Tackling Global Warming Cheaper Than Ignoring It

Coryoth writes, "In a report commissioned by the UK government, respected economist Sir Nicholas Stern concludes that mitigating global warming could cost around 1% of global GDP if spent immediately, but ignoring the problem could cost between 5% and 20% of global GDP. The 700-page study represents the first major report on climate change from an economist rather than a scientist. The report calls for the introduction of green taxes and carbon trading schemes as soon as possible, and calls on the international community to sign a new pact on greenhouse emissions by next year rather than in 2010/11. At the very least the UK government is taking the report seriously; both major parties are proposing new green taxes. Stern points out, however, that any action will only be effective if truly global."

Side Note:

[Ceribia (865793)]

Also of some note is the fact that we are all going to die. ...but yeah, 5 percent, lets do something about that...

Re:

[Firehed (942385)]

We'll all die eventually anyways. This is a case of Think of the Children! TM

Of course, this time it's actually reasonable.

The American Way

[Salvance (1014001)]

Ignoring problems is the new American Way. We're doing the same thing with budget deficits, social security, medicare, and solving the root cause of global terrorism. Since a politician's time in office is typcially short (2-8 years), it's always far less costly during their tenure (politically and economically) to push off problems than to tackle the issue and risk losing voter support.

Unfortunately, global warming is a problem who's impact is even less tangible to Americans than problems like future social security shortfalls. As such, I doubt the government will support action until we're in the midst of cataclysmic environmental impact at a nationwide level.

Re:

[jmv (93421)]

Unfortunately, global warming is a problem who's impact is even less tangible to Americans than problems like future social security shortfalls. As such, I doubt the government will support action until we're in the midst of cataclysmic environmental impact at a nationwide level.

You're optimistic. I say they'll just blame it on terrorism and the Axis of Evil(R).

Re:The American Way

[cperciva (102828)]

Ignoring problems is the new American Way. We're doing the same thing with [...] solving the root cause of global terrorism.

Nonsense. George Bush was very clear after 9/11 in saying that "terrorists hate the USA because it is a land of freedom".

Assuming that George Bush was correct in this assessment, he has done far more to combat terrorism than any other US President in recent history.

Osama said it best...

[ClamIAm (926466)]

"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed," bin Laden said as the U.S. war on terrorism raged in Afghanistan. "The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life." linky [cnn.com]

Of course, we should keep in mind that Bush is simply the symbol of this decay. The Administration as a whole is what scares the hell out of me. Add to this the people in Congress who support these shenanigans. And places like the UK have some nasty new laws as well.

Re:

[slughead (592713)]

The Administration as a whole is what scares the hell out of me. Add to this the people in Congress who support these shenanigans. And places like the UK have some nasty new laws as well.

It's not just the UK and the US. here [cyborgcow.net] is a picture (chart) from the economist magazine with a world-wide view of freedoms lost after 9/11 around the world. It's an old picture, too (2003)--it's likely worse now.

Re:

[glesga_kiss (596639)]

It figures that in a story about UK and global warming, the obligatory Bush bashing starts and even gets modded up.

UK story, but as you say, global warming. Bush doesn't even believe that global warming is real. The US didn't sign the Kyoto agreement, yet it is by far the greatest polluter on the planet. I don't see how it's possible to have a discussion on global warming without bashing the US government.

Tony needs to talk to George first

[linuxci (3530)]

What's the point of the UK political parties talking about all these green taxes when our prime ministers boss, George Bush (well at least he thinks he is), is out destroying bits of the world and the US culture in general is about wasting energy.

We need to encourage our allies to act sensibly, the UK is small and insignificant compared to the US.

Re:Tony needs to talk to George first

[BasilBrush (643681)]

Not necessarily. The reason that the UK is fairly temperate is because of the gulf stream bringing warm water from the Gulf of Mexico. Global warming may cause the gulf stream to fail, causing the UK to become far colder. This kind of unpredictability of whether localities will get warmer or colder is why a lot of times people talk about climate change rather than global warming.

Long term solution

[QuantumFTL (197300)]

I am not an atmospheric scientist, but I have discussed this topic (and this exact issue) with an atmospheric scientist I used to work with when I worked for NASA. The bottom line is that global warming is very real, however we simply don't have good enough models yet to work out the necessary information for making informed policy information - we don't know what the impact on the human race will be if we keep doing what we're doing, because that depends on how well the earth's homeostatic mechanisms will compensate for the additional greenhouse effect. We know it will have a negative effect, that is sure, but we don't know how well cutting greenhouse emissions will help.

Personally I think a long term solution to this will require technology on an unprecidented scale, not merely cutting back emissions. We should be investing in these new technologies and in general scientific and economic progress, and I am concerned that these short-term "band-aid" measures of reducing output could actually increase the amount of time it takes (and thus how bad it gets) before we have the appropriate technology and scientific understanding to regulate the climate of our entire planet.

Of course, if all else fails, there's always controlled stratospheric particulate matter injection, and the US and Russia certainly have enough devices for that...

Re:

[FooAtWFU (699187)]

Of course, if all else fails, there's always controlled stratospheric particulate matter injection, and the US and Russia certainly have enough devices for that...

Apparently the cheapest way to put dust in the upper atmosphere is to shoot it up with big naval guns. But aside from that, my favored techniques involve providing tax incentives in cities to paint rooftops white. This results in an increased albedo, reflecting more sunlight (and heat) - not only reducing global warming directly, but indirectly i

Re:Long term solution

[geobeck (924637)]

...my favored techniques involve providing tax incentives in cities to paint rooftops white. This results in an increased albedo, reflecting more sunlight (and heat) - not only reducing global warming directly, but indirectly in the form of reduced energy consumption for air conditioning and the like (the urban "heat island" effect). It's a simple, low-impact way to Do Something.

...and make the problem much, much worse. Increased albedo is a huge problem, from the light-gray scars that mark the existence of cities to the reduced dark green of the world's forests due to logging. Increasing the Earth's albedo leads to increased desertification--and the worst part is, this is a positive feedback cycle because increased desertification leads to increased albedo.

The best solution for roofs is not painting them white, but turning them green. Cover as many flat roofs as possible with plant cover, and increase evapotranspiration. Stop paying farmers not to farm, and pay them to grow hemp instead. Use hemp to replace all wood pulp and wood fiber applications, especially paper, and save millions of acres of trees, not in tropical rainforests, but in temperate rainforests, where the problem is just as dire.

The central problem with global warming is not the temperature in itself; it's the mechanism that is raising the temperature, which is primarily an increase in certain atmospheric gases. We don't need half-baked ideas involving producing millions of gallons of toxic paint, which will worsen the problem at every stage from the production of the paint, to its effect on albedo, to the contamination that will inevitably result from improper application and cleanup. We need to focus on reducing greenhouse gases. Period.

For the record, IANAEE (Environmental Engineer), but I will be in nine months.

Re:Long term solution

[FooAtWFU (699187)]

...and make the problem much, much worse. Increased albedo is a huge problem, from the light-gray scars that mark the existence of cities

Are these worse than the dark black scars that mark them presently?

to the reduced dark green of the world's forests due to logging.

Well, this really has nothing to do with the proposed urban lightening.

Increasing the Earth's albedo leads to increased desertification--and the worst part is, this is a positive feedback cycle because increased desertification leads to increased albedo.

Increased desertification may be a problem in plant life applications, forests, grasslands, et cetera, but a city is not a grassland. It's already clobbering the environment around it, it's an urban heat island - an increased urban albedo is not going to cause desertification, but rather bring things back in line with the surrounding countryside.

The central problem with global warming is not the temperature in itself; it's the mechanism that is raising the temperature, which is primarily an increase in certain atmospheric gases.

This is ridiculous. The central problem with global warming is the the results of an increased temperature - glaciers melt, sea levels rise, ocean flows alter their direction wreaking havoc with weather patterns, et cetera et cetera. The mechanism responsible for it is relatively harmless: are there any problems inherent with an atmosphere with increased carbon dioxide levels aside from this warming? (Well, actually, there are a few secondary effects from this, but you're not identifying them, and they have to do with higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide allowing some sort of alternate version of carbon processing in plants to occur more efficiently, potentially rendering certain plant species more competitive relative to others, and aside from that, increased carbon concentrations generally leads to slightly lusher vegetation worldwide, which isn't a terrible thing). Moreover this scheme decreases carbon dioxide production, thus addressing the mechanism itself as well, because less electricity is used in air conditioning.

We don't need half-baked ideas

It's actually been fairly well baked. You can find a very large number of papers on geoengineering or climate change mitigation via albedo amplification, in a variety of forms.

involving producing millions of gallons of toxic paint

So use non-toxic paint, or use light colored shingles, or white vinyl siding, or use concrete pavement instead of asphalt where you can and mix in glass to make the asphalt more reflective when you can't (a measure already in reasonably common use). Besides, it's not like there isn't plenty of paint and such being produced to this and similar ends already.

Public planning based on hype is ill-founded

[Morgaine (4316)]

>> global warming is very real, however we simply don't have good enough models yet

You are right on both counts. I am a scientist and an engineer, and I work enough with climate modelling to understand the problems and limitations in this area. And from this background, I judge that the esteemed economist is paying more attention to hype than fact.

Global warming is very real. Without natural global warming, this planet would be about 33 C colder than it currently is, so it's an extremely important effect that keeps this planet liveable. The most important greenhouse gas that creates 95% of the greenhouse effect is water vapour (not CO2), and we have no control over the water vapour whatsoever, but we're damn glad it's there.

What's more, there has been a gradual (though erratic) increase of temperature throughout the current interglacial period (18,000 years) [gcrio.org], which cannot be attributed to "advanced" civilization emissions, and this should be viewed against the backdrop of the longer current glaciation cycle (100,000 years) [gcrio.org] --- ie. we're at a perfectly normal peak in temperature, and it's not even a high one within the current interglacial.

That's the background. Now let's see where current observations put us.

Man's huge outpouring of CO2 has very significantly increased the CO2 ppm in the atmosphere, to levels unprecedented in recent glacial periods. While CO2 is not a primary controller of global temperature (the long-term paleoclimate record shows almost no correlation whatsoever [geocraft.com], the record through the last several glaciations shows a strong correlation [wikipedia.org] between the two.

Of course, graphing CO2 and temperature from the fossil record doesn't tell us which is cause and which is effect, and we are not currently able to model the very complex biosphere nor the chaotic cloud formation processes well enough to make any sound judgements about this. However, that doesn't mean that we can ignore it.

Two things we do know with total certainty:

• Man-made CO2 *does* cause a tiny initial rise in the greenhouse effect (that's just simple physics), even if it turns out that its final effect is not the obvious one expected.

• The climate is in the process of abrupt change, as noted from the extremely rapid melting of Greenland ice flows and polar ice cover, and the very dramatic observed [soton.ac.uk] slowdown in the Atlantic overturning that drives the Gulf Stream. And these processes are unstoppable, period, no matter what we do.

So, what do we make of this, in respect of economics and public planning?

Firstly, this is what we DON'T do: we don't conclude that the temperature is going to go through the roof. Not only is there no significant temperature excess in the record (the +0.6 C of recent times would be regarded as entirely within natural climate variation if it weren't for the hype), but more importantly, the trend cannot be stopped in the ways suggested because CO2 has a very long lifetime, and all the industrial age CO2 will continue having its effect for a good 800+ years.

Secondly, this is what we DO do: we accept that the North Atlantic and polar melting cannot be stopped and that therefore the sea level will rise enormously in coming decades and centuries. This will have a collosal effect on Man, and we should plan for it, basically through gradual retreat from the shorelines.

That would be economic planning based on scientific facts, rather than hype.

Of course, reducing CO2 while we're at it is a great idea --- we should not polute the planet, FULL STOP, as it's the only one we've got, currently. But to believe that this is going to solve climate change is a complete fiction.

Re:Public planning based on hype is ill-founded

[Coryoth (254751)]

There are, definitely, some facts in there, but you've put them together in a weird pastiche with some old data, and some outright false statements.

The most important greenhouse gas that creates 95% of the greenhouse effect is water vapour (not CO2)

This just isn't true. I've heard this claim a lot, and I am yet to be provided with one reputable source that actually uses this figure. Water vapour accounts for around 80% of greenhouse gases by mass, or 90% by volume. But even that's somewhat deceptive because what really counts is how effectively it acts as a greenhouse gas to trap heat. In terms of percentage input to the warming effect of greenhouse gases, water vapour is somewhere between 36% and 70%, though most studies tend to find it to be around 65%.

Still, 65% is a very significant portion, the difference is that water vapour, unlike carbon dioxide or methane, has a very short residence time in the atmosphere (around 10 days). This means that water vapour will very quickly find an equilibrium point and can only act as a feedback rather than a forcing with regard to climate change. None the less water vapour represents an important feedback and you'll find no shortage of scientific papers detailing its effects on climate change. You'll also find that tropospheric water vapour is a vital component in IPCC climate models, while stratospheric water vapour is treated specifically in IPCC reports.

What's more, there has been a gradual (though erratic) increase of temperature throughout the current interglacial period (18,000 years)

You link to a very rough chart (looking at the plot style it is a qualitative rather than hard quantitative) that shows - well not a gradual and erratic rise, but a certain amount of erraticness and variation with current temperatures being plotted as a momentary low. The chart is old, over 16 years old, however, and we have many more recent studies that compile together many sources of proxy data. Here is a chart showing several such proxy data reconstructions, which sompiels together the different methods [wikipedia.org]. Note that the general trend is far more down than up, and that the recent rise is completely obscured due to the scale of the chart (as with the chart you provided). The author of this chart, however, conveniently denotes the 2004 temperature level, and provides a subchart of recent proxy data. All of a sudden the recent rise is more clear, and far from natural looking.

To stem off the the claims that the individual lines in that plot (as opposed to the averaging over all of them) show much greater natural variation - most of those represent data from a single location such as an ice core from Greenland, and ice core from Kilamanjaro etc. There is plenty of variation in local climate, and no one denies this, however it is global warming that is the issue and the average global temperature, which is far better expressed by the averaging over the various local data sources spread around the globe, is far less given to such dramatic fluctuation (and we know this - compare instrumental temperature data for local sources versus averaged globally: in the global average there is much less dramatic variation).

and this should be viewed against the backdrop of the longer current glaciation cycle (100,000 years) --- ie. we're at a perfectly normal peak in temperature, and it's not even a high one within the current interglacial.

We are, indeed, currently in an interglacial. We have, however, been in one for the past 11,000 years or so, and via most modern temperature reconstruction we reached the temeperature peak for that interglacial near the beginning, and shouldn't be expecting further rises within this interglacial. The current sudden upsurge of temperature really isn't a normal peak - it is anomolous within this interglacial. Moreover, it actua

Re:Long term solution

[Dun Malg (230075)]

So let's make our own carbon converters. 2CO2 + energy -> C2 + 2O2.. it's really not complicated. Even if we were to get all the energy for that equation by burning coal or oil, we'd still be able to keep the carbon in the atmosphere at acceptable levels.

Ummmm....no. The process of reducing CO2 necessarily will release more CO2 than you reduce if you fuel the reaction with hydrocarbons. Nuclear and wind? Sure. But you'd be better off just directly replacing the CO2 producing power generation systems with those than going through the unnecessary steps involved in carbon sequestration.

Re:Long term solution .. yes, long term

[Dun Malg (230075)]

Not really, because nukes suck arse

Fantastic rebuttal! The facts and figures are irrefutable and the eloquence of the presentation puts the rest of us to shame. Bravo.

Re:Long term solution

[B.D.Mills (18626)]

It would be terribly inefficient to plant another billion trees

In what way is it so terribly inefficient?

Startup costs? Well, all one does is dig a hole and drop the seedling tree in. It's possible for one person to plant more than 300 trees an hour with the right equipment. How much does that cost, maybe 20 cents per tree? The land needs to be acquired as well. There's plenty of waste land that can be used, like the land near freeways. It will require a lot of land, but that's the only major resource that would be required. When compared to the billions of dollars of farm subsidies that the US already pays to agriculture producers, a subsidy for growing trees would be small by comparison.

There won't be maintenance costs, except for possible subsidies to private growers. The costs when the tree needs to be replaced won't be great either.

So let's make our own carbon converters. 2CO2 + energy -> C2 + 2O2.. it's really not complicated.

Such conversion is what trees are good at. Why invent useless technology when natural means are already available that can do what is required for less cost? The big cost in the conversion will be the energy. The energy input in your equation has to come from somewhere, and when noncarbon energy is in short supply that is an important consideration. Trees capture the energy for free.

Hmmmmm; Math please

[WindBourne (631190)]

Just in America there is 300 million (something similar in japan and europe). If we have every person plant 3 trees each, that is ~ 1 billion trees. Even if the seedling costs something 3 each, then 1 billion trees cost 3 billion. What does a single new nuke plant cost let alone the fuel for it. The simple truth is that if we start planting trees now, we will have resources (wood) for the future, and will convert the CO2 and release the O2. All in all, it is in our best interest to plant trees as well as st

Living Planet Report

[foobsr (693224)]

Valuable footage is given by the WWF [panda.org]. One scenario is that with a "business as usual" approach the planet is eaten up by appr. 2050. So, keeping in mind that there is a time lag from thinking over action until implementation until effect, we may conclude what?

CC.

Re:

[pilgrim23 (716938)]

2050? Wait, How can that be right since we totally ran out of oil in 1994?

Taxes: is there anything they can't do?

[rufusdufus (450462)]

The primary method of fighting global warming suggested in this article is to increase taxes! Globally! It staggers my mind to think how many people might think this is a good idea. Giving politicians more money will save no one.

Re:

[FooAtWFU (699187)]

The idea is generally referred to as a Pigouvian tax [wikipedia.org]. Note one issue with such a tax:

Perhaps the biggest problem with the Pigovian tax is the "knowledge problem" suggested on page 6 of Pigou's essay "Some Aspects of the Welfare State" (1954) where he writes, "It must be confessed, however, that we seldom know enough to decide in what fields and to what extent the State, on account of [the gaps between private and public costs] could interfere with individual choice." In other words, the economist's blackbo

Re:

[linuxci (3530)]

Some ways taxation may help as long as they reward the responsible as well as punish the irresponsible. e.g. now some councils in London are putting up proposals to double the residents parking permit fees for inefficient 4x4's (nicknamed Chelsea tractors in London) and those with energy efficient cars will have their fees halved. Users with normal cars will pay about the same.

Re:Taxes: is there anything they can't do?

[argoff (142580)]

What the hell's wrong with you, the government needs those taxes to be proactive about things.

if not for taxes to pay for public education, our kids would be the dubmest in the free world, wiat..... never mind .... well anyhow
if not for taxes, our social security and medicare programs would be bankrupt. wait ..... never mind ..... ok lets try .....
if not for taxes to fight the war on drugs, we would have drug problems in every inner city, uh ..... scrap that one....
if not for taxes, the government would need to go into debt, .... oops, hold on here I'm working on it .....
if not for taxes our medical and college education costs would be out of reach, ..... shit, scratch that ....
if not for taxes to pay for war, we'd be loosing the war on terror, .....@#@#$#$%%%^

Well, FU! you're just not trying hard enough to see how valuable all these taxs are for everyone. We NEED the government to be "proactive"

Re:Taxes: is there anything they can't do?

[nido (102070)]

Public education is underfunded.

Public schools do not educate, according to reformed schoolteachers like John Gatto [johntaylorgatto.com] and John Holt [holtgws.com]. If they did, the populace wouldn't take the crap [slashdot.org] that 'we' do - teh masses would know how to recognize tyranny when it happened, and find a way to circumvent it.

The government is in debt because of the tax "cuts" Bush pushed through.

The government has been in debt for a very long time - Johnson started printing money to pay for Vietnam, and there was no turning back. Clinton only balanced the budget by borrowing money from social security. If the government had to abide by the same accounting standards as corporations, there would have never been a 'surplus', and the current deficits would be much, much worse than the numbers they currently put out.

Our medical and college education costs are out of reach because ... because the government subsidizes college, and has sent all the low-skill jobs (that used to pay well) to Mexico and Asia, and has looked the other way while corporations imported Mexicans for the jobs that couldn't be moved. College has, therefore, become the new highschool diploma, not that the original ever meant anything in the first place...

we're spending our money on things like the War on Drugs(which just makes illegal drugs more expensive)

If not for the war on drugs driving up prices, how could the various black-op agencies finance their nefarious operations? Read something about Clinton being in on cocaine smuggling through Arkansas - seems like a possibility to me...

and the War on Terror(abject failure due to our inability to concentrate on the nation that actually caused the terror).

You are refering to the traitors in the whitehouse, right?

The United States has the lowest tax levels of the Western world. We also have the highest debt and the worst healthcare. There is a connection.

'Highest debt' is because our Feral Government has had free reign to "print" money for its various programs for 35+ years, and no one's had the ability to call them on it. See Ron Paul's The End of Dollar Hegemony [lewrockwell.com].

'Worst healthcare' is because a certain kind of doctor lobbied themselves a monopoly, and the government set the rules such that employers paid their employees' healthcare bills (wage ceilings during WWII led companies to pick up their workers' doctor bills). Medicare was created to pay for retired workers who'd gotten accustomed to the 'health insurance' paradigm, and that program's costs have been spiraling out of control ever since. See 100 Years of Medical Robbery [mises.org] and Real Medical Freedom [mises.org].

Re:

[killjoe (766577)]

"public education - the species got along fine without government schooling just fine for thousands of years"

No it didn't. Some people were educated but there was massive illiteracy. People clamored for public education precisely because so much of the country was filled with uneducated people.

"social security and medicare programs - how to punish people for getting old. My poor grandfather would've expired, were it not for Medicare paying for his defibrillator... I have three grandparents left, aged 86 to

Re:Taxes: is there anything they can't do?

[by Anonymous Coward]

I didn't see it mentioned in that article, but what Stern is actually proposing is a shift in taxes rather than a tax increase. Taxes would be increased on polluters, but that would be offset by tax breaks on low emission or energy efficient technology. It's a pretty common idea among the world's Green parties, so it's interesting to see it moving mainstream.

Twofer against

[Varitek (210013)]

This needs extensive scientific research and international co-operation. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is openly hostile to both.

EdGCM: NASA Global Warming Simulator on a Laptop

[HoneyBeeSpace (724189)]

If you'd like to run your own NASA Global Climate Model (GCM) on your own computer, the EdGCM [columbia.edu] project has ported a GCM to Mac & Windows and wrapped it in a GUI so you can point-and-click your way around. Turn the sun down or add some nitrogen, whatever you want...

We don't have an economics model attached so it isn't 100% relevant to TFA, but it will let you see the physical effects different CO2 and GHG scenarios will have on our planet.

Disclaimer: I'm a developer on the project.

I wish I could write this eloquently

[QuoteMstr (55051)]

This guy's views on the energy problem resonate strongly with my own. and I recommend that everyone take a look [jerf.org].

For convenience (and posterity) I've copied the article below. The emphasis is mine, but please read the whole thing.

Technological sustainability is one of the pressing issues of our time. Should we continue to use our natural resources with wild abandon, or should we try to be more careful with them so we don't lose them?

Since the answer to that question is basically a foregone conclusion when stated that way, how should we be more careful? What's the optimal strategy?

The two basic extremes are:

* Legislate sustainability, right now. The situation is so dire that we must deliberately bend as many resources as possible to the problem.
* Let the market take its course. As resources become rare, the price of that resource will rise, creating economic incentive to create alternatives. Eventually the Invisible Hand will sort things out.

My own thoughts on the subject are probably extreme enough in their own ways to guarantee that nearly everybody will find something to object to, but I think if you think about them they start to make more sense then most of what constitutes "debate" on this topic today.

First, there is much truth on both sides. Running out of resources is an issue, the more so because there are some resources for which a suitable replacement may never truly exist. (Petrochemicals come to mind as the big one here. Helium, oddly enough, is another, and it's even more fundamental then petrochemicals because it's actually an element and therefore can't be replenished with anything less then large-scale fusion (which may never happen) or cheap and easy space travel (ditto).)

On the other hand, the "Big Resource Crisis" that wacko environmentalists secretly (or not-so-secretly) hope will "teach us a lesson" is never going to happen because there are effectively no resources that have a big step function in them. There will never be a day where we wake up and the top news story of the day will be "There Is No More Oil". Instead, as the argument says, the price of resources will indeed increase over time, and we will seek out alternatives, possibly including simply going without (with all the attendant misery and death that statement euphemistically obscures).

How to harmonize these two points of view? The easiest way to think of it is with an overarching metaphor. (Yes, I've often spoken out against using metaphors, but this is the good kind: I use it to communicate an idea, not to reason with.)

Basically, we are in a race. In lane one, we have ever-increasing technological efficiency, and as we learn more we can more effectively place the upper bounds on how far that technology can go. The bad news is that a lot of science fiction is looking impossible: No teleportation, no faster-then-light travel, no magic propulsion. The good news is that the upper limits of nanotechnology are most likely higher then any 1960's science fiction author would have dared write about. I'd summarize it as "the ultimate limitation of technology's ability to manipulate matter will be limited solely by the minimum chemical energy required to do the manipulations". If our technology reaches its endgame, constructing petrochemicals will mostly be a matter of sticking in the right chemicals on one end, and applying the proper energy. (Of course, it's more likely that you will just go straight to the final product like plastic.)

In the other lane, we have ever-depleting supplies of resources that are currently unreplaceable, and without which we can not power the society we need to reach this technology level. If we run out of resources first, we lose.

Literally, the fate of the planet is at stake. Some people like to say that an entire other technological civilization like ours could have existed in the distan

As most engineers and doctors know...

[darekana (205478)]

Doctors know about the value of preventive medicine...
      it's a lot harder to fix someone when they have lung cancer than to stop them from smoking in the first place.

Engineers know the value of tests...
      all that "test first" design and building models, it saves having to repair crazy legacy code on live servers... or fix the bridge while cars are driving over it.

Unfortunately what we've got now is the latter situation...
      the patient is sick and cars are driving over him.

Re:

[tdemark (512406)]

he's not competent to judge the strength of the material he was relying on

That prerequisite doesn't seem to stop anyone here...

- Tony

Re:

[bcat24 (914105)]

You shouldn't be forming your opinion about grave issues from airport paperbacks.

Come now, this is Slashdot, after all. ;)

Cheaper for whom?

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

Sure it might be goverall cheaper to deal with global warming now than try to fix it later, but the problem is this: The people that would have to pay for it now, are not the people that would have to pay for it later. I can save five bucks now, why should I care about saving five hundred bucks for someone later? That is the mindset you're up against with anything like this. Greed is part of human nature (well at least the consumer driven parts of the human race).

The only way to correct for something like this is through taxation etc, where the law can be applied and force better behaviour.

Cheaper for you, still

[BeeBeard (999187)]

It makes sense because you will be paying for this, in your lifetime. It used to be easy to dismiss this as a "children and children's children" problem, but the fact is that the rate at which these changes are taking place as drastically increased, making this no longer the exclusive concern of those who have not been born yet. Sadly, ten years from now, "I told you so" will not be nearly as financially telling as the changes we put into place now.

This is from the article:

However the review says failure to act early could end up costing between 5% and 20% of global GDP and render large parts of the planet uninhabitable with poor nations hit first and hardest.

The article does not say when that is supposed to happen, and like everybody else here I haven't read the 700-page report that the article refers to, only the article itself. What I do know is that if the current world response to climate change doesn't change for the better soon, then you will start to see real consequences in the next several decades. If you don't plan on being alive 10-30 years from now (depending on the data you're relying on), then, well--I hope your life was successful and fulfilling. For the rest of us, we have a very real global problem on our hands that will become at least partially realized within our lifetimes. And you better believe we will be picking up the tab for it.

Re:Cheaper for you, still

[Coryoth (254751)]

For reference the report's outlook is to 2050 [bbc.co.uk]. That is to say the report concludes that it would cost 1% of the expected global GDP in 2050 to mitigate problems, while doing nothing is expected to result in global GDP being 5% to 20% lower in 2050. Anyone expecting to be alive for the next 44 years is going to be paying the costs according to this report - and we'll be paying costs sooner than that, just not at the 5% to 20% level. In essence doing nothing will mean the world will potentially be 1/5th less productive and wealthy in 2050 as it could otherwise have been.

Re:

[Dun Malg (230075)]

Before someone brings up the citations in Michael Crichton's State of Fear , which inevitably happens in global warming discussions here, let's remember that Crichton is not a scientist, he's not competent to judge the strength of the material he was relying on, and you shouldn't be forming your opinion about grave issues from airport paperbacks.

In the world of debate, the above would be classified an ad hominem argument. Someone not being an expert in the field is not proof that they're wrong. Debate the

Crichton's state of confusion.

[TapeCutter (624760)]

Yes, but most of us already know about him.

The requisite debunking [realclimate.org] and one reason why he does not deserve any respect [realclimate.org] on climate related matters.

To those screaming about their back pocket, how else can we direct the economy away from a destructive path other than taxation and regulation?

Re:

[Capsaicin (412918)]

>Yet he has no training in climatology. This is also false. Climatology is also actually a multidisciplanarian field; relying in part on the disciplines of anthropology and biology for gathering its evidence.

From which it does not follow that anyone trained in biology or anthropology can automatically claim to "have training in climatology." OP is quite correct in stating that Crighton has no training in climatology.

There is no authority in science. Only data.

That is naive on two levels, firstl

Re:

[cperciva (102828)]

I remember Stephen Hawking saying something about global warming [...] can somebody find the direct quote for me?

It was probably something along the lines of "Why are you asking me about global warming? I'm a physicist. If you have questions about global warming, go ask an atmospheric scientist."

Note: "smart guy" != "expert in everything".

Re:

[nzMM (1001625)]

James Lovelock in his 2006 book, the Revenge of Gaia (i found it fascinating) mentions that there are at least 6 forms of positive feedback known to science. Ice melting exposing dark soils beneath, ice melting releasing ancient methane, algae and tropical forests dieing, less cloud cover, expanding arctic dark forests -> absorb more heat, as well as others that haven't been identified by scientists.

It was even proposed that cleaning up particulate pollution over Europe could reveal a truer extent of

Re:

[Dun Malg (230075)]

"I'll fucking knock Steven Hawking out of that stupid chair. Then i'll say 'now who's smart? now who's fucking smart?'"

is that the one?

Re:Better off coping with a warmer planet

[Coryoth (254751)]

Our money is far, far better spent learning to cope with a warmer planet, assuming again that things are getting warmer and staying warmer.

That's an interesting assertion. The point of the report is that this precise question was studied in great depth by a well respected economist (Stern was a former chief economist for the World Bank), and that the results of all that detailed anaylsis is that, in fact, it is far more expensive to learn to cope with a warmer planet. I fail to see how you dismiss that result quite so easily - especially given that you have not read the report (it is not officially released till tomorrow).

Re:Better off coping with a warmer planet

[B.D.Mills (18626)]

Assuming global warming is true (a point I will neither defend nor oppose), the money spent on preventing global warming is a waste.

Not true.

The majority of the energy that the world consumes today is from non-renewable sources - coal, oil, uranium and so on. These sources of energy will be depleted eventually. In 100 years oil will be scarce, easily-extractable uranium may be in short supply and coal, although still plentiful, may not be used as widely for energy as it is now.

Even if one believes the most optimistic view (against all available evidence) that increasing the CO2 concentration from the preindustrial level of 280 ppm to a much higher level has no effect on the planet's climate and the ecology, one cannot deny that we will need new sources of renewable energy. If global warming provides us with an opportunity to implement renewable energy, it would provide economic stability for future generations.

Thus, the money would not be wasted. Instead, it should be considered as an insurance policy.

Re:

[WilliamSChips (793741)]

...Plant more trees?
(I hope that's what you're really suggesting here, it seems that way)

Re:

[Coryoth (254751)]

The review will not officially be released until tomorrow, so you can't get it yet. There is this webpage [hm-treasury.gov.uk] which will potentially host the report when it is released, and has intermediary papers and presentations by Stern in the meantime.

Re:Oil Replacement Needed First

[RAMMS+EIN (578166)]

``Oil replacement first, then reduction.''

I wonder if that reduction is even necessary (though I would say it's a good idea anyway). According to the CIA world factbook [cia.gov], the USA consumes about 4 trillion kWh of electricity each year. According to Wikipedia the energy content of biodiesel is about 35 MJ per liter [wikipedia.org]. For 4 trillion kWh, this works out to about 15 quads (the unit used by the UNH study [unh.edu]). To produce that much Biodiesel, according to the UNH study, we would need about 12000 square miles of desert land. This is a very rough approximation; converting Biodiesel to electricity is not 100% efficient, energy consumption has changed since the CIA world factbook was updated, we don't need to go all the way to Biodiesel to generate electricity (just using the oil extracted from the algae, or even the algae themselves, should work), etc. etc.

So, give or take, for transportation and electricity combined, we need about 30000 square miles of desert land. We have that much. And this is for the USA, which, to my knowledge, has the highest energy consumption per capita.

Re:

[clickclickdrone (964164)]

>uncertain climate science
Actually, no. As An Inconvenient truth points out, out of 900+ reports on global warming, the number of scientists that disagree with the issue and the number of reports that find their are uncertainties is 0%. On the other hand, it goes on to show that the number of news articles in the media that claim doubt is well over 50% (63% from memory but don't quote me on that). It then moves on to a US govt official (now resigned) who had deliberately edited documents to add uncerta