> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of pencimen > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:38 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there > is no reliab... > > Dan wrote: > > > http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/george_monbiot/2006/09/ > post_411.html > > > I think this gives some idea of just how expensive it will be to > stop global warming by holding the CO2 levels steady in 25 years. > > The article you cited also says: > "There are three things on which almost all climate scientists are > now agreed. The first is that man-made climate change is real. The > second is that we need to take action. The third is that, to avert > catastrophic effects on both humans and ecosystems, we should seek to > prevent global temperatures from rising by more than 2C above pre- > industrial levels.
The first is real science. The second and third are political statements. There will be a cost associated with global warming. There is also a cost to stopping it with present day technology. The question I see is what is our best path towards minimizing total costs. > Two degrees is the point at which some of the most dangerous > processes catalysed by climate change could become irreversible. I notice two qualifiers there. >This > includes the melting of the west Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, > which between them could raise global sea levels by seven metres. It > includes the drying out of many parts of Africa, and the inundation > by salt water of the aquifers used by cities such as Shanghai, > Manila, Jakarta, Bangkok, Kolkata, Mumbai, Karachi, Lagos, Buenos > Aires and Lima. It also means runaway positive feedback, as the > Arctic tundras begin to release the methane they contain, and the > Amazon rainforest dies off, turning trees back into carbon dioxide. > In other words, if the planet warms by 2C, 3C or 4C becomes almost > inevitable." There are both positive and negative feedback mechanisms for global warming. There is an indication that the positive feedback might eventually increase 2C to 4C. But, if we do nothing at all, the official projections are for a 2C rise by 2100. It seems to me that the best bet for minimizing global warming is 3-fold. 1) Minimizing the increase in fossil fuel usage by placing a significant tax on fossil fuels. An oil import tax of, say, $50/barrel might be a good thing for the US. 2) Significantly increase non fossil fuel energy sources. Nuclear energy is the clear best choice here....we could probably produce most of our electricity with nuclear power in 25 years. Given the present cost of oil, that would be cost effective. 3) Between the US, Europe, and Japan, spend tens of billions per year on things like plasma physics, mesoscaler physics, material science to increase the probability that technology for new energy sources (such as fusion or solar) will be developed in the next 40-50 years. > and > > "But to use this as an excuse for inaction is like remaining on a > railway track while the train is hurtling towards you. We might not > have time to jump out of the way, but if we don't attempt it, the > disaster is bound to happen. If we in the United Kingdom are to bear > our fair share of dealing with climate change, we must cut our > emissions by 87% in 24 years." > > So Dan, do we do nothing and hope beyond hope that our scientists are > wrong? What is the cost of doing nothing? The only estimate that I've seen comes in at about 5 trillion to 10 trillion. Not chicken feed, certainly, but far less than the cost of cutting CO2 emissions 60% worldwide. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
