Climate and economics

ARTICLE: 'Climate Change Debate Hinges On Economics: Lawmakers Doubt Voters Would Fund Big Carbon Cuts,' By Steven Mufson, Washington Post, Sunday, July 15, 2007; Page A01

Article gives you a sense of the potential changes ad efforts/costs involved. Obviously, this is going to be a multi-generational affair, with biggest changes coming from leaders who are but kids today or not even born. So the question becomes, how do we get balls rolling, and the cap-and-trade seems like the best method to experiment.

Comments

[dipaolom]

In my office sits a perfectly preserved fossil of a fish recovered from Green River formation in Wyoming. 50 million years ago, on the day that fish died, Wyoming was markedly different place. For starters, the region was sub-tropical (crocodiles and palm trees could be found there). And it was wet with big, big lakes.

Things change.

Proposing, at this point, carbon trading and management programs is the economic equivalent of drawing nice straight lines on a map--it feels virtuous at the time, but erroneously pre-supposes that the drafter has a comprehensive understanding of all relevant issues.

When I was flying around Afghanistan (mostly at night), I couldn't help but observe that fire is the primary source of energy across 99% of that country. Yup, fire--just like 790,000 years ago. Nobody living like cro-magnon man is ready to have his gappishness reduced.

An well-intended response to global warming fears may or may not produce benefit to society. What is certain, though, is that such a response will have the (intended) effect of making carbon-based energy--and I'm not talking about charcoal--more expensive and unreachable for many parts of the world that are desperate for the productivity and progress that oil/gas/coal can still offer.

The hubris of denying easier access to energy to the Gap is akin to how we "helped" them by banning DDT.

[TEJ]

dipaolom

Used to use a Green River fish fossil as a check source for my Geiger counter. Ever had yours counted?

[Michael]

dipaolom:At the rate we're using fossil fuels, how much will be available for the gap countries when they're ready? The sooner the core stops using them, the more the gap will have for its own use.

Remember, also, that the technologies we develop to kick our own habit might be useful for the gap countries as well. As an example, look at the growth of cell phone useage in the gap, which eliminates the need to string phone wires to every building like the core did several decades ago. So the sooner we kick the habit, the sooner we can help the gap avoid getting the habit (or at least reduce the size of their habit).

[dipaolom]

TEJ: The simple question (why is my fish radioactive?) is quickly crowded out by the obvious one (why on earth do you have a geiger counter?)

As for running out of fossil fuels, I don't worry about it

[Tom Barnett]

Dipaolom,

On most days, I think very similarly.

[TEJ]

Diapalom

The obvious answer is to measure ioizing radiation, though I suppose it is more useful to say I was a radiation health effects researcher at the time. I don't suppose that's a typical background here (note the very small health physics joke).

Uranium, radium, etc fro the soil were incorporated into your fossil as the organic parts (esp. bone) mineralized.

Mr. Meade: Is this some kind of record for distance off topic?

[Anonymous]

it's up there. makes me think if y'all want to continue you should maybe exchange email addresses or something...