Government Enforcement on Carbon Footprints

[Mikahcho]

Sorry if any similar topics have been made before this one.

Should the government be allowed to enforce a maximum carbon footprint? Should this be enforced on only businesses and organisations or do you think it is possible to enforce on people, individually? Should the government do it, in your opinion? Or will it not help that much? If there are any good articles on the topic, I'd love to read them!

Discuss your opinions please (:

[SnerpGoodWord]

Given that Earth surface temperatures have not been rising with atmospheric CO2 the way everyone predicted, and I'd like it warmer, I'm thinking we should enforce a minimum carbon footprint and try to move things along a bit. Are you doing your part?

[1by1]

Climate change is also going to increase the number of extreme weather events, which I think makes for good TV. it was great seeing Joplin and New Orleans get destroyed! More please

I reckon governments do and should have the right to enforce CO2 limits because the atmosphere is a shared resource, it is our collective responsibility to protect that and we can do that easiest through governments. Please ignore deniers, the evidence for cimate change is overwhelming. Please read the science and don't dispute basic physical facts in this thread!

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by 1by1

Please ignore deniers, the evidence for cimate change is overwhelming. Please read the science and don't dispute basic physical facts in this thread!

My my but global warmists (oh, excuse me, it's climate changers since surface temperature stubbornly refuses to go up) are a sensitive lot

[1by1]

Surface temperature is going up up, there has been a marked increase since 1850. I wouldn't have thought you'd have been sinple enough to base your attitude on a minor 10 year fluctuation, while ignoring an overall trend.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

I say we enforce a carbon footprint on the massively wasteful corporations that cause the brunt of carbon pollution. Any such restriction on your average citizen is just more tyranny. The average person doesn't pollute that much.

[royster]

Government today is nothing more than the corporations' corporate headquarters. It's all lip-service.

Q: What do you call idling your engine in an enclosed area?

A: Global warming.

To illustrate this philosophy, park your Hummer in the garage and close the door. Idle the engine. Walk around. Notice the air is not fun to breathe. Notice also that the internal-combustion engine...(efficientcy=45%, up 40% since the steam locomotive) does appear to create some degree of temperature change.

Just stand there indefinitely like that. See how long you can deny anything's wrong. Don't worry about running out of fuel: according to experts, we have an endless supply of oil. (This explains the oil pipeline stemming from Iraq, which, like all oil pipelines, is requiring several years to build. It's just coincidence America is fighting a war along the pipelines' route).

[buckeye]

Originally Posted by Mikahcho

Should the government be allowed to enforce a maximum carbon footprint?

Absolutely. The question is how can it do it in fair and effective way. With the government, fair frequently becomes more important than effective.

According to libertarian philosophy, if someone pollutes your property you'd have the right to sue for damages and the free market would take care of it.
I'm not sure how well that would work in practice.

As it is there is something of market system. Big corporations can pay off politicians so they can pollute, among other things.

[1by1]

Don't worry about running out of fuel: according to experts, we have an endless supply of oil.

Yeah, how on Earth do people believe them? How can oil be an endless resource? It seems to have been the case for some time now that new capacity is about to be built, but no new oil resources are actually found and tapped. It really seems like oil production has reached a plateau and soon will be headng downwards. And that will be a big problem.

According to libertarian philosophy, if someone pollutes your property you'd have the right to sue for damages and the free market would take care of it.
I'm not sure how well that would work in practice.

This has always been a bit of a problem for me. A libertarian system doesn't seem to work very well for shared resources that no individual is responsible for, like the atmosphere. Its too easy to keep taking, and not care about the long term effect.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by 1by1

This has always been a bit of a problem for me. A libertarian system doesn't seem to work very well for shared resources that no individual is responsible for, like the atmosphere. Its too easy to keep taking, and not care about the long term effect.

Precisely--it's a built-in tragedy of the commons.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

I say we enforce a carbon footprint on the massively wasteful corporations that cause the brunt of carbon pollution. Any such restriction on your average citizen is just more tyranny. The average person doesn't pollute that much.

This is true. The average person uses many goods from high-polluting industries, but having the regulations on the corporations themselves would have much more of an impact: in many ways, it builds in the environmental cost of the product into the monetary cost, AND drives innovation in that direction big time.

[James Fletcher]

My opinion - bad idea. I don't believe that the science behind climate change is solid.

Here in Australia, the government is about to introduce a carbon tax, which will wreak havoc on the economy, and even supposing climate change was really caused by humans, make not one ounce of difference to global temperatures at all. The materials used to construct wind farms and solar panels will be rendered too expensive.

What angers me is the way in which certain parts of the media portray climate change skeptics as 'flat earthers', and on par with holocaust denial. Reminds me of a few years ago when a certain ill advised war was undertaken, which turned out to be based on faulty intelligence, but opponents were relentlessly mocked and ridiculed for questioning the motive.

All of mankind will benefit - when we finally move away from fearing this particular bogeyman.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by 1by1

Surface temperature is going up up, there has been a marked increase since 1850. I wouldn't have thought you'd have been sinple enough to base your attitude on a minor 10 year fluctuation, while ignoring an overall trend.

The overall trend is that we're cooler than many point in pre-history. It's clear that the earth can, without any help from humans, be both far hotter and far colder than it is now. And will almost undoubtedly do both in the future, again without our help. The growing body of evidence points to solar flux and atmospheric particulate as the most dramatic drivers of climate, not C02.

Now, if you're going to ask me which humanity is more likely to survive - being buried under a sheet of ice or living in a warm jungle in the middle latitudes - it's pretty obvious to me the jungle is better although neither is ideal. So to the extent we have any effect on the climate (likely very small) we owe it to ourselves to bias towards the warm side.

[1by1]

The growing body of evidence points to solar flux and atmospheric particulate as the most dramatic drivers of climate, not C02.

Could you show me some peer reviewed articles that explain this in more depth? I only ask because I have studied the effect of solar activity on the Earth and have rigorously understood, using fundamental physical and statistical methods, that the effect of solar activity is not large enough to account for the increase in temperature since 1850. It is fairly clear there is some effect, but it is also clear that the effect is not large enough to explain all of the temperature increase.

Now CO2 levels on the other hand are currently higher than at any point in the last few million years (and there is abundant evidence for that fact). Since CO2 absorbs radiation that corresponds to terrestrial longwave emission, it is fairly well understood that increasing the partial pressure of CO2 increases the amount of radiation emitted by the Earth that is absorbed by the atmosphere, and so increases the atmospheric temperature.

Yes it is true that the Earth has been hotter in the past, it is also true that there have been abrupt shifts in temperature (prmarily caused by huge volcanic outpourings, sudden releases of methane, and climate feedback loops). However, each of these shifts has been accompanied by a mass extinction of life on Earth. The primary emitter of CO2 into the atmosphere is presently humans (it would take a huge amount of volcanic activity to match the increase seen)

While it may not matter that vast numbers of animals will die out as a result of our actions, the other consequences will be shifting rainfall, rising sealevels, more intense storms, longer heatwaves etc. This will be immensely disruptive to human activity on the Earth. For example, many major cities are located by the coast, and will face flooding over the next century, Many people depend on melting glaciers for summer water supply, what happens when the glaciers have all melted? As rainfall shifts so vast amounts of farmland will become useless, with obvious knock ons to the food supply.

If you want to refute any of the scientific evidence (and really, a lot of it is based on very fundamental facts) then you need to show me the evidence and convince me otherwise.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by 1by1

Could you show me some peer reviewed articles that explain this in more depth?

Start with http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12433.full.pdf and its cites.

The most likely scenario as it stands now is that solar forcing puts us back in the little ice age in about 2500 or so. Of course, it's much harder to make political hay out of that than it is if you predict the world will be destroyed by carbon dioxide VERY SOON NOW (unless your guy is elected) which is what a good bit of "climate science" has degenerated into.

[1by1]

The basic idea behind the paper you have quoted is that variation in solar output over time periods of centuries is the main driving force behind short term climate variations.

The method the author has used is to fit patterns from historical weather records (and I have some doubt this is a valid method since historical records tend to be geographically biased, we know very little about the history of the americas and australia in comparison with the historical records of Europe and Asia). He then projects this forward analysing what would happen IF the trend continues and IF solar variation remains the primary driving force. He does not at any point say that all of the present warming is due entirely to his model.

Present warming is indeed on a global scale, there is no evidence to suggest that the previous shifts were global shifts, they may have been localised. Secondly, despite a lot of effort, no ne has found any other evidence that the Sun varies in output over the time scale suggested, nor have they found a mechanism via which this can occur, nor is it known how solar variation affects the climate on Earth.

To refute the evidence for climate change you need to first of all explain where all the extra greenhouse gases are coming from, you need to explain why those gases aren't responsible for warming and you need to provide sensible mechanisms for everything. Basically, in science, you need to propose an alternative model that explains all the evidence and also gives valid predictions.

[JDuff]

I believe that it is an absolute moral imperative to reduce consumption - not just in terms of oil and production of CO2, but of all finite resources. First of all, waste and inefficiency must be ruthlessly minimalised, and then people need to take real hits in living standards in order to bring their way of life down to a level that the Earth can sustain.

For example, the Earth can only support 1.2 billion people if they all lived like Americans. They can support 1.8 British people. But it could support 18 billion Indians. We all need to live at a level equal to the population of the Earth. The idea of the American dream, of material super-abundance, of wanton consumption of finite resources, of the use of economic and direct warfare over finite resources (Capitalism), is the ultimate source of the destruction and unsustainable mess in which we now find ourselves. The lights are on and we are having one hell of a party, but it's massively unequal and it's only going to get a lot worse for so many.

So, because people find all kinds of selfish reasons not to act for the common good, e.g. "it's my right to do what I want" or "I'm not convinced by the science that oil is running out or that weather patterns are becoming more extreme, the ice caps are melting, more and more species are becoming endangered, temperatures are rising, fish stocks are being depleted, fresh drinking water is becoming increasingly scarce, deforestation is accelerating," we absolutely must enforce limits. It's the only way.

If you cannot trust people to do what is absolutely right beyond reasonable doubt for the protection of the future of all species on this earth, then it must be enforced. This should go, not only for consumption of finite resources and production of CO2, but also for the amount of off-spring. The two go hand in hand - consumption and population levels.

Companies must have much tougher regulation too. We should accept a decline in material living standards as essentially inevitable, at least until technology catches up and is able to provide more sustainable methods of transport and energy production. We should stop seeing growth in GDP as the most important fact in our lives, or in the health of a country. We should wish for zero-growth economies in overly-consuming economies as an absolute maximum, if not permanent recession to stop producing so much crap that nobody needs.

Otherwise when the **** hits the fan it will be ok for the super rich war mongering arch-capitalist US and the other elite economies, but the starving and suffering billions will face an almighty hell, if they are not already in one already. Which is why wealth-distribution is the other absolute imperative. Stop bombing Libya and distribute life-saving medicine and food to the starving. Much cheaper and will save many more lives. Oh, wait - where's the oil in sub-Saharan Africa?

[James Fletcher]

JDuff - Maybe we should follow North Korea's model, ay Comrade?

[1by1]

The simple fact is that if we don't do anything about climate change then our standard of living will go down more than if we do do somethng about climate change.

I don't understand your claims that shifting to another energy source will destroy the economy? Surely the only people who suffer are oil and gas companies, alternative energy companies will create a lot of new jobs, and anyway, oil and gas are only going to get more expensive and by using oil you are supporting a whole load of dictators.

[James Fletcher]

I don't understand your claims that shifting to another energy source will destroy the economy?

I don't, so long as an alternative is able to provide an adequate amount of energy, and not something that makes barely 15% of current consumption, I am all for it.

I mean sure, as if your average overweight American Joe needs to stuff another Big Mac down his throat while driving his SUV in the blazing Californian sun with the air con on arctic mode to his remote sprawl suburb after going on a spending spree at one of the four Wal-Marts recently opened within a 100 mile radius of his house, where he purchased a Sony Bravia 60" LED TV that is likely to crap out in about 2 years and require a replacement.

But what about keeping the power on in hospitals? Or do the hospitals simply need to learn to rely on diesel generators to cope with the intermittent blackouts, emitting even more pollutants into the atmosphere? What about producing and delivering much needed medicines? Or do the sick people simply deserve to die for the good of the planet and future generations?

I fail to see any positive side to people who have done nothing wrong being made to suffer for any cause. An immediate enforced coal and oil shut down followed by a switch to wind and solar would cause many undeserving people to suffer.

A more sensible and realistic approach would be considering proven alternatives, such as shale gas and improved nuclear power.

by using oil you are supporting a whole load of dictators.

Where did the keyboard you used to type this come from?

[1by1]

No keypad it's a touchscreen . And that probably has a small oil content but not enough to prop up an entire system of corrupt dictatorships.

Suggesting that we get all our energy from wind and solar is impractical and not going to happen, but that doesn't mean we can't get a decent proportion from such cheap and abundant energy sources. Using nuclear fission will be necessary (and is still very safe, regardless of the accidents in Japan) especially if we switch from uranium to thorium. Nuclear fusion would be brilliant if it ever gets to work, but that's a century away at least.

The other major sources of greenhouse gases are transport, and we are already seeing a switch away from oil based cars to electric cars, which can be clean provided the electricity is produced cleanly. Hydrogen power is also another electric based potential fuel for cars.

Other solutions are possible, such as massive geoengineering. I'm hopeful that we will see a big switch to solar power over the next fifty years, and hopefully that we will develop a way of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Longer term we have to worry about resource depletion as metals begin to run out, and for that the solution is to look to resources beyond the Earth and in asteroids.

I try to be optimistic and I believe there will be a shift away from dirty fuels. Not only because of global warming, but also because these fuels produce a lot of pollutants that are harmful to human health.

[Barcs]

I don't think climate change is as big as people think.. BUT I still believe conserving resources, reducing pollution and respecting nature is vital to our survival and future on this planet. That is irrelevant to climate change. Climate change is a big distraction from the real issue, which is destruction of nature, over consumption, and wasting of resources (largely due to over population, but also inefficiency). We cannot sustain a wasteful society like this forever. Respect mother earth or she will not respect you. Individuals should not be carbon footprint limited, but corporations SHOULD. That is where most of the pollution and wasting comes from, and also from the extremely high upper class.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by 1by1

The simple fact is that if we don't do anything about climate change then our standard of living will go down more than if we do do somethng about climate change.

This is not clear at all. Historically, warmer periods have been more prosperous than colder ones.

[1by1]

Past temperature fluctuations have led to a shift of about 0.5C from the long term average. We're currently 0.5C above the long term average, in other words, this is the hottest the planet has been for at least 10,000 years and the expected rise is between 2C and 4C. Increasing the temperature that much won't make life better, it will expand the deserts and increase the frequency of storms.

Here's an article giving some impacts of global warming.

And here is an independent report commissioned by the UK government on the economic impact.

Climate change deniers often seem to be in an older generation - since the effects are long term they will be dead before the younger generations experience the effects. Do they perhaps not care? Don't want to clean up after their mess?

[garentee]

Anyone who thinks climate change is a minor problem ought to consider that severe weather can does and will result in disruptions in food production.. think of the floods in the Midwest... As someone who pays very close attention to the weather and have for many years, I have noticed that events that were particularly rare in my area are becoming fairly common place...every time there is a line of thunderstorms to come through my area now it is accompanied by high winds and Threat of hail and heavy rain...and the occasional tornado...tornados just do not happen in New england...there have been several in the past few years... Climate change does not necessarily mean higher temperatures.. it can mean more snow colder weather and extremely erratic weather.. or even long periods of bad weather...In August of 2008 my area got 25 inches of rain that month, in 2009 we got 30 inches of rain in June as well as 10 weeks of little sun and temps below 80 degrees.. Definitely not good for food production...
Carbon emissions are probably somewhat important but the real culprit lies in the destruction of the tropical rainforests and other sensitive ecological zones.. Government needs to reign in corporations but they will not because government IS the corps... It is pretty much pissing into the wind having individuals lower their carbon emissions when the corporations can go around wreaking havoc on the lungs of the earth...

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by garentee

Anyone who thinks climate change is a minor problem ought to consider that severe weather can does and will result in disruptions in food production..

Two issues:
1) Historically, whatever disruptions "severe" weather has caused to food supply during warm periods have been dwarfed by the increase in food supplies due to more growing area.

2) The evidence that we're on a continuous warming pattern caused by humans is extremely weak. The strongest theory is that we're currently warm due to solar output, and will be getting COLDER over the next 500 years. Now, what we know historically is that colder temps will decrease food production. So we do need to worry about falling food supplies, but not for the reason you suggested. Nor will we be able to do anything much about it, although producing as much C02 as possible now might mitigate the problem a tiny bit.

[garentee]

I am not talking about warming.. I am talking about erratic weather both extreme heat and extreme cold or drought and floods at times when it is not at all normal for that particular condition..Most likely and what I am talking about is the frequency of severe storms... There is nothing one can do about agricultural enterprises outputs in the face of tornadoes and large hail.. that is a game ending scenario..My only point is that climate change is a whole lot more and far reaching then warmer temperatures.. Ask those people in Paupa New Guinea who have had to flee their ancestral lands from Rising waters..It is not so simple as you may like to believe.. It is absolutely sickening to me how we are ignoring science and manipulating facts to insure that we can continue on like nothing is wrong..
Papua New Guinea - our island has broken into two pieces — Friends of the Earth International

[beast]

I'm in favor of strict industrial/corporate regulations, since they have the worst carbon footprints, yes.

[AlmostGodess]

Before global warming started, the atmosphere was outside the realm of policy-making. Now, we think about privatizing it because it is only in this way that we can assume responsibility and promote change.

I have to say I am impressed by the amount of people in this thread who preach interventionism. Without being 100% opposed to this theory, I would like to highlight two points.

First, all forms of government interventionism should avoid creating obstacles for the individual responsibility and ideas. Each inhabitant of this planet is responsible for the dirt it produces. The "government is taking care of it" mentality can be dangerous because people will tend to produce even more dirt. Also, maybe limiting the CO2 is not the right solution. Putting all hopes in here can prevent people from looking for new, original solutions.

Second, collective and global interventionism is necessary. If companies in the US and Europe are sanctioned and pay more, so should companies all over the world. Otherwise, a Western company will produce goods that are twice as expensive as compared to a Chinese company, for example.

[1by1]

2) The evidence that we're on a continuous warming pattern caused by humans is extremely weak. The strongest theory is that we're currently warm due to solar output, and will be getting COLDER over the next 500 years. Now, what we know historically is that colder temps will decrease food production. So we do need to worry about falling food supplies, but not for the reason you suggested. Nor will we be able to do anything much about it, although producing as much C02 as possible now might mitigate the problem a tiny bit.

This is a lie, and I assume you are deliberately misinterpreting the science to mislead and reach your own political means, or justify living a polluting and ecologically damaging life.

The problem is that there is nothing to stop people damagng the environment. It is a short term gain, and a long term damage. It is a complete failure of the market system that so many propose. The only way to bring it into a market system is to regulate some form of payment for environmental damage (and this goes way beyond just putting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere). I favour capping corporations because that is where most of the damage comes from.