Global warming slowdown could last another decade

[Ender]

You do realize this is just a humorous relabeling of the graph of heat content shown by lynn in this post?

I confess to having done the relabeling…but I thought it was humorous too. I also thought it made a point: climate facts and the theoretical projections ostensibly based on those facts continue to diverge, and nowhere more than in the case of ocean warming, which was the basis for the chart I …adjusted.

Ender

 

[Arandur]

Just thought you all should know, the soil is very poor up in the arctic and subarctic areas (in case you were hoping your progeny could all move there). …the permafrost has not allowed for the necessary decomposition year after year to create good topsoil.

Eh. It’s not that easy to write off. IF climate zones move northward, so do the conditions that make biomes native to those zones–including soil conditions. There’s a lot of glacial silt up there that yes, needs some organic content. But as permafrost subsides (and that’s talking really far north, which would take a great deal of warming), decomposition will happen, and there’s lots of organic content just waiting to decompose and enrich the soil. Not to mention that we’re pretty good at applying man-made (or just man-distributed) fertilizer.

Also, most organisms are pretty good at quickly shifting territories in response to natural variation. As climate zones creep north, so will the plants and animals that occupy them.

…up until that extreme heatwave and drought conditions kill them…

Of course that doesn’t mean it won’t rain, but it does mean when it rains it pours a deluge… I took a organic gardening course and found out roots need oxygen and plants can “drown.” Who knew?

We also have ways of managing irrigation, runoff, etc. Yes, our ridiculous corn industry may suffer, but it should be dramatically reduced anyway (another great example of a real environmental–and governmental, via subsidy and poor regulation–problem that needs to be addressed). We have plenty of more durable and well-managed farming techniques, even before getting to intensive organic permaculture and aquaponics, which are the two high-density land use, low-water, high productivity, and highly-durable and manageable solutions to food security and abundance that are ready to step in to any gap of failing mechanized artificial monoculture.

I used to buy into a lot of the environmentalist movement. Then I got a degree in environmental science and went through several field programs and contacts with Ag schools, and tacked on extensive studies in economics. Changed my perspective dramatically.

…I think threats to food productivity a more important issue, tho that also involves searise inundation hitting some of the most agri productive areas around the world, like deltas, …Except Bangladesh with its 150 million mainly poor people won’t be able to adapt, build extensive dikes, etc.

The poverty in this and many areas is largely due to other social, governmental, and geographical problems. Concentration in coastal cities is doing them no favors. A disruptive change and dispersion inland would probably actually help most of those regions.

As I’ve said, food productivity is not much of a concern. Knowledge, technology, and distribution is always a concern, largely impeded by corruption or poor government policies (such as US food aid actually crushing the local food economies of the places we supposedly try to help with our enormous surpluses).

Or are you yet another modern Malthusian that believes the sad old lie of Thomas Malthus that just keeps getting retold despite getting utterly shattered by every bit of evidence with a great deal of consistency over time?

Ditch Malthus. He couldn’t have been more wrong.

 

[Arandur]

… the economic damage caused by climate change impacts will reach everyone, not just those in harms way from sea rise, floods, droughts, storms, disease spread, etc.

Looks like what we could agree on is that there needs to be more of a focus on what the comparative costs are of dealing with the problem.

Since even primary global warming advocacy institutions tend to pretty consistently say that no matter what we do, we can barely affect their forecasts, it makes little sense to waste resources beyond what the market is driving, and instead makes much more sense to devote those resources to adapting to the “inevitable” changes that their models predict (since there’s nothing we can do about it anyway).

We also have the great advantage that adaptation happens naturally; people adjust to scarcity and changing resources and conditions like any other natural animal population. We don’t have to try to force big changes through heavy-handed government approaches that are extremely likely to be enormously inefficient, ineffective, and incorrect with many unintended consequences.

… always been promoting “going green, saving green” without lower living standards, maybe even increasing them a bit. We in rich countries can reduce GHGs and concomitant harmful pollution by 60%, even 75% without lowering living standards or productivity…Too bad people are zonked in like zombies to profligate inefficient, non-conservative, environmentally AND economically harmful lifestyles.

Whatever happened to “waste not, want not,” or “a penny saved is a penny earned.”

There’s a difference between radical environmentalism and prudent conservation. As the price mechanism is sensitive to scarcity, demand, and externalities, markets change. There’s a great deal that makes sense to do because it pays off. This will continue to be the case. Eventually, we will indeed have renewable sources of energy and more efficient agriculture–at least, we will get there as long as we can avoid too much nonsensical government involvement screwing things up.

And like government and NIMBY environmentalist scares preventing real solutions to any emissions “problems” like nuclear energy (and even canning wind, solar thermal, geothermal, and tidal energy).

Do you support modern nuclear energy? I’ve been using that lately as a litmus test for how educated and rational environmentalists are in their willingness to consider actual solutions.

I pay a great deal of attention to energy efficiency, waste management, food sources and health, and conservation of resources because it just makes sense–and it’s reinforced by the payoff in my pocketbook.

I just don’t want every year to have to spend $1000 more for my utilities, $1000 more for my transportation fuel, $1000 more for my food, and $1000 more for the other goods I buy. If the economics change dramatically, I will have a hard time giving as much money to charities that actually directly help people and save lives, let alone fuel a productive economy and take care of my family.

Yes, but not human life.

Oh please.

What’s your point? That because people didn’t exist back then they couldn’t have existed? That we somehow don’t know whether humans could survive with x amount more C02 in the atmosphere (no one’s arguing that we’re going to reach a “choking point,” to my knowledge)?

Are you taking issue with Theo’s actual point that humans are naturally adapted to do better in warmer climates, that the majority of high-density human populations are centered around warmer climates, and thus expanding warmer climate zones would likely be even better for humanity?

If we took a purely species-istic approach, like every other natural animal, “wanting” to expand our species’s population and conditions for thriving, we’d be all for global warming. Expand our natural habitat range throughout more of the earth? Yes please. Any other animal would want that.

 

[lynnvinc]

Eh. It’s not that easy to write off. IF climate zones move northward, so do the conditions that make biomes native to those zones–including soil conditions. There’s a lot of glacial silt up there that yes, needs some organic content. But as permafrost subsides (and that’s talking really far north, which would take a great deal of warming), decomposition will happen, and there’s lots of organic content just waiting to decompose and enrich the soil. Not to mention that we’re pretty good at applying man-made (or just man-distributed) fertilizer.

Also, most organisms are pretty good at quickly shifting territories in response to natural variation. As climate zones creep north, so will the plants and animals that occupy them.

(Do you really know how long it take for topsoil to form…1000s of years.)

The problem is not so much whether all this transition of life to higher latitudes as the climate warms could happen smoothly. It did so over the Eocene, taking 49 million years to reach its highest global temps, and there were alligators and palm trees in the arctic then, and not much extinction.

The problem is that the current climate shift (the warming) is happening extremely fast in geological terms, magnitudes of order faster than any other warming in earth’s history. The end-Permian and PETM, which happened much faster than the Eocene optimum, over some 100,000 to 200,000 years, were disastrous for life – 95% dying out in the former and 30 to 50% of species going extinct in the latter.

The other problem (even if we did want to create eutrophication in the Arctic Ocean and kill off the sealife there with synthetic fertilizer run off), is that people and the Canadian gov already own that land. That may not be a problem with imperialist colonialists, they’d just barge in a take it, but it might be with the Church and people of moral character.

The other problem is there isn’t as much land there as you might think, esp if you look at a globe instead of a distorted 2-dimensional map, and then considering sea rise. I think Greenland (after many centuries or longer of most of its ice melting) would end up being a large lake with land around the edge and a bunch of islands around it. I’m not sure, but that’s what I found out somewhere. As long as there’s a large fresh water lake in its center and it’s not just an atoll of islands, that would be something…

And then there is still the problem of hydrogen sulfide outgassing, which is thought to have killed off a lot of life during the end-Permian & is related to high levels of warming and super-anoxic oceans. Of course we (our progeny) could go around wearing gas masks… I wonder if they make gas masks for cows.

The upshot is after some 100 years on and well into the distant future (as long as there are humans still around) it will be a killer musical chairs of fighting over ever diminishing life-sustaining resources. Which I guess is the way the skeptics want it–anarchy r/t than sensible regulations now (which they claim is tantamount to totalitarianism). But the funny thing is that with such conflicts rife, people will be squeezed between a rock and a hard place and many will opt for the security of a totalitarian regime, the very thing skeptics fear the most, is the very thing they are helping to usher in by their do-nothing-let-the-world-burn policies.

Right now we are living in a cornucopia of resources, even if they not shared properly, and we are squandering them lickity-split. What will it be like when there is a dearth of life-sustaining resources…not enough to go around, even if well shared as equitably as possible.

Doesn’t it make more sense to start doing what we can NOW of avert (or reduce) this type of scenario – turning off lights not in use, hypermiling, offing the engine in drive-thrus and the 100s, even 1000s of things that just make sense and cents IF one has a heart, or at least like the tin man wants a heart.

 

[freeRadical]

That is for sure, and the economic damage caused by climate change impacts will reach everyone, not just those in harms way from sea rise, floods, droughts, storms, disease spread, etc. Everyone. Then when people can’t afford products, it will also hurt big biz. Everyone.

I’m curious as to what specific economic damage you believe climate change will cause?

Well, hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I, a radical environmentalist, have always been promoting “going green, saving green” without lower living standards, maybe even increasing them a bit. We in rich countries can reduce GHGs and concomitant harmful pollution by 60%, even 75% without lowering living standards or productivity – which will take at least 10 or more years to implement even if we really get going on it (I know this from personal experience – it actually took us some 20 years to reduce by 60%). At that point we can reassess and figure if we need to sacrifice a thimbleful or maybe a bucketful of our living standard. Good idea. Too bad people are zonked in like zombies to profligate inefficient, non-conservative, environmentally AND economically harmful lifestyles.

Let’s say that every single person in the US reduced their GHGs by 75%. What impact do you think that will have on global climate change?

 

[sps49]

Let’s say that every single person in the US reduced their GHGs by 75%. What impact do you think that will have on global climate change?

They cannot answer this question in an absolute sense, or even provide a sign change (up or down) with out the magnitude . That alone tells me that they don’t have the tools to analyze this accurately yet. What’s left is fear, propaganda and idealism.

 

[Arandur]

(Do you really know how long it take for topsoil to form…1000s of years.)

Do you know that we can generate our own natural and chemical fertilizers, composts, and thus soils suitable for agriculture? Plus all the alternative methods I spoke of, which you’re consistently not paying attention to.

The problem is that the current climate shift (the warming) is happening extremely fast in geological terms, magnitudes of order faster than any other warming in earth’s history. The end-Permian and PETM, which happened much faster than the Eocene optimum, over some 100,000 to 200,000 years, were disastrous for life – 95% dying out in the former and 30 to 50% of species going extinct in the latter.

You keep missing my points. Even if a causal link can be established, most species are not required for working ecosystems. Most species (particularly the vulnerable ones) are small populations filling small niches and represent useful though not necessary biodiversity. In other words, depending on the species we’re talking about, those with widespread, large populations are typically the keystone species and likely not of much concern. The vast majority of species, in absolute terms are rare, not well known, and not likely to be encountered (or missed).

(even if we did want to create eutrophication in the Arctic Ocean and kill off the sealife there with synthetic fertilizer run off)

:rollseyes: Plenty of ways to avoid this, and requires massive scale use, anyway. Again, intensive organic permaculture and aquaponics are there if we really need them, and not really vulnerable to any of the concerns you’ve raised.

is that people and the Canadian gov already own that land. That may not be a problem with imperialist colonialists, they’d just barge in a take it, but it might be with the Church and people of moral character.

Seriously? The lack of reasoning (and setting up straw men and red herrings) is getting annoying. We live in the 21st century. If food is the issue, areas that are able to produce less expensively can ship to areas that can’t. Canada’s economy could boom. And immigration could boom.

The other problem is there isn’t as much land there as you might think

A massive misunderstanding on the part of most people, environmentalists especially, is how much land is out there. Seriously, have you ever flown over the Western US? Have you ever looked out the window? Go to Alaska and Canada and the American West looks like a dense metropolis. North America, especially, has vast amounts of unsettled/unused land. And intensive organic farming and aquaponics can produce many times more food per unit of land than traditional industrial monoculture.

I think I can some up the proper response to the rest of your post in these two points that you keep ignoring:

1. Thomas Malthus was wrong. Give it up already. For over 200 years, he has always been proven wrong. Newsflash: the sky is not falling, Chicken Little. Food production is not a problem. Innovation is not a problem. Land availability is not a problem. In fact, given that the population is set to peak soon and then decline, neo-Malthusian speculation is even more false. There’s plenty of land, plenty of resources, plenty of food, and plenty of innovations to rely on even if any of these were challenged.

And on top of that, expanding growing seasons, ocean evaporation, CO2 availability to plants, tend to point strongly towards more agricultural productivity even under typical industrial modes.

And,
2. Even under the models of most of the AGW climatologists, there’s really not much we can do to avert or even significantly reduce the warming they’re talking about. So there’s not much point in killing our economies trying to do something that is impossible, will not have sufficient effect, and will leave us crippled and unable to adapt to any changes that do occur.

There are, of course, plenty of conservationist approaches that make sense in the market and are getting advanced and seeing market penetration. These things have benefits that payoff in the short term. These are non-controversial. But you throw out straw men and red herrings, as if you must either be a radical environmentalist and buy into all the gloom and doom (and ignore reality), advance onerous and crushing government intervention; or be some anti-environment villain who just wants to guzzle gas, burn dirty coal, use as much energy and generate as much waste as possible, etc. In reality, most of us are doing plenty of things that are easy and make market sense to reduce energy use and waste. These things are not controversial. They also, according to the gloom and doom predictions, won’t achieve much, anyway.

All this to chase “solutions” that won’t have sufficient impact to do anything if the gloomy predictions are true–and all the while diverting much needed attention and resources to much more pressing and real environmental problems that we can actually do quite a bit about (such as desertification, overfishing, wasteful and damaging agricultural practices and inefficiencies, coastal wasting, etc).

 

[Ridgerunner]

(Do you really know how long it take for topsoil to form…1000s of years.)

Oh, this isn’t true Lynnvinc.

It does take a long time for topsoil to form if nobody does anything, and depending on what’s growing on it.

But what we think of as “topsoil” is nothing more than tiny particles of rock and/or clay mixed with organic material. And even in deep soil, the organic matter is always fairly close to the top. Below that, it’s relatively sterile in all but a very few places on earth. True “topsoil” is that which is mixed with organic material.

But to know you’re assertion is mistaken, all you have to do is go into a temperate hardwood forest and brush the latest layer of fallen leaves aside. Beneath the latest leaf fall, you will find a decomposing layer or two. Below that, you’ll find rich humus. Even in a forest no more than fifty years old, the humus layer will be inches thick.

Lift up a patch of moss atop a rock ledge and you’ll see that it has generated a surprising amount of organic matter.

There are other things that are “soil building” even if people don’t consciously act to cause it. Even tall fescue grass does it, and faster than one might think. And if people actively intervene, people can definitely accelerate the soil-building process; sometimes dramatically. I build soil all the time, and with very simple measures.

That’s not to say people can’t ruin topsoil, because they can. But they can build it too.

 

[Petersmate]

Well the OP and all the charts and what have you that people try to make a point on cannot be taken seriously because…
Every day the newspapers carry stories of new scientific findings. There are 15 million scientists worldwide all trying to get their research published. But a disturbing fact appears if you look closely: as time goes by, many scientific findings seem to become less true than we thought. It’s called the “decline effect” - and some findings even dwindle away to zero.
A highly influential paper by Dr John Ioannidis at Stanford University called “Why most published research findings are false” argues that fewer than half of scientific papers can be believed,

Read more bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/8/28/bbc-r4-everything-we-know-is-wrong.html

 

[lynnvinc]

I’m curious as to what specific economic damage you believe climate change will cause?

Economic harms from: harm to food productivity, enhanced/increased floods, droughts, wildfires, storms (I wonder how much Hurricane Haiyan and Superstorm Sandy have cost), disease spread, “useful” species decline & loss.

When thinking about the GW added inches/feet to floods, heat stress to crops & people, desiccation to droughts, intensity/duration/spread of wildfires, and intensity of storms…it is often that last amount of these that does the most damage (breeches the levees, flattens the buildings), and this translates into harms to the economy, as well as to human health and lives.

Concomitant harms from GHG emissions also have economic costs – pollution, ocean acidification, diminishing resources.

Some events have a “superwhammy” from GW. For instance Superstorm Sandy included a GW-enhanced Nor’easter (neg arctic oscillation) meeting a GW-enhanced hurricane coming up the east coast. With a few added inches of sea rise (reducing land friction), the inundation was able to spread much farther inland. It just so happened unluckily that it was high tide at the time. But high-tide alone cannot explain all the damage – it was just a natural event that facilitated the harms that much more.

Let’s say that every single person in the US reduced their GHGs by 75%. What impact do you think that will have on global climate change?

Considering that most of the other developed countries and China are ahead of the US in addressing AGW, our sudden participation could help prevent world demoralization and give hope and even more impetus to all other people and nations striving to address the problem.

Right now the US is a demoralizing drag to AGW mitigation efforts around the world. Since per capital the US emits about the most GHGs (I think Saudi Arabia is ahead of us), I’m thinking many others around the world may have a “what’s the use” attitude about mitigating. We need to work to reduce that demoralization and lead the way. We used to be a “can-do” people, and we need to reclaim that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well the OP and all the charts and what have you that people try to make a point on cannot be taken seriously because…
Every day the newspapers carry stories of new scientific findings. There are 15 million scientists worldwide all trying to get their research published.

So your solution to inaccurate science is to, what? Reduce the number of scientists? Really? Yea, too many scientists doing too much research. If people would stop doing so much research we would know a lot more stuff!

But a disturbing fact appears if you look closely: as time goes by, many scientific findings seem to become less true than we thought. It’s called the “decline effect”

The “decline effect”? So, give the claim an official-sounding name, like the episode names on Big Bang Theory. That gives any claim more credibility!

A highly influential paper…

Well, it clearly was very influential on you! But that is to be expected when someone writes something you really want to hear. And secondly, don’t present this paper as news. It was from 2005.

by Dr John Ioannidis at Stanford University called “Why most published research findings are false” argues that fewer than half of scientific papers can be believed,

Did you actually read the paper? Or are you just repeating what the Bishop Hill Blog said about it? If you read the actual paper you would have known that, despite the general-sounding title, the paper was only about one specific kind of research finding - medical findings about therapeutic interventions. Since it was published in a medical journal, there was no need to make the title more specific. The readers of that medical journal would have expected the author was talking about medical research. The application of this finding to research on global warming is not at all obvious, although it stands to reason that the Bishop Hill Blog would want to gloss over that little problem.

If you are going to make a case about global warming by using some paper about the inaccuracy of medical research, at least quote the paper directly, instead of referring to a biased blog about a BBC radio program about the actual paper. (That’s two unnecessary levels of indirection.)

 

[freeRadical]

Economic harms from: harm to food productivity, enhanced/increased floods, droughts, wildfires, storms (I wonder how much Hurricane Haiyan and Superstorm Sandy have cost), disease spread, “useful” species decline & loss.

First, you would have to prove that Hurricane Haiyan and Superstorm Sandy were caused by global warming.

Second, what proof do you have that global warming will:

Harm food productivity?
Enhance/increase floods?
Increase droughts, wildfires, and storms?
Increase the spread of disease?

Considering that most of the other developed countries and China are ahead of the US in addressing AGW, our sudden participation could help prevent world demoralization and give hope and even more impetus to all other people and nations striving to address the problem.

Really? China is ahead of the US in addressing GW? How so?

 

[lynnvinc]

First, you would have to prove that Hurricane Haiyan and Superstorm Sandy were caused by global warming.

Second, what proof do you have that global warming will:

Harm food productivity?
Enhance/increase floods?
Increase droughts, wildfires, and storms?
Increase the spread of disease?

Since we’re talking about the future, and scientists have already enough proof that AGW enhances these things, then what we are looking at is something much worse that what’s happening today – things that will make the floods, droughts, hurricanes, wildfires of today look like picnics. You’ll have to do your own study. I’m not going to do it for you. All I can stay is there is plenty of scientific proof for these…it is common knowledge at this point. You’ll be able to find it very easily IF you look in scientific journals and not the blog-denial-sphere.

Really? China is ahead of the US in addressing GW? How so?

First of all their emissions per capita are about one-fourth of those of Americans. And they are moving ahead much faster than we are with alt energy. Don’t have time to look it up for you, but having been seeing it in the news…

 

[lynnvinc]

Do you know that we can generate our own natural and chemical fertilizers, composts, and thus soils suitable for agriculture? Plus all the alternative methods I spoke of, which you’re consistently not paying attention to.

So what you’re suggesting – let me get this straight – is that our progeny spend an enormous amount of money, time, effort, and material (name removed by moderator)uts to make millions of acres in the arctic arable in hopes of feeding the world, and that we their ancestors just continue along our business-as-usual profligate path of causing AGW and concomitant pollution, wasting resources…even tho that path does not make economic sense even to our current generation.

I know there are lots of innovations out there. Just saw a program on vertical and roof-top agriculture in cities and on scientists working on drought-resistant crops. These are people who accept that AGW is happening and wish to contribute something positive to society now and into the future. They understand that even if we mitigate AGW to the hilt, it is too late to maintain our current conditions; we are headed toward a different earth system regime that will not be as hospitable to life as our current one is, and we will need all the effective adaptations people can come up with.

It is good you and others who are against mitigating AGW are at least considering what could be done if it and its harmful scenarios actually happen.

I am grateful for that.

 

[sps49]

Well the OP and all the charts and what have you that people try to make a point on cannot be taken seriously because…
Every day the newspapers carry stories of new scientific findings. There are 15 million scientists worldwide all trying to get their research published. But a disturbing fact appears if you look closely: as time goes by, many scientific findings seem to become less true than we thought. It’s called the “decline effect” - and some findings even dwindle away to zero.
A highly influential paper by Dr John Ioannidis at Stanford University called “Why most published research findings are false” argues that fewer than half of scientific papers can be believed,

Read more bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/8/28/bbc-r4-everything-we-know-is-wrong.html

You are correct. This has been a problem for quite a while in all disciplines. No one wants to spend the money to validate (recreate) basic research assumptions, and in fact, new research relies heavily on the kinds of assumptions one finds in many papers. Even, ahem, “peer reviewed” papers. The problem is magnified since more and more reliance is placed on models to replace and “validate” past “basic research” assumptions. It is a real effect.

 

[freeRadical]

Since we’re talking about the future, and scientists have already enough proof that AGW enhances these things, then what we are looking at is something much worse that what’s happening today – things that will make the floods, droughts, hurricanes, wildfires of today look like picnics. You’ll have to do your own study. I’m not going to do it for you. All I can stay is there is plenty of scientific proof for these…it is common knowledge at this point. You’ll be able to find it very easily IF you look in scientific journals and not the blog-denial-sphere.

It’s all speculation. I do do my own study, I am unconvinced. I do look in scientific journals. I do not know this “blog-denial-sphere” you speak of. It seems you are making unwarranted assumptions about me.

First of all their emissions per capita are about one-fourth of those of Americans. And they are moving ahead much faster than we are with alt energy. Don’t have time to look it up for you, but having been seeing it in the news…

Yes, their emissions are less than ours but there are many reasons for that. They are not as developed and wealthy as we are. We shall see what the future holds as China produces more and more and becomes as developed and wealthy as the US.

 

[lynnvinc]

Yes, their emissions are less than ours but there are many reasons for that. They are not as developed and wealthy as we are. We shall see what the future holds as China produces more and more and becomes as developed and wealthy as the US.

You could do one thing – mentally divide China into 4 equal parts (equal in GHG emissions and each about equal in population to the US), and you would see that each of these 4 countries is actually emitting about 75% less than the US.

Now China were to get on the sustainable development path (they are now highly polluted with cancer villages, etc, making products for us and the world), they could bypass the inefficient and polluting path the developed world took in reaching its level of development.

I get the impression that China is striving to get on that path, and that would be good. It would be great if there were a competition among the nations to see which could provide the highest living standards with the least pollution, health harms, and GHG emissions.

The race is on, let the best country win!

 

[freeRadical]

You could do one thing – mentally divide China into 4 equal parts (equal in GHG emissions and each about equal in population to the US), and you would see that each of these 4 countries is actually emitting about 75% less than the US.

Because they are not as developed and wealthy as the US and their standard of living is not as high as the US.

Now China were to get on the sustainable development path (they are now highly polluted with cancer villages, etc, making products for us and the world), they could bypass the inefficient and polluting path the developed world took in reaching its level of development.

I get the impression that China is striving to get on that path, and that would be good. It would be great if there were a competition among the nations to see which could provide the highest living standards with the least pollution, health harms, and GHG emissions.

The race is on, let the best country win!

I doubt it. China is going to produce as efficiently as they can and that is not through alternative fuels. Fossil fuels are still the most efficient energy sources on the planet, period.

What countries need to start doing is get on board with nuclear energy. I wish the US wasn’t so anti-nuclear. If we embraced nuclear energy then we could lessen our dependence on fossil fuels.

Whether you like it or not, people just aren’t willing to sacrifice their lifestyles for the “greater good”.

 

[adawgj]

What I don’t understand is, what is the big deal?

I mean whether the theory is true or not, the environment must be preserved and alternative energy should continue to be researched. It’s better to play safe than sorry.

Maybe then the polar bear will have its iceberg back and not tread arctic water.

 

[lynnvinc]

I doubt it. China is going to produce as efficiently as they can and that is not through alternative fuels. Fossil fuels are still the most efficient energy sources on the planet, period.

If you don’t count fossil fuel externalities. China’s GDP may be increasing by, say, 7% per year, but the environmental costs come to more than 10% per year – they are going backwards fast. I think they are beginning to realize the extremely high costs of fossil fuels and current, polluting industrial practices.