Investing in Global Warming

[quote]jodgey wrote:
Soco –

We are behaving much better than we were 10 years ago, but it is like a deficit / debt argument (cut the deficit in half but still plunge further into debt).
We pollute much less than we did 10 years ago, due to awarenes, regulation, and technology, but we are still negatively impacting the environment.

That Kyoto Treaty blows my mind. our president says we must lead the world when it comes to spreading democracy, but when it is inconvenient for our business to sign on to a unified environmental policy, he gives us a manifest destiny response.
If there is one policy that we must sign onto, it is environmental policy as we all share the climate, atmosphere, and oceans.
We have a responsibility to lead the world in all aspects, including the environment. Especially when we lead the world in environmental protection technology. [/quote]

We’ll sign Kyoto when China and India and Brazil are subject to the same standards – which means we won’t sign it.

[quote]jodgey wrote:

I think focusing on CO2 is just part of the disasterous atmospheric picture. It does have an effect on the environment, but the atmosphere is such a dynamic, massive entity affected by so many dynamic variables that we dont yet understand, that you can spin the data either way. Most environmental engineers will agree to the fact that the constant pumping of all kinds of gases into our atmosphere is not positive, or otherwise stated, will transform our atmosphere into something other than what we have biologically adapted to.
I think some of the more important issues are reducing the VOCs (volatile Organic Compounds) NOx (nitrous oxides)and SOx (sulfur oxides) that are spewing into our air. CO2 has an impact on the global heat up, but also the benefit of feeding our plantlife, which in turn, feeds our oxygen production. Whereas supplemental compounds starve / taint the environment where we organic beings live.


The EPA note I linked above ( ) dealt with those compounds, and showed how they had been reduced over the past 30 years, and continued on a downward trendline during Bush’s first term.

[quote]jodgey wrote:

… That said, there has a been a push under this administration to reduce the regulations on pollutants from the 1990 HAPs act (Hazardous Air Pollutants). That is scary. Arsenic, Lead, Mercury are on that list.[/quote]

And this article disputes the claim that Bush has proposed reduction of environmental protections:

And this article references Bush’s Clear Sky proposals, which seems to cover some of the same substances you listed – although I don’t know if it’s the same regulation to which you were referring:

BB, That is a catch-22 arguement.

It is way too profittable for our business to not have those regulations in China, India, and (not so much) in Brazil. That is where we are outsourcing 90% of our manufacturing. So we sign these free trade pacts that will do nothing to ensure that they instill environmental policies. Not to mention how investing in international development is such a financial boon to the investor (whereby getting these factories up and running and pushing out $3 dvd players and sneakers, and not worrying so much about the responsibility of doing it properly, takes priority).

But to then turn around and say, “if they dont, we wont” is a flawed argument because we will protect / perhaps prevent them from instilling these policies. It is a pussy excuse to cop out of doing what is right.
I think you know that too, you are just taking the right wing policy as gospel.


which is unfortunate.

in many cases corporations are already starting to try to meet kyoto regardless of what the US does because they have to do business in europe and assume environmental regulations are coming anyway. Some companies such as BP actually saved money due to decreasing their energy costs(I’d have a link for you but CS monitor isn’t free after 5 days).

I don’t even know how this can be argued anymore. How can anyone argue about the severity of our pumping toxic chemicals into our atmosphere? How many people here eat canned tuna? (I’m guessing lots :slight_smile: And how many of you are concerned about rising mercury levels within fish? We are essentially doing the same thing to ourselves. People commit suicide by overwhelming themselves with car exhaust, our atmosphere is just a larger compartment to fill. Holes in the ozone layer, acid rain, and the reintroduction of toxic chemicals into our water systems, oceans, etc. are all related to this. Sadly people are much better at reacting to a crisis than preventing one. I for one would take a look at what the majority of the climatologists are speculating, and I’ll think you’ll find that while they may not agree entirely upon the outcome (ie. global warming, vs. global cooling, etc) you will find that the majority will agree upon the negative impact we are having on our environment through our overuse of fossil fuels. You think the middle east is bad now? wait until we can see the bottom of the well :slight_smile: Look out Alberta :slight_smile:

Oh and a final note, when looking at research, always try to analyze work from both goverment AND non-government agencies, in my own experience with certian issues in my area, government scientists were astoundingly blind to what private sector researchers found and validated.


While we are at, lets argue if evolution is real.

[quote]jodgey wrote:
BB, That is a catch-22 arguement.

It is way too profittable for our business to not have those regulations in China, India, and (not so much) in Brazil. That is where we are outsourcing 90% of our manufacturing. So we sign these free trade pacts that will do nothing to ensure that they instill environmental policies. Not to mention how investing in international development is such a financial boon to the investor (whereby getting these factories up and running and pushing out $3 dvd players and sneakers, and not worrying so much about the responsibility of doing it properly, takes priority). [/quote]


No, it’s because those governments would not sign the Kyoto Protocol if it required them to adhere to the strict emissions standards. Knowing that, they were exempted.

If you want to see some truly massive outsourcing, just watch what would happen if we signed Kyoto and they didn’t.

As for making other countries do what we want through trade policies, I thought in other circumstances that’s what people called “cultural imperialism.” Not that I agree with that critique, but it’s the one generally applied when we try to force 3rd World countries to do what we want them to do.

The real reason we don’t put union and environmental qualifiers in trade agreements is that the other countries don’t want them, and we don’t get any material benefit from including them. We’re already negotiating just to get a level playing field for goods traded – which, after all, is the whole point of free-trade agreements – and we tend to spend our negotiating efforts there.

It’s not like the Chinas, Indias and Brazils feel the need to accept our dictates on trade either. Just look at the collapes of the last two world-wide free-trade talks to see that – the 3rd World countries basically shut those down as they didn’t want to capitulate to U.S. and European demands for Intellectual Property, which would affect their economies far less than would accepting labor and environmental regulations.

[quote]Soco wrote:

which is unfortunate.

in many cases corporations are already starting to try to meet kyoto regardless of what the US does because they have to do business in europe and assume environmental regulations are coming anyway. Some companies such as BP actually saved money due to decreasing their energy costs(I’d have a link for you but CS monitor isn’t free after 5 days).

I’d have to look at your data soco. All I know is that the estimate of the cost of the Kyoto Protocol in terms of the opportunity cost of lost economic growth is staggering – and the net effect would be startling tiny if India and China and Brazil were not included in the protocol, so we would be sacrificing for nothing.

**just to preface, i’m an independent thinker, as i read plenty (both sides)I merely try to come up with what makes the most sense to me (really boils down to logic). =With that said:

Let us not forget that just last week a high ranking NASA expert was admonished for speaking critically about the GW (intended pun) situation…

Link below that details our dubious position on the whole concept. (please no whining from righties about them being “liberal” media… these are two of the most reputable news gatherers in the free world, and yes, i put the WSJ in that distinguished class, too)…

[quote]Soco wrote:
so many links so little time[/quote]

Well OK then, howz-bout just these two?

And a fun quiz for the global warming experts!

If I can find the information elsewhere I will post it. The savings were small but still tangible.

Anyhow I agree that the short term costs will be very real but so will the costs associated with a continued dependence on fossil fuels. If the United States chooses to be a latecomer to the field of energy efficiency and renewable energy then we might find ourselves in a very uncompetitive position.

This is really an issue of short and long term tradeoffs. At some point the costs have to be paid the qestion is when and how much.

Before any of you go more apesh1t about CO2 emissions and the Kyoto protocol. Try googling “Water vapor” and “global warming”. Optically, when you talk about light scattering, Tyndall scattering is, by far, the most powerful form of light scattering. And it only occures with particles that are bigger than the wavelength of light. CO2 doesn’t even compare to the daily humidity, pollen, dust, etc. when it comes to dumping/trapping light energy. (not theory, fact, CO2 is a TRACE component of “dry” air, whereas water vapor is a major component of normal air) In addition, it really isn’t clear that reducing our CO2 emissions will have an effect. If you want to argue political sources, CNN and The Guardian released this story awhile back:
Which goes to show that we clearly don’t know the whole story.

In addition, the most obvious way to make money on global warming will be to invest in HVAC(mostly the VAC). Also, forests tend to be big CO2 sinks and if the trend continues, open tracts of land for reforestation would become a commodity, but if you had wide open tracts of land, you could probably do something more productive than just plant trees. If you could easily capture the CO2 in a mineral form, you could process it into lime, limestone or marble as these minerals tend to be more valuable and stable with regard to breaking back down to CO2 (than sodium carbonate or bicarbonate). I know I said CO2 wasn’t the problem, but people continue to think it is/will be.

BTW- All you environmentalists how’s the ozone hole doing since the enforcement of the Montreal Protocol? All the chemically-oriented literature I read says that it’s as big as it ever was and seems to grow in direct relation to the cooler winters down there. I’m interested to hear the political view.

[quote]Soco wrote:

Don’t you think there might be some consequences when we run out of oil? If the world doesn’t have other technologies available there could be serious resource wars or at least major effects on the economy. [/quote]

I expect us to have those technologies in place by the time we run out. It is not going to happen overnight. Also technology will save us. If you understand supply and demand, and how it has influenced technology then you will understand that as the supply drops, efficiency will go up.

Also other sources of energy are being developed, and are finally becoming competitive to oil. The oil companies were using oil as the energy to extract oil from the earth. It took about one barrel burned to pull out three. Now they are actually switching to using solar power to extract that oil.

I don’t expect it to last forever, but it isn’t just going to vanish overnight. Light sweet crude is not the only oil. Heavy oil is being extracted in Canada. It costs more to refine, but it is there, and in very large quantities.

First I didn’t say a decade, I said decades. And yes I remember the late 70’s. I saw films of the smog of the 50’s. I remember reading about the story of the Cuyahoga River catching fire in the 60’s. Do you remember a river catching fire recently? Guess what, they are cleaner then they were. Even the Hudson can be swum in right now.

[quote]The fact that there are numerous countries signing Kyoto indicates that this is a serious issue. Climate change is well past the point of a simple theory. Look at one of my earlier posts, the fact that the Bush administration has even admitted that global warming is partly caused by man should be a wake up call.

And you obviously ignored my post that this wake up call should not be turned into an insane overreaction. First we need to know and understand what is going on, not just assume. Second we need to know how powerful what we are doing actually is.

Are we causing a big change, a small change, or a very minimal change? Then we need to find out if we actually can change things, and if we even should. What if 90% of any change is natural? Would it be wrong to change the natural event? You do know there are scientists (and a lot of them) who say that global warming may have more benefits then drawbacks.

In other words, lets not go off half-cocked here. We might end up fucking up our economy, and still end up with global warming because of natural trends.
found via bandgeek’s link

April 28, 1975

The Cooling World

There are ominous signs that the Earth?s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production? with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing
lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas ? parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia ? where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree ? a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras ? and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 ? years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases ? all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world?s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA?s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

***** End of article

Notice how they were proposing such actions as melting the ice caps to increase global temperature to prevent an ice age. Now that people believe in global warming, are you not happy they didn?t do that?

But since they were wrong then, how do we know they are right now? Again lets not go off half-cocked and do something stupid.

Please read the articles posted here, you might learn something.

1- You can only expect us to have the technologies in place if we make the investments now in developing them. Unless we prepare now and make the investments you can’t assume anything.

2- Your example about a river relates to chemical pollutants dumped in the water not CO2. Yes, some of our environmental regulation have gotten better but production of Co2 here and abroad is rapidly increasing. People keep using industrial pollutants such as CFCs as a red herring in this argument. Yes, those pollutants have gone down but others have gone up.

3-There are advantages to to energy efficiency that are often understated. Corporations always try to convince you have the apocalypse is coming if they are forced to engage in any sort of pollution controls. This doesn’t end up happening, you adapt and alter your production process.

As for the impacts of global climate change, there has been a massive amount of research pointing towards the effect being real and negative. The worlds second largest computer was even built to help analyze the impacts. This is not a situation where a couple of scientists tricked the world community into signing climte change agreements that have potentially negative impacts on their society. For the love of god, Russia is even going to sign it. This is a little bit more serious than alot of people would have you believe.


okay on eline of that talked about melting the ice caps and scientists concluded that would be stupid. I agree with them that would be dumb.

Decreasing pollution and using renewable energy is not melting the icecaps. Don’t compare the two.

Besides eve if you refuse to accept climate change, there are other benefits. For example not having to go hang out in the middle east or propping up authoritarian regimes.

Then again that would be crazy too…

[quote]Soco wrote:
This is a little bit more serious than alot of people would have you believe.[/quote]

And not nearly as serious as 99% of the junk scientists out there want us to believe. For pete sake - the biggest producer of methane gas on the face of the earth is cattle - not man. The biggest producer of CO2 is humans - not industry.

The small minded scientists who are trying like hell to find a link between global climate changes, and the U.S. industrial complex will never find it - even if they build 10 super comuters. The world is much older and wiser then the smarty-pants egg heads that want to vilify the U.S. under the guise of saving the earth.

Mage –
You newsweek article is very interesting. It is quite an authority on the environment. As you are too, I am quite sure.
As I am writing a paper right now on the environmental effects of Manufacturing processes, since I just completed my thesis on Boric Acid as an environmentally friendly solid lubricant. I know you want to push the theory that global warming does not exist, but why argue this point. I dont think anyone is rationally suggesting we melt the ice caps, but perhaps, just perhaps, reducing the overburdoning of gases into our atmosphere might, JUST MIGHT, be a good idea. Perhaps one, living in this country of technological excess and financial capability, should recognize that. Perhaps one should not fucking bitch the point that effects of our excessive gaseous dumping into our atmosphere dont exist because my politcal party told me so?

amazing. . . simply amazing.

Look at my earlier post. Even the EPA under the Bush administration has accepted there is global warming and that it is most likely partly caused by man’s activity.

Anyway, I have thesis to revise later…