Earlier you said it would be silly not to pursue both a better way to manage the emitted carbon, and a reduction of emissions.Interbane wrote:Alternatives paths to reducing emissions are neither silly nor mutually exclusive to what you propose Robert. What has your feathers in a ruffle over this?
That is fine as long as we understand that emission reduction does nothing for climate stability, but is solely justified in terms of waste reduction and economic efficiency. Why drive a gas guzzler when you can get the same result at lower expense? Why leave a light turned on when you can save on power bills by turning it off?
Just don’t pretend that this efficiency value has anything to do with climate change. In fact it is a complete distraction from the climate agenda, since emission reduction lulls people into a false sense of contribution. The only thing that will reverse climate change is mining carbon from the air on industrial scale.
I follow this debate on the geoengineering google group, and it is simply shocking to me how the false “emission reduction is all we need” argument has hijacked the global policy debate on what to do about climate change. This problem has massive opportunity cost regarding investment in practical solutions.
California is about 3% of the world economy, so lets say it emits 0.3 gigatonnes of carbon every year. I would imagine all those worthy efficiency measures you cite might add up to about a saving of a million tonnes of carbon a year, which is just a fart in the wind against the climate problem. It is all feel-good religion and minor cost saving that makes no practical difference on climate.Interbane wrote: Of course we should invest heavily in extraction as well as reduction. Do you have an objective frame of reference to say that emissions are now lower now than they otherwise would have been if not for government mandates? I know you'll argue against this point, but it would be motivated by your distaste for government rather than solid reasoning. Gas mileage in cars, efficiency in appliances across the spectrum, rebates across the country for switching lighting (incandescents are no longer sold in California, and LED lighting is and HVAC units to more efficient units, and a push for wind and solar. There is no objective reference point, the argument can easily be made that our emissions are less than they'd otherwise be, and not merely exported to China.
You are not considering the global scale. People in China and India are hungry for electricity, and see coal as the big cheap source. Until alternatives can compete with coal without subsidy, renewables will remain a boutique religious luxury, a pretense that will fail to shift economic incentives.Interbane wrote:Say that to Solar and wind companies, as well as LED lighting companies and power distribution companies, not to mention those vendors who benefit from technologies related to car emission reduction (not including companies such as Tesla, who make the entire vehicle to run without gas).The incentives to increase emissions vastly outweigh the incentives to reduce them, in terms of immediate economic interests.
Bjorn Lomborg has calculated http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/08/lomb ... 7-seconds/ that German investment in renewables delays global warming by about a day at a cost of about $100 billion, although I disagree with Lomborg’s support for fracking.Interbane wrote: Reducing emissions is not some evil ineffective plot by an Orwellian government. It's real, effective, and is responsible for new jobs and new technologies.
This tiny real effect at massive cost indicates the startling blunt irrelevance of emission reduction to climate change, and its total failure to conduct cost benefit analysis. Its advocates are not evil, they are simply ignorant and ideologically driven. The typical green delusion is to pretend that benefits are greater than they really are. But as Lomborg says, the opportunity cost is massive, delivering billions for useless subsidies while failing to invest in research.
No, the cognitive capture here is on the part of the mainstream environmental movement which resolutely refuses to face facts regarding the magnitude of climate problems, and the irrelevance of emission reduction to solving those problems.Interbane wrote:Your words are fishy Robert. It's as if you've been cognitively captured by some private interest that has no desire in reducing emissions, even when it makes sense.
Sure emission reduction makes sense as a way to make the economy more efficient and encourage innovation. Just don’t pretend it has anything to do with slowing down climate change.