-netherlands-will-ban-new-gasoline-powered-vehicles-by-2025

Yes, and that should give everybody some time to learn new skills, find new jobs, adjust infrastructure, and it makes for an economy that can export experience and knowledge to the rest of the world. Schooling of our youths from primary education to universities shall also prepare for such a future and, as a result, we'll live longer (and more productive) healthy lives. Our Technical Universities are regularly winning innovation based open challenges, like the annual World Solar Challenge. The learning process is very helpful for optimizing and patenting the ensuing commercial solutions. The 2017 challenge prototype is said to improve the efficiency of the Solar panels by some +100% (twice as efficient due to "Sabine 2.0" their 'secret weapon') by using an again improved power balancing/management system.

Will the energy transition be simple? Of course it will not be simple, but the consequences of doing too little, or nothing, will be even harder and more costly (in money and calamities) to cope with. Or, as President J.F. Kennedy has said before, in his memorable Rice Stadium 'moon' speech:

We  choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

Indeed, it makes a big difference being able to choose for the change instead of being forced to do it at an accelerated pace while trying to make up for lost time and worsened conditions.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Yes, and that should give everybody some time to learn new skills, find new jobs, adjust infrastructure, and it makes for an economy that can export experience and knowledge to the rest of the world. Schooling of our youths from primary education to universities shall also prepare for such a future and, as a result, we'll live longer (and more productive) healthy lives. Our Technical Universities are regularly winning innovation based open challenges, like the annual World Solar Challenge. The learning process is very helpful for optimizing and patenting the ensuing commercial solutions. The 2017 challenge prototype is said to improve the efficiency of the Solar panels by some +100% (twice as efficient due to "Sabine 2.0" their 'secret weapon') by using an again improved power balancing/management system.

Will the energy transition be simple? Of course it will not be simple, but the consequences of doing too little, or nothing, will be even harder and more costly (in money and calamities) to cope with. Or, as President J.F. Kennedy has said before, in his memorable Rice Stadium 'moon' speech:
Indeed, it makes a big difference being able to choose for the change instead of being forced to do it at an accelerated pace while trying to make up for lost time and worsened conditions.

Cheers,
Bart

Whether there are laws in each country won't matter.  As EV's pick up in popularity, existing auto companies around the world will develop and sell more EV's to keep up with the competition and consumer demand. It's already happening.

 Personally, I have no interest in keeping gasoline cars.  They pollute more.  It's just the power needed to keep the car moving.  It's the experience and convenience of being able to travel where and when you want that makes a car so great.  I use to drive Prius' in NYC and found them peppy although very low in appointments and comfort.  Because of the high cost of its battery, they give less in these other things I find important.  I suppose as the cost for batteries goes down, they'll be able to provide the same quality in workmanship and bells and whistles you can get in gas engine cars. 

The other issue is range and time to re-charge.  Electric is OK to run around NYC or the Netherlands.  But rural and suburban America is big.  I've driven between New Jersey and Boston 5 times in the last few months.  Not a huge distance, 250 miles one-way (400KM), but I  did it without having to stop for gas along the way.  It would be OK though to stop using electric, but then you have the time to re-charge.  With gas you're on your way in a few minutes. 

[Tim Lookingbill]

Has cost of production materials and the energy required to build these non-fossil fuel burning devices such as solar panels, batteries, EV cars, etc. been factored in? If we all get rid of combustion engine transportation, what are the costs to our environment building the alternative?

This "Adam Ruins Everything" segment on electric cars addresses this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQLbakWESkw

I think what will really help as a supplement is to train our global society to reduce the need of these devices and rely on mass transit, ride sharing, better, smarter energy efficient designs of these devices without turning us into a man-bun wearing hippy society walking around in sandals and eating seaweed biscuits.

Looks like ExxonMobile is onboard with Climate Change mitigation evidenced in this commercial... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0VeiXz1eew

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Has cost of production materials and the energy required to build these non-fossil fuel burning devices such as solar panels, batteries, EV cars, etc. been factored in? If we all get rid of combustion engine transportation, what are the costs to our environment building the alternative?

Hi Tim, yes these one time costs/pollutions will be absorbed by the subsequent savings. It is of course even better to not build from stuff that requires a lot of energy  to manufacture (e.g. steel). If batteries are (produced to be) recyclable then the benefits from yet newer generations of more efficient batteries will keep reducing their downsides. Charging them would ideally be done by truly green energy sources, not coal plants.

I think what will really help as a supplement is to train our global society to reduce the need of these devices and rely on mass transit, ride sharing, better, smarter energy efficient designs of these devices without turning us into a man-bun wearing hippy society walking around in sandals and eating seaweed biscuits.

Yes, but we can do both, reduce the energy requirements, and produce cleaner energy.

Looks like ExxonMobile is onboard with Climate Change mitigation evidenced in this commercial... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0VeiXz1eew

Although oil from algae is more/faster renewable than fossil fuel, the problem is that it still involves burning of oil, which produces CO2. Hydrogen is probably a better alternative as a portable source of energy, and one could used the existing filling station infrastructure for distribution. The hydrolysis process of water can be done with Photovoltaics or other clean energy production methods.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Tim:  I don't understand the benefit.  Oil is algae that's been in the ground a long time.  So how does burning new algae reduce effects on climate over burning ancient algae in oil?  Is there less pollution? 

[Alan Klein]

...Yes, but we can do both, reduce the energy requirements, and produce cleaner energy.

Although oil from algae is more/faster renewable than fossil fuel, the problem is that it still involves burning of oil, which produces CO2. Hydrogen is probably a better alternative as a portable source of energy, and one could used the existing filling station infrastructure for distribution. The hydrolysis process of water can be done with Photovoltaics or other clean energy production methods.

Cheers,
Bart

I see you posted my answer before I posted my question.  Pretty soon we won't have to post at all.  We'll just clairvoyant our thoughts.

The question I have about you last point is what is the cost for the hydrolysis process of water?  New products are developed for many reasons, or are improved, but cost is an important factor.  Saudi Arabia pulls a barrel of oil out of the ground for about ten dollars.  It's being sold now for $45 or so.  What would the electrolysis cost be to get the equivalent BTU's from oil?  After all, if photovoltaics were so cheap, we'd all be off the commercial electric power grid.