Stopping waste, to cut carbon emissions

Cutting waste is the fastest way to reduce carbon emissions and cope with other crises of climate change. Half of everything produced today is wasted at some stage. Waste causes half our carbon emissions, and wastes resources and the human lives that produce it.
Waste is about turning resources into non-usable rubbish without getting full value from them.

With all this talk about how to set rules and limits, the focus seems to be on ways to produce the same amount of energy with less emissions, to trade problematic ‘offsets’ in order to continue emitting, and invidious comparisons of the needs of the developed and developing worlds.

If cutting the production of waste is also taken seriously as a way to cut emissions, then the developed world, as the greatest wasters, has a large solution at hand. It only has to work out how to have a prosperous economy without relying on wasteful production and consumption. This is possible.

Time-Life once had a photograph of an American family surrounded by all the food it ate in one year. Today, there should be another photograph of an American family surrounded by all that it trashes in one year. The standard family squabble in comic strips is about who will take out the trash.

The following discussion illustrates with the Australian situation.

In 2004, 20 million Australians threw away $5.3 billion in food alone. $2.9 billion was food not even cooked, $6.30 million was uneaten takeaway food, and $876 million was leftovers, according to the Australia Institute’s 2005 report, ‘Wasteful Consumption in Australia’. The Conservation Foundation found that each Australian household wastes an average of $1,226 p.a. on items they purchase but do not use.

Why is the alternative of cutting waste to reduce carbon emissions not receiving the same attention as carbon trading? Because the trading business is going to be a great source of profits?

The big snag is economic. As New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma has said, "There is no point in saving the planet if we ruin the economy doing it." If everyone wastes less, what happens to jobs? What happens to business? If we buy less and throw out less, what happens to shops?

The problem is absurd when the richest 10 percent of world population must continue to buy and consume wastefully, to prevent global economic collapse. Meanwhile two billion people barely survive.

A logical response is make the global economy more rational. Accept that capitalism can run to excess and can be improved. Its great advantages are encouraging enterprise and saving capital for production that serves people’s needs. A great disadvantage is the perceived necessity for unstoppable growth, which is leading to ecological disaster. The challenge is growth in quality, not quantity.

Jobs? If all the jobs needing to be done were being done, there would be no unemployment. How can these jobs be financed? Beside changes in personal life-styles, political and economic action is needed - changing taxation to discourage wasteful production and depletion of resources, encouraging employment and research in the products that are needed, salvage that emphasizes re-using even more than energy-requiring recycling, and mission statements for banks as primarily servicing the people not just maximizing shareholders' profits. Building, transport and even sewerage infrastructure need design rejigging before it is too late.

So much of the goods you see in shop windows will soon be waste, mostly landfill, yet more products could be repairable, durable, renovatable. We can enjoy what we have without needing insatiable novelty Sustainable-household economics can complement markets, as suggested by economist Graeme Snooks. We can develop many low technology inventions such as backyard solar ovens and communications technology powered by pedalling (by-product: exercise.

Much waste of fossil-fuels and built-in obsolescence aims to save labor costs and to 'make jobs'. It is great to have replaced with machinery the appalling drudgery and unmitigated toil of past ages. But we go to extremes when people waste time in formal exercising because they use electricity for tasks that could give us natural everyday exercise.

More jobs will be needed to prepare for and cope with the emergencies of climate change – already the observed increases in high winds and storms, wildfires, unpredictable floods and droughts, and also possibly rising seas and changing currents. The present forty million economic refugees will increase in numbers.

The developed world today has enjoyed years of utmost plenty as never seen before, but has wasted them with a consumption explosion, careless of future cost. Our plastics, fertilisers, infrastructure, petrol, much comfort, huge armaments, and running other sources of energy still largely depend upon diminishing oil reserves.

It has been taken for granted that if humans are not using or exploiting something it is being wasted — all those empty continents, unexplored jungles, trees growing, animals roaming. Now we are recognizing the importance of maintaining biodiversity. In order to continue to live ourselves we must allow many other life forms to exist. Moral theology considers sharing, not wasting, and cooperation as well as competition.

Our entertainment imagines a future of dystopias. Our imagination and energy can rise to unprecedented challenges with a different vision.
Economists are not the only people who must work out practical responses to the possibilities of future crises.

Why has fighting climate change and global warming gained momentum while conventional players in the energy sector find themselves in fierce competition with powerful competitors from Russia, China and India?

A better question might be why has fighting climate change and global warming gained momentum when the evidence has finally become so obvious that no one can ignore it anymore? Melting of the ice caps, lengthening of the growing season by several weeks, change in weather patterns, etc. The pseudoquestion that Mr. Goth poses is a nonsequitor.

Why was the science community silent when Europe was spewing the greatest amount of CO2 over decades?

They weren't. They were screaming, but no one was listening. That the MSM finally got on the ball doesn't mean that nothing was happening before.

Why did the conscience of the academia, politicians and drum-beating lobby groups suddenly awaken when oil gushed from every hitherto unsuspected region in Africa, Central Asia and elsewhere?

Again, a nonsequitor. It makes as much sense to ask why the conscience of academia...suddenly awakened after Sammy Sosa beat the home run record.

That the WaPo gives so much credence to this type of tripe reflects poorly on its credibility and its good judgment. I can hear some idiot editor (are you listening, Fred Hiatt?) pontificating about fair and balanced, but no where do we find the WaPo presenting the science of global warming or the refutation of the flat earthers who deny global warming is happening. When the WaPo finally returns to its roots and starts printing objective facts, inconvenient though they may be to the POWERS THAT BE, then it will once again have a sense of honor and dignity. Until then, it is a Gunga Din lacking the intestinal fortitude of the original.

A quick note for any other Numerical Analysts reading this site.

The Japaneese work uses "leap-frog" to discretize the PDE's. This integration method introduces a wave function into the results which requires extra-heavy-duty smoothing, and therefore their results and conclusions, as disturbing as they are, should be viewed as extremely conservative.

Robert,

Here's a site you will especially enjoy.
Its domestic, from NASA.

It confirms everything I've said.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Here is a direct quote from their site:

Global Warming Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.

Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.

Causes of global warming

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

The impact of global warming

Thousands of icebergs float off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula after 1,250 square miles (3,240 square kilometers) of the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in 2002. The area of the ice was larger than the state of Rhode Island or the nation of Luxembourg. Antarctic ice shelves have been shrinking since the early 1970's because of climate warming in the region. Image credit: NASA/Earth Observatory

Continued global warming could have many damaging effects. It might harm plants and animals that live in the sea. It could also force animals and plants on land to move to new habitats. Weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increase in damaging storms. Global warming could melt enough polar ice to raise the sea level. In certain parts of the world, human disease could spread, and crop yields could decline.

Harm to ocean life

Through global warming, the surface waters of the oceans could become warmer, increasing the stress on ocean ecosystems, such as coral reefs. High water temperatures can cause a damaging process called coral bleaching. When corals bleach, they expel the algae that give them their color and nourishment. The corals turn white and, unless the water temperature cools, they die. Added warmth also helps spread diseases that affect sea creatures.

Changes of habitat

Widespread shifts might occur in the natural habitats of animals and plants. Many species would have difficulty surviving in the regions they now inhabit. For example, many flowering plants will not bloom without a sufficient period of winter cold. And human occupation has altered the landscape in ways that would make new habitats hard to reach or unavailable altogether.

Weather damage

Extreme weather conditions might become more frequent and therefore more damaging. Changes in rainfall patterns could increase both flooding and drought in some areas. More hurricanes and other tropical storms might occur, and they could become more powerful.

Rising sea level

Continued global warming might, over centuries, melt large amounts of ice from a vast sheet that covers most of West Antarctica. As a result, the sea level would rise throughout the world. Many coastal areas would experience flooding, erosion, a loss of wetlands, and an entry of seawater into freshwater areas. High sea levels would submerge some coastal cities, small island nations, and other inhabited regions.

Threats to human health

Tropical diseases, such as malaria and dengue, might spread to larger regions. Longer-lasting and more intense heat waves could cause more deaths and illnesses. Floods and droughts could increase hunger and malnutrition.

Changes in crop yields

Canada and parts of Russia might benefit from an increase in crop yields. But any increases in yields could be more than offset by decreases caused by drought and higher temperatures -- particularly if the amount of warming were more than a few degrees Celsius. Yields in the tropics might fall disastrously because temperatures there are already almost as high as many crop plants can tolerate.

Limited global warming

Climatologists are studying ways to limit global warming. Two key methods would be (1) limiting CO2 emissions and (2) carbon sequestration -- either preventing carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere or removing CO2 already there.

Limiting CO2 emissions

Two effective techniques for limiting CO2 emissions would be (1) to replace fossil fuels with energy sources that do not emit CO2, and (2) to use fossil fuels more efficiently.

Alternative energy sources that do not emit CO2 include the wind, sunlight, nuclear energy, and underground steam. Devices known as wind turbines can convert wind energy to electric energy. Solar cells can convert sunlight to electric energy, and various devices can convert solar energy to useful heat. Geothermal power plants convert energy in underground steam to electric energy.

Alternative sources of energy are more expensive to use than fossil fuels. However, increased research into their use would almost certainly reduce their cost.

Carbon sequestration could take two forms: (1) underground or underwater storage and (2) storage in living plants.

Underground or underwater storage would involve injecting industrial emissions of CO2 into underground geologic formations or the ocean. Suitable underground formations include natural reservoirs of oil and gas from which most of the oil or gas has been removed. Pumping CO2 into a reservoir would have the added benefit of making it easier to remove the remaining oil or gas. The value of that product could offset the cost of sequestration. Deep deposits of salt or coal could also be suitable.

The oceans could store much CO2. However, scientists have not yet determined the environmental impacts of using the ocean for carbon sequestration.

Storage in living plants

Green plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere as they grow. They combine carbon from CO2 with hydrogen to make simple sugars, which they store in their tissues. After plants die, their bodies decay and release CO2. Ecosystems with abundant plant life, such as forests and even cropland, could tie up much carbon. However, future generations of people would have to keep the ecosystems intact. Otherwise, the sequestered carbon would re-enter the atmosphere as CO2.

Agreement on global warming

Delegates from more than 160 countries met in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to draft the agreement that became known as the Kyoto Protocol. That agreement calls for decreases in the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Emissions targets

Thirty-eight industrialized nations would have to restrict their emissions of CO2 and five other greenhouse gases. The restrictions would occur from 2008 through 2012. Different countries would have different emissions targets. As a whole, the 38 countries would restrict their emissions to a yearly average of about 95 percent of their 1990 emissions. The agreement does not place restrictions on developing countries. But it encourages the industrialized nations to cooperate in helping developing countries limit emissions voluntarily.

Industrialized nations could also buy or sell emission reduction units. Suppose an industrialized nation cut its emissions more than was required by the agreement. That country could sell other industrialized nations emission reduction units allowing those nations to emit the amount equal to the excess it had cut.

Several other programs could also help an industrialized nation earn credit toward its target. For example, the nation might help a developing country reduce emissions by replacing fossil fuels in some applications.

Approving the agreement

The protocol would take effect as a treaty if (1) at least 55 countries ratified (formally approved) it, and (2) the industrialized countries ratifying the protocol had CO2 emissions in 1990 that equaled at least 55 percent of the emissions of all 38 industrialized countries in 1990.

In 2001, the United States rejected the Kyoto Protocol. President George W. Bush said that the agreement could harm the U.S. economy. But he declared that the United States would work with other countries to limit global warming. Other countries, most notably the members of the European Union, agreed to continue with the agreement without United States participation.

By 2004, more than 100 countries, including nearly all the countries classified as industrialized under the protocol, had ratified the agreement. However, the agreement required ratification by Russia or the United States to go into effect. Russia ratified the protocol in November 2004. The treaty was to come into force in February 2005.

Analyzing global warming

Scientists use information from several sources to analyze global warming that occurred before people began to use thermometers. Those sources include tree rings, cores (cylindrical samples) of ice drilled from Antarctica and Greenland, and cores drilled out of sediments in oceans. Information from these sources indicates that the temperature increase of the 1900's was probably the largest in the last 1,000 years.

Computers help climatologists analyze past climate changes and predict future changes. First, a scientist programs a computer with a set of mathematical equations known as a climate model. The equations describe how various factors, such as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, affect the temperature of Earth's surface. Next, the scientist enters data representing the values of those factors at a certain time. He or she then runs the program, and the computer describes how the temperature would vary. A computer's representation of changing climatic conditions is known as a climate simulation.

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group sponsored by the United Nations (UN), published results of climate simulations in a report on global warming. Climatologists used three simulations to determine whether natural variations in climate produced the warming of the past 100 years. The first simulation took into account both natural processes and human activities that affect the climate. The second simulation took into account only the natural processes, and the third only the human activities.

The climatologists then compared the temperatures predicted by the three simulations with the actual temperatures recorded by thermometers. Only the first simulation, which took into account both natural processes and human activities, produced results that corresponded closely to the recorded temperatures.

The IPCC also published results of simulations that predicted temperatures until 2100. The different simulations took into account the same natural processes but different patterns of human activity. For example, scenarios differed in the amounts of CO2 that would enter the atmosphere due to human activities.

The simulations showed that there can be no "quick fix" to the problem of global warming. Even if all emissions of greenhouse gases were to cease immediately, the temperature would continue to increase after 2100 because of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.

Contributors: Michael D. Mastrandrea, B.S., Graduate Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University. Stephen H. Schneider, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Sciences, Stanford University.

How to cite this article: To cite this article, World Book recommends the following format: Mastrandrea, Michael D., and Stephen H. Schneider. "Global warming." World Book Online Reference Center. 2005. World Book, Inc. http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar226310.

Robert asked for more information.

Here's a site that should answer all his questions:

www.mri-jma.go.jp/Dep/cl/cl4/GW/GW.html

It's from a very highly respected group in Japan that nobody could accuse of bias, and has very good "movies" of their simulation results.

Robert, you are an idiot.
You're a typical Republican.
You guys are sure you know the answer to everything when you can't even understand the question.
You're sure that "the market" will solve every problem by magic.

You wouldn't know a PDE from a PDA.
You don't have the math or physics background to understand anything about climate research.

Until you've earn a Ph.D and worked in the field like I have for 20 years, shut up.

In the meantime, there's an open pool reactor I'm sure you'd love to have a swim in.

It's got a really pretty blue glow.

p.s. For serious readers interested in climate change research, a good place to start is the "International journal of climatology".

"Scientist" - do you know what an ad hominem argument is?
"Scientist" do you know what a poseur, what a fraud you are?
Did you check the link? Do you even know how to do statistical analysis? Are you really a scientist?

Why do you want to see me dead? Especially in a "carbon neutral" nuclear reactor.

The market does not solve problems by magic but the 20th century should PROVE even to a pseudo scientist like you that government control of the economy to pursue ideological means on a global basis KILLS millions.

Ya dont need statistical analysis for dead kulaks, for Mao's iron campaign. For the globalist - zero tolerance for genetically enhanced foods STARVES millions just like zero tolerance for DDT doomed millions to preventable diseases.

Climate scientist, Scientist, Climate Guy, and my favorite, Whydontpostsshowup has yet to share any climate change mathematics or actually discuss any of global warming claims with facts and figures.

I guess we are too dumb or biased to understand him if he tried. But why if he is who he says he is can't he identify himself or at least identify sources and research beyond the error filled and simplistic Inconvenient Truth. Apparently our scientist wants to punish as sub-humans fellow scientists and doctors like Michael Crichton.

A real math scientist I picked randomly by Google
accepts carbon emissions into climate change and criticizes Crichton, but unless I misread the abstract he says we are due for a cyclical DECLINE in temperature that will be only curtailed or muted by increasing carbon emissions. http://math.nist.gov/~BRust/pubs/Interface2005/PrePrint.pdf

In the meantime, people are dying from real pollution, war, avertable disease, intolerance, oppression and various economic depradations that will NOT be alleviated by a global warming consensus. Green thru economic development and freedom is the only humane way, everything else is dictatorship of misguided global elitists.

Bashir's picture gives a false impression of him deep in thought, as if the wheels are really turning inside his little brain. Instead, he churns out complete garbage based purely on emotion, while ignoring the facts.

Since you readily admit that you are completely ignorant on the subject, why even bother to write this drivel. Perhaps it would help to know that the earth's temperature has accelerated dramatically within the past 3 decades (far more than any cyclical temperature swing). This isn't some far-fetched scheme to halt the developing world from economic security. But rather, its to protect the world from global travesty.

Just like the cigarette companies, global warming deniers, paid for by the oil companies, are trying to confuse the public on a life and death issue.

There is NO debate among serious researchers that work in the field.

CO2 is to Global Warming what Cigarettes are to Lung Cancer.

So, the debate is over, right? The science is settled?

Well, according to a report just published at the United States Senate Committee on Environment & Public works website, over 400 prominent scientists from all over the world have "voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus' on man-made global warming."

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust."

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

It all makes sense now. George Bush is keeping the US from aiding in the global fight against climate change because he cares deeply for the economic well-being of those in developing countries. And all those greedy Europeans are just trying to hold onto the shred of colonial economic superiority they have left.

Spare me.

The Washington post should hang its head in shame for misleading the public about something that will cause mass loss of life.

Global Warming is as real as a heart attack and as insidious as csncer.

Republicans, and the press they control, use mis-information to convince the public that matters of public health and safety are matters of opinion.

They are just as bad as cigarette companines witht their 30 year effort to try to confuse the public about the indisputible link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

Untold numbers of people will die, world wide, because of the effects of CO2 caused global warming.

The longer we wait to act, the more people will die.

What part of DIE don't you guys understand?

This isn't politics, its hard science.

Have some respect for the Ph.D's who do this for a living. While you guys were doing "bong-hits" we were studying Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics.

We do this for a living, just like your doctor does with medicine.

Do you ignore him too?

No, no, no. If it was a plan for the West to control the world, Bush and Cheney would have tobe behind it right? Ahhhrrr. My brain is being confused. I must blame everything on Bush, but this article doesn't neatly fit into the "Bush is bad" category!!!!

Wait!! I know! Bashir Goth is really Karl Rove!!

Whew!! That's better! My peanut-sized liberal brain was imploding for aminute. Necon bad, Bush bad, Christian bad, America bad. Whew!

The Washington Post is down the toilet.

They don't have a single climate scientist or anyone with a scientific background in their set of analysts.

Nobody who does serious work in the area has any doubt about the reality or the seriousness of the problem of CO2 caused global warming.

The more you learn about the details, the more scary things become.

We are in serious danger of changes that will cause massive loss of life on a global scale.

The impact of global warming is pervasive. It is already having a serious effect on our weather. We are having more storms and the storms are more severe. There is an increase in disease and disease vectors. Alaska is losing ice at an alarming rate and the effect on wildlife there is devastating.

People who deny the danger are living in a fools paradise.

It's alot like lung cancer and smoking.

People who deny the connection are only fooling themselves.

We can't afford to delay taking action.

Our very survival may be at stake.

That's not alarmist. It's a scientific fact.

If you will forgive an amateur opinion I offer that Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, as examples, benefit greatly from the present pricing of petroleum products. These kingdoms are countries with thousands of billions in the private treasuries of the ruling families and yet they seem reluctant to help others in a meaningful way in the many impoverished Muslim countries in Asia and Africa. They buy western corporations and hotels why not more money for development instead? This is an area where they could really make a difference other than accumulating ever more wealth for themselves and their friends.

I'm encouraged to see Saudi talking of its multi million fund on climate change solutions, but not particularly hopeful, I think the last hotel in the Emirates cost 3 billion or thereabouts, but I digress. With the resources Saudi has if it was really serious it would fund much much more, but one can become addicted to the revenue of oil, no reason why not as long as it is still in the ground, climate change be dammed.

Certainly the Saudis support and pay for religious education and mosques in many poor countries ,but that is not the kind of spending I am talking about. Wouldn't it be better for the poor and perhaps more of a Muslim value to help enrich the lives of those who share faith than enriching just a few privileged royals who spend like the French aristocracy before the Revolution. Where do Muslim countries sit in math and science teaching and scores, if you want development it is necessary to educate all the children, not just special children from special families.

The people of Darfur and Bangladesh and many other impoverished Muslim nations know this all too well as they look through the looking glass at their fellow Muslims. It's long past time to be looking at the World Bank who appears ineffective,or the IMF. Rich Arab countries need to step up to the plate, and unlike China it should not be only to exploit, building people pays back tenfold.

There is no plot to stop developing countries from developing their resources by the common people in the west, there is no need for it to be a choice development or a ruined environment from C02 if money and research can be spent on new technology including solar , geothermal, wave and wind power. It will be possible to have these energy resources instead. Allowing the wealth from oil to enrich a few families in the Gulf has done little to help stabilise countries like Somalia or Sudan,or help deal with social problems and instability arising from lack of education and terrible grinding poverty.

It is past time for regional differences to continue, it is time to think regionally and allow pan arab policies to happen that permit education and health care and hope , especially hope, just not the privileged few who own assets developed from repression of others but for everyone. Who will lead?

Of course I am an idealist but I do believe it comes down to leadership and vision, not religion.

Thanks for the opportunity

There is so much rampant growth and wealth in Russia, China, and India, not to mention the oil producing Middle East that I read this post in disbelief. Sure, the wealth is generally poorly distributed in these countries but to imagine that anyone could stiffle their growth even if they wanted to is absolutely ludicrous. And given all of this wealth, why couldn't they discover or create the next new source of energy? What or who is stopping them?

To listen to this you would think that the evil U.S./West have already cornered the future and want to sell it to the poor nations. Unfortunately, the economically viable alternative fuels don't exist yet or are many years away while we rapidly use up our existing resources and trash our world at the same time.

This is a world-wide problem and nothing is solved by suggesting otherwise.

Your analysis of the situation has the ring of truth to it. I can't thing of a better scenario that will motivate our society to reduce its dependence on nonrenewable energy reserves.

"Despite that, I must risk refusing to follow the herd on the motives and long-term objectives of the global warming campaign. I am not a scientist to disprove the findings of eminent scholars in the field, and indeed that is not my point at all."

That's too bad, because the scientific validity is inextricably linked with the purpose behind your column. For your thesis to be valid, you need to demonstrate that either global warming is not a problem, or that the proposed solutions either will not work or were specifically designed to keep developing nations down. You have done neither, and your column is reduced to paranoiac guesswork.

Furthermore, you were asked your opinion on six proposals for climate change; you have evaluated none of them. There is, for example, a proposal from Scott Barrett at Johns Hopkins which is focused around research and development -- including funding for technology transfer to developing nations. It requires nothing of developing nations, and can even help them by sharing technologies that would reduce emissions and other bad things.

If even THAT proposal is abhorrent to you, then your entire argument boils down to "Boo hoo, the richest nations want to continue to advance and leave us behind." Well, yeah, sparky, that's how the world works. All the moves toward global economies aside, countries still are fundamentally concerned with Number One first. When you get down to it, we don't owe anyone anything -- the issue becomes, what can your country offer us in return? Harsh, but that's the way it goes in the world. Claiming that this is all a conspiracy to keep Africa down is only so much whining.

Miriam Leitao's piece below is an excellent antidote to this fact-free conspiracy-mongering claptrap.

I tentatively agree with his sentiments. While I would argue that the developing nations should be concerned about global warming, it is the responsibility of the Developed, white nations that have eaten up the worlds buffer for greenhouse gases to provide the technology to be clean to developing countries, once we get serious about our own pollution FIRST.

China, considered a "developing nation" is set to overtake the United States as the #1 greenhouse gas emitter, thanks to the cheap 1950s-era coal plants it is throwing up at an incredible pace. (This also has the effect of spitting out so much soot and particulate matter that residents of many cities have to wear masks just to go outside.) India appears to be pursuing the nuclear path.

Ironically, while many in developing nations complain about the impact that fighting global warming will have on their economies, it is the people of these nations that will suffer most from global warming. There are two primary reasons for this:
1. Decreasing crop yields, especially in the tropics, where many of these countries are located
2. Loss of fresh water from glaciers that used to melt seasonally but now melt permanently; and from lakes that dry up

From an economic perspective, developing economies will be wise to diversify their fuel mixes, as oil production peaks, forcing prices to soar through the roof. This is already damaging the US economy, and the effects could be far more severe in less developed regions.

I agree with Bashir: let's agree on the diagnosis first, before trying any remedy.

The diagnosis is clear: INDUSTRIAL NATIONS have caused global warming for the last two centuries, and EMERGING NATIONS are increasingly contributing to global warming today.

The remedy: well, I'm afraid my proposal is too naive.

Anyway:

1.- Let's assume there is a maximum level of world carbon emissions in order for Planet Earth to be sustainable.

2.- Let's find a "maximum carbon emission per capita" by dividing the above number by the world's population.

3.- Let's find a "maximum carbon emission per country" by multiplying the figure in #2 by each country's population. That's all each country shall be allowed to pollute in order to maintain Planet Earth in a sustainable condition.

Of course, industrial nations would NEVER EVER accept this, because they would need to cut THEIR emission levels in such ways that domestic outcry would threaten their very political survival. Instead, rich countries want to "buy" allowances from poor countries.

THAT IS NONSENSE. As soon as poor countries begin developing, their energy demand grows, as well as the carbon emissions, thus eliminating any allowance available for sale. So, any system based on trade of carbon emission allowances would only work as long as poor countries remain POOR.

It is possible for both A and B to be right: A: the wealthy nations (consciously or unconsciously) see an economic advantage in moving toward alternative energy and against oil. B: the world is warming, and something needs to be done about it.

When the bully is telling you to leave the burning house, you need to get out now, not think about the fact that the bully is gaining a power advantage over you by being right.

Excuse my confusion, it seems that I confused one pesthole with another, Somalia with the Sudan. The former is an even better model of internal stupidity...

To the editors: This kind of certifiable claptrap belongs on a beyond the fringe blog -- What is it doing in the Post???

"Paul NY:

Thank goodness there is now a view that the developing world should ignore the the hype over Global Warming - due to their own self-interest. The West could probably afford the highly interventionist and socialistic aspects of the so-called solution to Global Warming, but the developing world has already been through the torture of Central Planning, Gov't dictates, and abscense of economic freedom for a century. Al Gore is proposing more of the same, just with a new label."

Correct, its all a commie conspiracy! Right?

Heaven, that hurts.

I can understand, to a certain degree, your scheptism about the motifs of pushing for climate change initiatives. Sure the more developed nations are seeking to free themselves from dependence on foreign oil, esp. from producers like OPEC, which acts like an oil mafia-charging outrageous prices and cutting production at a whim for political and profit making purposes. No one country should be completely dependent on another for necessary resources that we as a global depend on, like energy.

But in the same instance, if we are to grow as the human race, we need to seek better energy alternatives. People can bicker back and forth all day long about money, but what good is money if you have no place to spend it. We need trees, we need air, we need earth, we need water. At some point in time someone has got to put profit aside and think of the well being of the whole. Greed has its limits, and that is something that is rapidly catching up with all of us globally. We don't have 10 years or 30 years. It's no longer good enough to keep overtly polluting and changing critical elements of this planet without recourse. We are already seeing increased earthquakes, floods, lightening storms, death, spread of disease. All of these things because of a few degrees in temperature change.

Every culture on this planet teaches respect for the environment and its creatures. We have all dropped the ball on this one. It's not that scientists haven't been talking about environmental change, species destruction, bad farming and mining practices, nuclear testing, sonar testing, environmental destruction, and now global warming for years. It's that all of our governments didn't want to listen and all for the sake of profit and politics. And we as people, allowed our governments to continue to do whatever they wanted to both the earth and now to our detriment. Ignorance is no longer and excuse or luxury we can afford anymore-rich and poor alike. But for all of this to truly be effective, the developed nations need to make the most immediate changes now and then they need to openly share new technologies with developing nations so that they don't continue to use outdated farming and building methods and extra poisonous materials. Many of the technological cures have been out for decades. It's just that nobody uses them, citing that it's more costly to be clean. Well now we have no choice.

I read your previous piece. I was not impressed with much beyond your passion in it. There are serious problems in underdeveloped countries you refuse to entertain as being real, yet they affect global climate every year. In particular, wherever you want to lay blame, the Asian brown cloud phenomenon is a serious indication of a problem that needs work.

As for the rest of it, well Sudan and other third world countries are likely to suffer the brunt of desertification, not developed countries. Developed countries also have the ability to bring more lifesaving resources to bear on disasters caused by storms and drought.

You may want to keep peeing on the floor of the house, but it's your house too, and your country and peoples will pay the price.

As for your first world vs. third world arguments, you seem to want to blame everyone else for poor countries problems. The fact is they're poor not because of anything first world countries have done, but because they're governed in foolish ways, by greedy fools who are wedded to entrenched systems that are too often way too corrupt to cough up any real progress.

In particular, let us look at Sudan, one of the worlds best known cultural cesspools. This is a place best known at this point for slaughtering it's own people for no good reason. It's a country also know for having people who measure wealth by the number of cows they own. How dysfunctional is that in a global economy? Not that cattle have no direct economic value, but rather the culture that places higher value on them than an actual currency is one wedded to impracticality and a subsequent lack of progress.

The fact is, in spite of blame games and funding on the part of first world countries that amount to pouring money down a rat hole in the end, the lack of progress in third world countries is tied to the stupidity of the cultures in these countries, not to the activity of countries that have broken free of imprisoning stupidity, bias, and exploitation of their own people.

So go ahead, keep this attitude, the people who mainly suffer will be your own. And how different is that from anything going on right now? Not in the least I think. It seems to be more of the same attitude that has kept these countries underdeveloped crapholes for generations upon generations. The fact is, history has proved that your way of doing things doesn't work best. If it did, well, these countries would not still, thousands upon thousands of years into their existence still be poor.

Its easy to blame colonialism, but not very accurate, because if the countries had their acts together, they would have ended up trading partners, not colonies.

"
JBE:

Developing nations will NOT clean up the mess that you rich nations have created over the last 250 years. Your dirty, polluting ways have given you a very high standard of living, and we poor folks will pollute our way to the top, just as you have. Poor, starving people will not listen to your moralistic sermons and go green, because extreme POVERTY is worse than DEATH. Deal with it: go green, perfect the technologies, offer it at a low price, and the developing world will follow."

Well, I would think this is the chance for China and India to pass the West. If China and India do understand the implications of high energy consumption they could develop an economy that is far less energy intensive. And I do think they have the right to get all the technological knowledge from the West. And as I understand, at least in China, this way is partly pursued already (besides the disastrous pollution in many cities)

Why do you want to do the mistakes the West did?

Besides: in 40 to 50 years the oil resources will be mostly gone. It's stupid to burn oil as it is a precursor for so many other products.

And to the conspiracy: it's complete crap. Look at this post how many folks still don't buy it. Look 2 years back and the US admin was flatly denying it. Look 5 years back and you were called a tree-hugger if you discussed that.

Right Somalia intellectual freedom capital of the world. Fact is, the man who wrote the Gaia hypothesis is right start looking for land in Siberia or Greenland, mass extinctions of humans will happen. Enjoy life now. Nothing will stop humans from driving cars, we are doomed.

Like the confused pondering of the too early rising grasshopper, I'm not sure I understand Bashir Goth completely over the tumultuous rumbling of his avalanche of mixed metaphors and elephant stampede of self pity(and so forth...) but my country is the richest, and also probably the biggest self-assigned stumbling block to any kind of climate change progress, so his theory is stupid.

I would however like to see an "inquisition" of "cheerleaders."

I do not argue that the primary impetus for European nations to seek alternatives to oil is economic. The political movement is about removing the stranglehold that oil producing nations hold on the economic and physical security of oil importing nations.

But this is not because oil is being discovered in Africa. Oil is being discovered in Africa because the supplies of oil in this world have become scarce, and we are seeking out the final sources.

The secondary and tertiary reasons nations are beginning to act on global warming are a) that is becoming obvious that it will affect the entire world, and b) there are quite a few people who actually care about the next generation.

Whatever the reasons for action, the danger of global warming is real. The danger of oil becoming cheap and thereby depressing the economy of oil producing nations is not.

Goth - Inherit the wind, you right-wing flake.

Thank goodness there is now a view that the developing world should ignore the the hype over Global Warming - due to their own self-interest. The West could probably afford the highly interventionist and socialistic aspects of the so-called solution to Global Warming, but the developing world has already been through the torture of Central Planning, Gov't dictates, and abscense of economic freedom for a century. Al Gore is proposing more of the same, just with a new label.

Yonkers, New York
19 December 2007

BASHIR GOTH HAS GOT IT WRONG!

The rich and technologically advanced nations of the world are not engaged in a nefarious conspiracy to "shackle the muscles of growing economies of these countries [referring to China, India, Russia and elsewhere"] by vigorously pushing for the radical reduction of carbon emissions which primarily cause global warming and climate change--starting with the Kyoto Treaty and the recent accords at the Bali Summit.

The brutal and objective reality is that Planet Earth is at serious risk from global warming and climate change.

The polar ice caps, the Greenland glaciers and other glaciers have for many years been melting at a dangerously rapid pace (has Mr. Goth heard about one chunk of glacier ice the size of the state of Rhode Island breaking off and floating away?).

The oceans' temperature has been rising steadily over the years. (Has Mr. Goth heard about'El Nino and El Nina?)

All of these are now exacting their horrendous toll on planet Earth and on mankind.

The Nothern countries will continue to be devastated by hurricanes, tornadoes, rains, floods, ice- and snow-storms and mudslides of ever-mounting intensity and frequency.

The Southern countries will continue to be slammed by typhoons, moonsoon rains, floods and mudslides, likewise of ever-mounting intensity and frequency.

Not many years from now the sea level will rise globally anywhere from 10 to 20 feet. Hundreds if not thousands of coastal villages, towns and cities will sink and their inhabitants, in the millions, displaced.

Huge swaths of planet earth will be turned to deserts as a result of droughts of historic extent and duration (as has happened in Australia and other places.)

These consequences traceable directly to global warming and climate change are not simply the figment of the febrile imagination of mad scientists.

These are for real. And they are already upon mankind.

As a matter of fact, mankind may already have gone far beyond "equinotime" as far as global warming and climate change are concerned.

Meaning that there is no longer anything anybody can do to mitigate their effects let alone reverse them.

Thus those Bali sumiteers could unwittingly have acted like King Canute of old, who commanded the waves to stop!

The time to do something which then could still have held the prospect of significantly mitigating their effects was at the time the Kyoto Treaty was signed.

No longer. Not now. The time is long past.

Mankind will suffer for its tragic negligence and apathy. It will reap the whirlwind.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

One looks at an anthill, marvelling over the stratgey of how dirt was piled just this way and that way to produce soaring edifaces and buried, well protected nests for the young.

Yet no matter how we look we can never find a master mind, a designer, even a schemer of small consequence hiding in the midst. It is the collective that creates the whole.

Searching for a grand conspiracy amidst the changes in our world is doomed to fail. Its just wrong. The denial of mankind to the changes induced by industrialization is only now being apparant to most people. Even those governments and companies most opposed to change have come to understand that mutual survival demands mutual action.

That is the message from Bali.

The "Global Warming Movement" is far more about centralization of economic and political power in the hands of an self-selected elite than any possible warming of the planet. As Woodrow Wilson said "God save us from a government of experts!"

This is just one more example of why the world will never manage to successfully combat global warming. The rich countries think it's a plot against them, and the poor countries think it's a plot against THEM.

New oil producing nations should use the revenues to build the most modern infrastructure available. They are not saddled with aging industrial bases and this should be their golden opportunity.

Yes, the USA and Europe are threatened by Somalia's burgeoning economic might and can only respond to it by timidly pushing environmental policies. That makes a lot of sense.

Have you ever looked at the projected effects of climate change on Africa? Does the word megadrought mean anything to you?

"Why was the science community silent when Europe was spewing the greatest amount of CO2 over decades?"

How do you think the problem came to the attention of the world? Scientists have been talking about warming and the greenhouse effect for a long time, but the evidence simply was not available until recently. The promulgation of results is a different and very political matter - the Bush administration, for example, did everything it could to prevent the scientific results from reaching the public.

You make a good point about the self-interest of developed nations (which extends to other matters, such as deforestation), but this is not a conspiracy against developing nations.

Some of the points brought up are interesting, but the brush is far too broad. Russia, China, India, and Saudi Arabia hardly represent one interest block in continuing the high consumption rate of oil. Bahir brings up a good point that high oil prices certainly benefit oil producing nations such as Saudi Arabia, Chavez’s government Venezuela, and Russia, who's recent increasing importance as a world power is almost wholly driven by rising oil prices, and the increasing importance of global warming in the West can partially be explained by the transfer of wealth to these countries. But, I would add only partially in this case, since other reasons would include the increasing scientific evidence in support of global warming. Up until recently much of the evidence of global warming was masked by other trends and not as apparent as it is now. It is kind of hard for global warming debunkers to argue against climate change with the arctic ice cap disappearing at the rate it is.
However, saying that the rise of China and India is a reason for the West’s interest in global, begs the question, what rational/logic is this guy using. China and India have general been allies of the Bush administration in global warming climate talks. China says we won’t do anything as long as America doesn’t do anything first and the Bush administration says we won’t do anything if the Chinese don’t do anything first. China’s global warming position is pretty much exactly the same as the Bush administration’s position, we won’t do anything (reducing our oil consumption) that will reduce our rate of growth. In fact I would bet the Chinese and Indians would be more than happy to see a global warming solution that would reduce the West’s consumption of oil, more oil for them, while countries such as Saudi Arabia would not care for such a solution at all, hence the mentioned Saudi global warming technology fund.
It should also be pointed out that the biggest benefitionary of reducing the power of oil producers by reducing oil consumption is the United States, and the US government is also the most opposed to this path. After all it is American power that Chavez and Putin are primary interested in opposing with their oil money. Europe has had high fuel prices for decades and consumes about half as much oil per GDP as the US and is thus much less affected by the rise in prices. If the US was efficient as Europe in its use of oil it would could meet its needs almost entirely through domestic supplies (and certainly through North American Supplies alone). It would cost the American economy very little if nothing in terms of reduced growth and yield great benefits in terms of reduced payments to the axis of evil as the Bush administration used to refer to two of these oil powers as.
In addition, Bashir fails to mention the biggest victims of the rise in oil prices. It’s not the rich consumers in the West who can for the most part afford the extra money, it’s the consumers in non-oil producing third world countries who can’t afford the increased costs. The rise in oil prices seriously threatens many third world food producers who rely on oil derived fertilizers, It also threatens the budgets of many third world countries that subsidize the oil consumption of their citizens. Again, Bashir has a valid point, after all the last time reducing oil consumption in the US and the West was considered a political priority was in the 1970s, the last time oil spiked but this is true only to a point. The rise in oil prices and increasing power of oil producers only adds an additional element in support of action against global warming.

"One may not even dare to raise his voice for fear of becoming a victim to inquisiton by the brigades of climate change cheerleaders."

What! Don't be silly. People express their opinions on this stuff all the time, debate each other, sometimes insult one another. In what way is anybody being victimized? Don't insult real victims of oppression--jailed, beaten, executed for speaking out--with this kind of rhetoric--you undermine any credibility you might have.

If you're feeling outnumbered, well maybe your arguments just aren't that convincing when all the evidence is weighed and sorted. Should the (admittedly messy and contentious) pursuit of knowledge stop when the flat-earthers start to feel insecure and isolated in their willful ignorance? Good luck selling that program...

As a scientist deeply familiar with the mathematics behind models of global warming, and the numerical methods used to solve such mathematical models, I'm concerned that the risk we face may be significantly higher than has been reported in the press.

Without boring everyone with the details, when you write a computer code to solve these kind of systems, almost universally these codes contain "limiting", "dampening", and "smoothing" algorithms, that can mask extreme or extremely quickly changing behavior. Without such techniques, the programs would not converge to a solution or would take forever to run.

The upshot of all this is that when you have something as "non-linear" and "stiff" as climate change, its very easy to underestimate how quickly things can go bad.

If anything, global warming is more dangerous than has been reported, not less, and we probably have less time to respond to it than is commonly believed, not more.