I've never seen such BS about Global Warming and the economy.

[The Doctor.]

Let's shred this POS.

A Modest Sacrifice for the Climate
By David Warren

Which 88 per cent of the economy would my reader most like to kiss goodbye?

I ask this question only as a practical matter, after reading the summary of a Japanese study on the economic implications of the "global warming" fraud. Noting the goal, "seriously" stated by the Group of Eight, to cut world CO2 emissions in half by the year 2050, a couple of techies in Japan (Norichika Kanie of the Tokyo Institute of Technology and Yasuaki Hijioka at the National Institute for Environmental Studies) sat down with their calculators, and coolly worked out what emissions reductions will be required to meet this goal, on an equal per capita basis, around the planet.

The 88 per cent is the figure for North America. The Europeans get off relatively easily: they only have to shut down 83 per cent of their economy; the Japanese 85 per cent. Only 35 per cent of the Chinese economy will have to go. And good news for India, much of which is still living in the Arcadian low-carbon past. The Indians get to gun their carbon emissions by 137 per cent over the next four decades.

With the insouciance of a charming zombie, Mr. Kanie added that he did not think the goal out of reach. "I think it is a matter of changing lifestyle and not necessarily in an austere way," he said. "For example, I often ride my bike instead of driving a car." He thought the government should provide more bicycle infrastructure.

Thank you for that suggestion, Mr. Kanie. After an incident I witnessed on the street the other day, I myself wish to be rid of cars. And after another incident on the street the day after, I would also like to be rid of bicycles: so I can go Mr Kanie one better.

The rest;
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/a_modest_sacrifice_for_the_cli.html


He obviously pulls his umbers from his ass. Reducing co2 emissions in NO way requires an '88% reduction of the economy'. For one, he's narrowed the criteria of reducing GHG emissions to reduced driving and industry in an immediate time frame.

Would any other DU'ers who understand AGW like to help me tear this apart for the sake of posterity, and to create a resource on the internet to debunk the BS?

Throw helpful search terms in like "fraud" and "bullshit" while we're at it.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Not so easy-- apart from the "fraud" nonsense...

he does realize that extreme reductions in CO2 or whatever else will mean a huge change in lifetsyles for most of us.

It's not just driving, light bulbs, and home heating-- it's little things like steel production. It's rebuilding an infrastructure that was built on the premise of cheap raw materials and energy. It's mass unemployment in dirty industries.

Not that these are insurmoutable problems, but just who is it out there who has the will to do all this changing? People who live with a plastic bottle of water glued to their lips all day? People who leave the TV on to entertain the cats? People who refuse to buy CFLs because they have to warm up for a few seconds or don't work on dimmers?

Look around to every one you know and add up just how much they've done to reduce their carbon footprints and then get back to this guy.

[The Doctor.]

2. Not nearly as big as you've suggested.

Right now, it would take drastic individual measures to achieve that 88% reduction.

The author of this piece is intellectually dishonest. Cutting industry and transportation are not only not the sole solution to reducing emissions, they are a tiny part of the overall solution.

Another point he's dishonest about; he ignores the timeframe and presents the solution as immediate rather than 'over the next forty years'. Seems you kind of fell for that yourself. As I said; 'Right now, it would take drastic measures', yet there are small things everyone can do over merely the next decade to have a huge impact on emissions. If we can finally shut these fearmongering liars up, we can more easily institute real policy changes with very little effect on the overall economy. The fact of the matter is, as green tech develops, it creates new industries. We have the technology now to manufacture products that produce as little as half the emissions things like cars do now. Add to that simple building of infrastructure (which would also create jobs) that would supplant the need for individuals to drive barely a mile to the store and back on a daily basis, and we can see huge reductions at relatively small costs while creating jobs in the process.

To accomplish these over forty years and achieve reduction of 88% from where we are today is not only realistic, but the economy would be unlikely to suffer any negative effects from the process.

Do you realize just how this 'author' attempts to manipulate people with his intellectually dishonest article?

Did you fall for it?

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Well, within that particular timeframe...

the population will have jumped by how many billion?

It's ridiculously simplistic to say that 2% reduction every year adds up to 80% or so in 40 years, but even that number still means a major reduction as the population is increasing by at least as much. And we are increasing energy usage with no letup in sight even as we talk of these numbers.

Where's the technology to replace the weekly coal plant opening the Chinese are working on? Where's the will to reduce Western energy usage?

It's easy to say what should be done, but no one's coming up with what could be done.

And, of course, over the next 40 years we'll see technologies that we can't even dream of now, voiding any current arguments or policy decisions. What we don't know is what direction they'll send us off in. We also don't know if we have already reached a climatic tipping point and nothing we do will help us.

Ultimately, the point is reducing waste, and I can think of no time in human history when any civilization has ever voluntarily reduced its waste.

(If the Gulf Stream changes course or Yellowstone blows, all bets are off.)

[pscot]

3. There is some elasticity

in the relation between energy consumption and GDP, so an 88% cut in energy input wouldn't necessarily mean an 88% cut in GDP. Further, an 88 % cut in Greenhose Gas Emmissions doesn't mean an 88% cut in energy. There will be some substitution of non-polluting sources for carbon sources. So David Warren is just pulling numbers out of his ass. But while Warren may be an ignorant, lying sack of shit, he's right about one thing. An 88% cut in the use of carbon based energy is going to cause a lot of pain and economic dislocation. Probably even a world depression.

[The Doctor.]

5. But not over a peiod of 40 years it won't.

That's another manipulation the author engages in; removing the timefram to increase alarm.

As I've said before;

The fact of the matter is, as green tech develops, it creates new industries. We have the technology now to manufacture products that produce half the emissions things like cars do now. Add to that simple building of infrastructure (which would also create jobs) that would supplant the need for individuals to drive barely a mile to the store and back on a daily basis, and we can see huge reductions at relatively small costs while creating jobs in the process. To accomplish these over forty years and achieve reduction of 88% from where we are today is not only realistic, but the economy would be unlikely to suffer any negative effects from the process. More likely, we'll see economic growth from new industry and GREATER efficiency in our energy use.

[Democrats_win]

4. We need to convince people that doing the job RIGHT means doing it green.

It's like your parents always told you, the job isn't finished until you clean up your mess. It's simply amazing that nearly 100% of capitalist pigs never followed this idea.

This article looks at it wrong. The next generations WILL suffer, but the suffering will because those who ruled the 19th & 20th centuries didn't give a f*ck about who they hurt. Now, we change that thinking or die.

[aquart]

6. A business that declares a profit while debiting the nation is a parasite.

Eventually, parasites kill. No business should ever be allowed to declare a profit while there is any mess to clean up.

BTW, clean up industries provide jobs, too. Jobs which cannot be outsourced because they have to happen HERE.

[cloudythescribbler]

7. The whole RW whine is based on the bogus assumption that none of the energy sources are replaced ...

as well as on the further ridiculous assumption of fossil fuel use being stopped on a dime. Both are bogus assumptions.

I am among the few who have already raised what will sooner or later be recognized in the mainstream -- the need for not just ZERO net Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and a 'neutral' carbon footprint, planned by Norway for 2030, but NET NEGATIVE GHG emissions, and probably SOONER than 2030. But ALL perspectives including mine assume SOME kind of period of transition, and the major kind of reversal I speak about would require MASSIVE public investment in wind, hydrogen, and solar energies starting immediately and continuing as long as necessary (the way McCain thinks about Iraq, except nonperverse).

[The Doctor.]

8. Agreed.

I also recall a man who conceived of a device so simple and elegant; an ocean based windmill that lyses water. The wind produces electricity, the electricity divides the O and H, and pumps the hydrogen to containers on shore.

Sure, you don't get a great deal of return on the energy, but it's all free once the windmills are in place. I hope to have such an apparatus one day, if for no other reason than to test just how much I can get out of it.

[speedbird]

9. both sides need to make a commitment

(BTW, if the posted numbers are wrong,
what numbers are correct?)

people are unwilling to sign a blank check.

If the deal was made, something like,,,
the enviro rules will be loosened
when GDP contraction reaches 40%,,,,,,
people would be less concerned.

[The Doctor.]

10. That's not an unreasonable provision.

But it's very unlikely to be necessary.

[speedbird]

14. not necessary .. how so?

the politician that
offers only unlimited poverty,
will have electability problems

[The Doctor.]

15. It's unlikely to be necessary because it's Highly improbable that

anyone's GDP will dip so low under even the most restrictive conditions.

Ultimately, green sources and energy efficiency will be good for any economy.

[Justin54B20L]

11. I think Mr. Warren needs to be directed to this series of Youtube vids...

From Wonderingmind42.

http://www.manpollo.org

[Doctor Cynic]

12. A little something I checked on my calculator

There are 42 years between now and 2050.

If we reduce emissions by 1% annually, we reduce emissions 34.4% by then.

2% annually gives 57.2% reductions.

3% annually gives 72.2% reductions.

To halve emissions globally, this would require a 1.64% annual reduction.

To reduce emissions by 88%, this would require 4.92% annual reduction. It's tough, but doable if government policy encourages this.

That's not even accounting for the fact that the amount of carbon emitted to produce $1 of GDP has been plummeting for years.

This guy is just making numbers from thin air.

[Boomer]

16. We don't have 40 years

We don't have 40 years to make these changes, and if we don't drop our current population numbers, it won't be enough anyway.

People will not turn their lives upside down on a prediction; they will resist until the evidence is overwhelming, by which point it's too late. And short of forced mass sterilizations, they won't stop having lots and lots of babies.

We're screwed.