Wondering how all this might go over with Al Gore, I ask Mr. Lomborg if he'd seen the former vice president's new film that warns of a climate-change disaster. He's planning to, but notes he wasn't impressed by the trailers: "It appears to be so overblown that it isn't helpful to the discussion." Not that Mr. Lomborg doesn't think global warming is a problem -- he does. But he lays out the facts. "The proposed way of fixing this -- to drastically reduce carbon emissions now and to solve a 100-year problem in a 10-year time frame, is just a bad idea. You do fairly little good at a fairly high price. It makes more sense to solve the 100-year problem in a 50-year time frame, and solve the 10-year problems, like HIV-AIDS, in a five-year time frame. That makes sense, and is the smart way to spend money." Message 22605988
====================
Neither PO nor GW is a 100 year problem. The 2 horses of the apocalypse are starting to stampede.
From the Hirsch report,
The Hirsch report examines three scenarios: one in which mitigation efforts are not undertaken until global oil production peaks; a second in which efforts commence ten years in advance of peak; and a third in which efforts begin twenty years prior to the peak. Each scenario assumes a "crash program rate of implementation." In the first case, the study concludes that peak will leave the world with a "significant liquid fuels deficit for more than two decades" that "will almost certainly cause major economic upheaval"; even with a ten-year lead time for mitigation efforts government intervention will be required and the world will experience a ten-year fuel shortfall. A crash program initiated twenty years ahead of the event will offer "the possibility" of avoiding a fuel shortfall. The report emphasizes repeatedly that both supply- and demand-side mitigation options will take many years to implement and will cost "literally trillions of dollars"; it also notes that "the world has never faced a problem like this."
Message 21558851
We may well be at the peak plateau now. Haven't got 10 years to wait. Waiting 10 years to try and stop GW will be too late to start, too.
=======
One of the problem with Lomborg’s piece is that it, like the economists it praises, breaks everything down into different parts, so that climate change prevention is seen a separate from access to water and economic development. What we should be doing is working with developing nations to help them become more self reliant and less dependent on the globalised economy, which is itself the main source of carbon emissions, rebuilding their agricultural diversity and resilience and lessening their reliance on international trade in such a way as to lock up carbon. Planting useful trees, using local materials for construction, installing renewable energy systems, growing food nearer to home, all these things reduce carbon emissions, and indeed lock up carbon. Message 22606087
Yep.
But we need Al Gores for HIV/AIDS, Al Gores for malnutrition, Al Gores for free trade, Al Gores for clean drinking water. We need all these Al Gores passionately roaming the earth with power-point presentations, making the case for their project. Because at that point, the real Al Gore would be slightly sidelined, since he's arguing for the most expensive cure that would do the least good."
Message 22605988
Nope. Other people can deal with relatively minor problems like Aids and Malnutrition (Clinton, Bono, Brangelina, Scott(Mannie) and Yen(Ms.Mannie)http://www.caretohelp.org/ come to mind). The picture is a lot bigger than that. It's gonna get all of us; run over by 2 horses. Gore, by shining the spotlight on GW, has done more to help all of us than just about anybody else.
===
"The U.N. tells us global warming will result in a sea-level change of one to two feet. It is not going to be the 30 feet Al Gore is scaring us with. Is this one to two feet going to be a problem
Message 22605988
Really?
The new Antarctic measurements, using data from two NASA satellites called the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), found that the amount of water pouring annually from the ice sheet into the ocean -- equivalent to the amount of water the United States uses in three months -- is causing global SEA LEVEL to RISE by 0.4 millimeters a year. The continent holds 90 percent of the world's ice, and the disappearance of even its smaller West Antarctic ice sheet could raise worldwide SEA LEVELs by an estimated 20 feet.
Message 22225007
How fast can this go? Right now, I think our best measure is what happened in the past. We know that, for instance, 14,000 years ago sea levels rose by 20m in 400 years - that is five meters in a century. This was towards the end of the last ice age, so there was more ice around. But, on the other hand, temperatures were not warming as fast as today.
How far can it go? The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today - which is what we expect later this century - sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don't act soon.
Message 22179439 |
