-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
evo said:But if I'm reading you aright, you seem to be suggesting the West should start do the paying.
I notice you mentioned that you're a trained a economist-I'm guessing you were a Keynes fan.
Yes I am suggesting we pay.
Normally I hate this kind of thing, but we dont have the time to wait for China/India/Brazil to get the capacity to pay themselves (or will to do so).
More importantly, the cost we pay now will be a longer term saving in terms of climate change and pollution minimization. Short term cost for longer term pay off, I am still an economist remember
On Keynes, he is right for the right times. Same with Milt, and even Smith. My belief is none are absolutely right, you need to adapt strategy to the market and the circumstances it faces.
yeah, i take your point.But it's not the way I'd go about it.Tiger74 said:Yes I am suggesting we pay.
Normally I hate this kind of thing, but we dont have the time to wait for China/India/Brazil to get the capacity to pay themselves (or will to do so).
More importantly, the cost we pay now will be a longer term saving in terms of climate change and pollution minimization. Short term cost for longer term pay off, I am still an economist remember
I think the role of the West is to continue to lobby them diplomitic fashion to bring their industry up to more western standards in regards to polution and plant efficiency.
Meanwhile set even higher standards ourselves for them to eventually follow.Paying them to be more efficient is fraught with problems.Not to mention contrary to Western ideals.
China don't need our help economically,just some freindly advice from nations who have already travelled the industrial revolution path.If they need help on a knowledge level,I'm all for maybe something like intellectual training in our universities gratis for their best and brightest future leaders.
I don't agree Keynes was 'right for the times',but I wont labour the point.I've done that argument to death over the years in other forums,and at uni.I shouldn't have bought it up,it's off topic anyway.Just stirring. >
evo said:yeah, i take your point.But it's not the way I'd go about it.Tiger74 said:Yes I am suggesting we pay.
Normally I hate this kind of thing, but we dont have the time to wait for China/India/Brazil to get the capacity to pay themselves (or will to do so).
More importantly, the cost we pay now will be a longer term saving in terms of climate change and pollution minimization. Short term cost for longer term pay off, I am still an economist remember
I think the role of the West is to continue to lobby them diplomitic fashion to bring their industry up to more western standards in regards to polution and plant efficiency.
Meanwhile set even higher standards ourselves for them to eventually follow.Paying them to be more efficient is fraught with problems.Not to mention contrary to Western ideals.
China don't need our help economically,just some freindly advice from nations who have already travelled the industrial revolution path.If they need help on a knowledge level,I'm all for maybe something like intellectual training in our universities gratis for their best and brightest future leaders.
I don't agree Keynes was 'right for the times',but I wont labour the point.I've done that argument to death over the years in other forums,and at uni.I shouldn't have bought it up,it's off topic anyway.Just stirring. >
On China, I like what you suggest in theory, but I think it will take too long. We dont have 50-100 years to get our house in order, and the USA is happy to wait that long and they refuse to do anything if someone has an advantage to them (ie. why can they emmitt more than us).
Stupid situation I agree, but thats what happens when you vote George W in.
Things are changing,more rapidly now.Look how much GW is at the forefront of peoples consiouness since Gores movie.
It's a major election issue here,for the first time.Apart from IR it's the main thing people talk about in the West at the moment.Both sides of politics here in Australia have put their golden boys into the enviroment portfolio.The're taking it seriously.
Whether what I'm suggesting for China 'takes too long' depends on how urgent you see the problem and how serious you have assessed the predictions.
Personally I don't see that the West has to also start financial 'Marshall plans' for China
I do agree with you however that the U.S,and particulalrly the GOP, should take it more seriously,domestically.
It's a major election issue here,for the first time.Apart from IR it's the main thing people talk about in the West at the moment.Both sides of politics here in Australia have put their golden boys into the enviroment portfolio.The're taking it seriously.
Whether what I'm suggesting for China 'takes too long' depends on how urgent you see the problem and how serious you have assessed the predictions.
Personally I don't see that the West has to also start financial 'Marshall plans' for China
I do agree with you however that the U.S,and particulalrly the GOP, should take it more seriously,domestically.
evo said:
Politicians yes but the people on the streets no. My bosses are Italian and they went to Italy over Summer and said none of their relatives even knew what they were talking about when discussing
Apparently Europeans have other more pressing concerns - like good coffee.
fair enough Jimbob,I don't really have any recent anecdotal evidence of my own.Been a while since i was in Europe personally.
One interesting thing I can relay on this subject though.10 years ago I lived in a French town at the base of a glacier-Chamonix.Around the bar varuious old timers who'd lived there all their life told me from time to time how the glacier had been receding fairly consistently all their life.
after that I started bring ing the subject up at others places I went.
Same thing happened the short time i stayed in Verbier Switzerland that was also over looked by a glacier.
Alaska similar thing.
In all those places people ,particulalrly the old timers were worried about GW,alot of them never really had an opinion on wether it was man made or not,but they were convinced it was happening.And this was before it was barely ever mentioned in the media or was trendy to do so.
One interesting thing I can relay on this subject though.10 years ago I lived in a French town at the base of a glacier-Chamonix.Around the bar varuious old timers who'd lived there all their life told me from time to time how the glacier had been receding fairly consistently all their life.
after that I started bring ing the subject up at others places I went.
Same thing happened the short time i stayed in Verbier Switzerland that was also over looked by a glacier.
Alaska similar thing.
In all those places people ,particulalrly the old timers were worried about GW,alot of them never really had an opinion on wether it was man made or not,but they were convinced it was happening.And this was before it was barely ever mentioned in the media or was trendy to do so.
I was a bit bored at work so have been reading a bit. Found an interesting article on the AAAS site, not so much on the cause but some of the obvious effects and consequences.
The retreat of glaciers worldwide, from Alaska and China to the mountains of Peru, offers solid evidence that human-induced global warming is real, a leading scientist told a 4 May Capitol Hill briefing arranged by the AAAS Center for Science, Technology and Congress and the AAAS journal Science.
Lonnie Thompson, a professor of geological sciences at Ohio State University, described the dramatic loss of ice on Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, Africa. In 1912, he said, there were about 4.3 square miles of ice fields atop the mountain. By 2000, the fields had shrunk to 0.94 square miles. At the current rate of decrease, he said, "some time before 2020, all the ice fields on Kilimanjaro will disappear
Read the whole article here if you're interested.
The retreat of glaciers worldwide, from Alaska and China to the mountains of Peru, offers solid evidence that human-induced global warming is real, a leading scientist told a 4 May Capitol Hill briefing arranged by the AAAS Center for Science, Technology and Congress and the AAAS journal Science.
Lonnie Thompson, a professor of geological sciences at Ohio State University, described the dramatic loss of ice on Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, Africa. In 1912, he said, there were about 4.3 square miles of ice fields atop the mountain. By 2000, the fields had shrunk to 0.94 square miles. At the current rate of decrease, he said, "some time before 2020, all the ice fields on Kilimanjaro will disappear
Read the whole article here if you're interested.
I agree that there seems to be a warming around the globe at the moment, but I also recall back in the 70's there was talk of the planet heading for an Ice age. I can't recall too much of that, it was 30 years ago. Right now, it seems we're in for a colder winter than last year. It's raining outside now and 100.
The seasons are definitely changing and i dont need any stats to tell me that.
It seems we have a longer hotter spring and a merging of autumn, winter which is milder. Summer is very short and not as blindingly hot, but hotter overall.
It seems we have a longer hotter spring and a merging of autumn, winter which is milder. Summer is very short and not as blindingly hot, but hotter overall.
Points of interest
1) When doing all my scientific experiments at school I always got bored waiting for something to happen - the bunsen burner would be burning away for what seemed an eternity - nothing would be happening in the test tube - then I would take my eye off it for a second or two and a way it would go - at such a pace I could not stop the chemical reaction in the test tube.
Is this going to happen with our climate change - nothing untoward has happened in the first century and a half of industialization and we are comfortable nothing will happen but we are aware something untoward may happen - afterall there are signs that there is something changing - man made or not. BUT when that untoward thing does happen will it happen so fast that it will get a way from us and hence change our environment/life support system so quickly that we will never be able to change it back?
2) If we are to make changes now - we have to monitor the effects on our economy - with other countries also doing the same it appears mankind may be heading in the right direction - but in the end this may be to our detriment from a world economic status situation. Unless of course we can take up the challenge to lead the world in a search for new "cleaner" technology that helps mother nature rather than hindering her. The greenies would argue that without a stable self proliferating environment there will be no economy and hence no jobs - that is going a tad far - or is it?
3) India and China are IMO red herrings - or simple excuses as to why we need not do a thing. Facts seem to point to the world economy not being able to afford both India and China becoming like the US or Australia - i.e. Upper , strong middle and poor classes of people - as the world economic resources could not keep up with the demand from the sheer numbers of a strong middle class in these two countries - hence there will not be 2 cars in every garage or central heating/cooling in every home or multiple TVs &/or PCs in every house of middle class families in India and China - the world economy would collapse under the strain of the huge demand. The middle class in these countries will be better off than their previous generations of poorer class but they will not be at the same level as the US or Australian middle class. Or we will be forced down to their level due to the increasing costs of normal middle class items - like petrol, Cars, TVs, PCs, etc.etc.
4) Co2 trading is IMO an excellent way to bring the economics of businesses into line with effective emissions controls - there is an economic benefit for the company that can produce its products with less emissions - and a more expensive cost to those that cannot - this has worked particularly well in South Korea
5) Is it really true that if we do not bear the brunt of the costs of changing our ways now we will not be able to afford the costs to our economy in decades to come? Or is it scare mongering?
Me I always like to err on the side of the conservative - lets start by changing things we can now through emissions control and meet specific targets and then measure our success and from that take the next appropriate measures. Just in case this environment/life support system called earth is going through a scientific change that could accelerate and get a way from us overnight! Man made or not!
1) When doing all my scientific experiments at school I always got bored waiting for something to happen - the bunsen burner would be burning away for what seemed an eternity - nothing would be happening in the test tube - then I would take my eye off it for a second or two and a way it would go - at such a pace I could not stop the chemical reaction in the test tube.
Is this going to happen with our climate change - nothing untoward has happened in the first century and a half of industialization and we are comfortable nothing will happen but we are aware something untoward may happen - afterall there are signs that there is something changing - man made or not. BUT when that untoward thing does happen will it happen so fast that it will get a way from us and hence change our environment/life support system so quickly that we will never be able to change it back?
2) If we are to make changes now - we have to monitor the effects on our economy - with other countries also doing the same it appears mankind may be heading in the right direction - but in the end this may be to our detriment from a world economic status situation. Unless of course we can take up the challenge to lead the world in a search for new "cleaner" technology that helps mother nature rather than hindering her. The greenies would argue that without a stable self proliferating environment there will be no economy and hence no jobs - that is going a tad far - or is it?
3) India and China are IMO red herrings - or simple excuses as to why we need not do a thing. Facts seem to point to the world economy not being able to afford both India and China becoming like the US or Australia - i.e. Upper , strong middle and poor classes of people - as the world economic resources could not keep up with the demand from the sheer numbers of a strong middle class in these two countries - hence there will not be 2 cars in every garage or central heating/cooling in every home or multiple TVs &/or PCs in every house of middle class families in India and China - the world economy would collapse under the strain of the huge demand. The middle class in these countries will be better off than their previous generations of poorer class but they will not be at the same level as the US or Australian middle class. Or we will be forced down to their level due to the increasing costs of normal middle class items - like petrol, Cars, TVs, PCs, etc.etc.
4) Co2 trading is IMO an excellent way to bring the economics of businesses into line with effective emissions controls - there is an economic benefit for the company that can produce its products with less emissions - and a more expensive cost to those that cannot - this has worked particularly well in South Korea
5) Is it really true that if we do not bear the brunt of the costs of changing our ways now we will not be able to afford the costs to our economy in decades to come? Or is it scare mongering?
Me I always like to err on the side of the conservative - lets start by changing things we can now through emissions control and meet specific targets and then measure our success and from that take the next appropriate measures. Just in case this environment/life support system called earth is going through a scientific change that could accelerate and get a way from us overnight! Man made or not!
RT, climate driven disasters have increased fourfold since the 60's. Many scientists agree that the increasing intensity and regularity of events such as Hurricane Katrina are directly attributable to climate change. I'd call this evidence of something 'untoward' happening.
jb03 said:
Keep up the good work on the statistics there jb. Your research is impeccable. ;D
Safe to say I don't think Global warming is overstated and even in the unlikely event that human's involvement isn't what's causing the earth to heat up, where's the harm in actually attempting to fix what is a very real problem.
Tigers of Old said:
Yep, fair call. I do recall a study that also stated the same. The point is not whether climate change is a fact or myth, only that Australians seem to place much more emphasis on on it than elsewhere. I am obviously in a minority, especially here on PRE.
