[Anthony Butler]

The average Western European's carbon footprint is almost half that of the average US citizen is due to three major factors:

Serious question -- what is their average economic output/person?

The more relevant comparison is GDP per capita. Here's the latest stats from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

As you can see the top 10 is comprised of 6 Western European countries, three countries rich in natural resources (and not a lot of people) and the US in 9th place. The next 10 are 7 Western European countries. 1 resource rich country, another country that is essentially a large trading port and Japan.

You can, of course, distort the meaning of this question by including EU countries like Belarus and all the former Iron Curtain countries who were essentially operating third world economies until very recently

How about we pick three countries that are relatively similar to the US -- the UK, France, and Germany. Do you know what the ratio of their per capita carbon footprint is to their per capita GDP, and how that stacks up against the US?  I have no idea what the answer is, but that seems to be at least a relevant comparison.

That is a relevant comparison. Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions

France in about 9th place. The UK 20th. Germany approx. 35th And the US about 80th.

I would attribute this to the fact that other countries don't have one major political party operating as the lobbying arm of the hydro-carbon based energy industry.

[Doug Siebert]

John,

What, where did evolution come from?

The burden of proof for global warming is on those who are making the case for spending lots of money to reduce CO2 emissions, because it will be very costly and would require restructuring of the world economy on a large scale.  Its an either/or, either the believers are right or the deniers are right, there is no way they can both be wrong, anymore than a guy betting on heads and a guy betting on tails for a coin flip can both be wrong.

For evolution this is not the case.  The "debate", such as it is, isn't an either/or.  Evolution being wrong wouldn't imply those trying to use the Bible as a science textbook are right.  It also wouldn't require restructuring of the world economy and vast expense, just a reprinting of biology books.

[David_Elvins]

The burden of proof for global warming is on those who are making the case for spending lots of money to reduce CO2 emissions, because it will be very costly and would require restructuring of the world economy on a large scale.

I am open minded on the whole global warming thing, but I am intrigued by this argument, how would reducing CO2 emisions be more costly to society in general (in the long term)? 

[Sean_A]

Yes, it is difficult to measure the cost of using oil as the base for the economy because few governments ever admit that some diplomacy is driven by the need for easy access to relatively cheap oil.  Who knows what the price of that diplomacy is especially when folks such as myself consider military action a (hopefully) last step act of diplomacy. 

Ciao

[Tom Birkert]

The burden of proof for global warming is on those who are making the case for spending lots of money to reduce CO2 emissions, because it will be very costly and would require restructuring of the world economy on a large scale.

I am open minded on the whole global warming thing, but I am intrigued by this argument, how would reducing CO2 emisions be more costly to society in general (in the long term)?  

Because the cost is huge. Absolutely immense. Trillions of dollars.

If the Kyoto Protocol had been followed absolutely precisely, it would have delayed the predicted warning from 2100 until...... Drumroll....... 2106.

Trillions of dollars. For 6 years.

Mankind historically flourishes in warm times and suffers in cold times. Warming benefits the world. Much better to be coming out of a little ice age, as we are, than to be entering the ice age we are due for.

I am still waiting for empirical proof that anything we've seen over the past 30 years can be attributed to anything but natural variation. Models don't count, they are only good at hindcasting. They've failed spectacularly at future predictions.

And I state 30 years because it's the only period of time we have semi reliable data for. The data itself is a separate issue. We really don't have anywhere near enough data to make the sort of huge decisions we are. There aren't enough data sets, the data is "adjusted" and the data is for only a fraction of time. 30 years. The planet is about 4,500,000,000 years old. It's impossible to take a 30 year data set and state that ANYTHING happening during that time is "unprecedented". It's not statistically significant. It will take hundreds of years before we begin to have enough data - and good enough data - to make any sort of conclusions. All data should be open source, and not adjusted. The urban heat island effect should also be properly accounted for.

Peer review. Or pal review, as it should be called in the case of climatology. As Prof Jones so eloquently stated "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !" Anyone trying to defend this statement instantly loses credibility. It's shocking. It has no part of the scientific process.

I have tried to stay out of this but I gave in eventually, to my chagrin.

A word of advice to the believers. Stop using the word deniers. It does you no favours, and is one of the main reasons why public support for the notion of man made global warming is tumbling.

No one denies the climate is changing. It always has and it always will. However, before we commit to spending trillions of pounds it would be best to show, definitively, that the warming is something outside of the natural variation and furthermore to do with Man. All we have thus far is theories and hypotheses, and absolutely no empirical proof.

I hate pollution and I hate the destruction of rain forests. I also hate the fact that CO2 has been demonised when it is a vital trace gas without which there would be no life on Earth.

[David_Elvins]

Because the cost is huge. Absolutely immense. Trillions of dollars.

Thanks Tom,  But what is it that actually costs money? 

And why is a monetary cost important?  Isn't that just a redistribution of money, from those that produce CO2 to those that dont? 

What is the actual cost of reducing CO2?  How would we be worse off?  How would people in developing countries be worse off? 

[Tom Birkert]

Because the cost is huge. Absolutely immense. Trillions of dollars.

Thanks Tom,  But what is it that actually costs money? 

And why is a monetary cost important?  Isn't that just a redistribution of money, from those that produce CO2 to those that dont? 

What is the actual cost of reducing CO2?  How would we be worse off?  How would people in developing countries be worse off? 

Well the cost is that you can't fly to England or Scotland to play golf. You can't fly anywhere. People in developing countries aren't allowed to raise their standard of living because in doing so, their emissions shoot up. They are denied access to cheap energy.

The cost is that you can't drive a car. Or eat meat. Or use the heating / air conditioning as much as you want to. The internet? That's bad too.

Make no mistake, we simply cannot change to a zero CO2 economy. Without CO2, there is no economy.

So it's basically a choice between everything you enjoy in life or nothing, taking your standard of living back to the Dark Ages - and taxing you hugely with it.

Nuclear power is vital, and needs to be invested in hugely. It's the only hope, because solar and wind just don't work - they are hugely subsidised because otherwise they fail. Wind power in particular is an amazing con.

In the US you're ok. In the UK our previous government legally committed us to spending £18,000,000,000 each and every year until 2050 to try and deal with this alleged problem. The UK is responsible for 2% of Man's CO2 emissions. It's the biggest waste of money in history.

[David_Elvins]

Well the cost is that you can't fly to England or Scotland to play golf. You can't fly anywhere.
People in developing countries aren't allowed to raise their standard of living because in doing so, their emissions shoot up. They are denied access to cheap energy.  The cost is that you can't drive a car. Or eat meat. Or use the heating / air conditioning as much as you want to. The internet? That's bad too.Make no mistake, we simply cannot change to a zero CO2 economy. Without CO2, there is no economy.
So it's basically a choice between everything you enjoy in life or nothing, taking your standard of living back to the Dark Ages - and taxing you hugely with it.  Nuclear power is vital, and needs to be invested in hugely. It's the only hope, because solar and wind just don't work - they are hugely subsidised because otherwise they fail. Wind power in particular is an amazing con.
In the US you're ok. In the UK our previous government legally committed us to spending £18,000,000,000 each and every year until 2050 to try and deal with this alleged problem. The UK is responsible for 2% of Man's CO2 emissions. It's the biggest waste of money in history.

Wow.  not sure what to say.  doesn't really answer my question but thanks, interesting to read. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Is it me or is today getting warmer? Must be Spring about to drive off the Tee, Whatever, May The Force be with You, because no Goverment will, thats for certain.

Have a nice day, the Sun is out, what a day to walk a course.

Melvyn

[Jeff Taylor]

Tom Birkert provides a well written and thought out response to those that wish to convert to renewables through force. While some may argue that transferring wealth is not a cost, I suggest you speak to someone whose wealth will be transferred. I bet they see it as a cost.

[Craig Van Egmond]

1/3 of russians say sun revolves around earth..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/14/russia_poll/

Global warming will not cause 'permanant El Nino'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/14/no_permanent_el_ninos/

[Melvyn Morrow]

The world must be flat otherwise balls would all roll towards the South – stands to reason as otherwise  Australia would be known as the world capital for used Golf Balls!!

Melvyn

[Anthony Butler]

Because the cost is huge. Absolutely immense. Trillions of dollars.

Thanks Tom,  But what is it that actually costs money? 

And why is a monetary cost important?  Isn't that just a redistribution of money, from those that produce CO2 to those that dont? 

What is the actual cost of reducing CO2?  How would we be worse off?  How would people in developing countries be worse off? 

Well the cost is that you can't fly to England or Scotland to play golf. You can't fly anywhere. People in developing countries aren't allowed to raise their standard of living because in doing so, their emissions shoot up. They are denied access to cheap energy.

The cost is that you can't drive a car. Or eat meat. Or use the heating / air conditioning as much as you want to. The internet? That's bad too.

Make no mistake, we simply cannot change to a zero CO2 economy. Without CO2, there is no economy.

Reading through your various levels of dissembling on this issue has been a chore. The idea that the accumulated opinion of every reputable scientists or scientific institution in the world having to 'prove' something to your pea-sized brain is laughable...

The fact of the matter is the activities you mention will become cost prohibitive and unavailable to all simply because we are using the hydro-carbon resources on earth quicker than nature replaces them. I;m sure the concept of supply and demand has not escaped you.

The point of making them somewhat cost prohibitive now is that we create an incentive and financial means to create non-CO2 producing avenues for continuing these activities before everyone turns into an extra from Mad Max over a tank of gas.

The notion that this will lead to a transfer of wealth is complete and utter bullshit. The people with capital and intelligence will profit from this turn of events just like they always do. And for the record, Al Gore did not get wealthy over stoking fears that climate change will kill us all. He made about $50m out of his Google options alone. As it turns out, 2000 was very good time to not become President of the US, at least for him...

[Craig Van Egmond]

"The notion that this will lead to a transfer of wealth is complete and utter bullshit. The people with capital and intelligence will profit from this turn of events just like they always do. And for the record, Al Gore did not get wealthy over stoking fears that climate change will kill us all. He made about $50m out of his Google options alone. As it turns out, 2000 was very good time to not become President of the US, at least for him... "


You are correct in that the rich will still get richer, like always it will be the rest of us left to pay the tab. The less you make the more painful it will be.

50 million seems like chump change for the guy who invented the Internet.  No Internet means no Google.

[John Kirk]

You know who really invented the Internet?  DOE physicists, that's who.

[Craig Van Egmond]

You know who really invented the Internet?  DOE physicists, that's who.

Yep, them wild and crazy cats at ARPA.  Little did they know what would become of their little baby...

[John Kirk]

My dad worked at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, one of the first hubs for the ARPAnet.  Little did they know what they were building.  They just wanted an easy way to deliver research electronically.  Now rank amateurs use it to debate global warming.

[Craig Van Egmond]

John,
    I actually had dinner with your dad at Bandon shortly after Pacific Dunes opened. he was very interesting gentlemen to talk to. He talked alot about Stanford.

[John Kirk]

Nice.  He wasn't around much longer after that.  We visited Pacific Dunes for three consecutive August trip around that time.

[Anthony Butler]

You know who really invented the Internet?  DOE physicists, that's who.

Yep, them wild and crazy cats at ARPA.  Little did they know what would become of their little baby...

I made a film about Vint Cerf–perhaps the main guy responsible for inventing internet communications protocol (TC/IP) when he was at ARPA. He was at MCI at the time. He's been a Google for almost a decade now and has done rather well I imagine.

Al Gore never said he invented the Internet BTW. He was the chair of the committee that funded its existence, then fostered its developmemt as a commercial medium while serving as VP. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 being one example of this. You'd have to say that Mark Andreesen of Netscape was also instrumental in the move towards commercializing the Internet... he made a few bucks out of it as well.

Considering Tom Hicks paid George Bush about 150% of what the Texas Rangers were worth so he could become Governor of Texas and then rode the team into bankruptcy despite the exponential growth of baseball during that time, I'd have to say that Gore's path to wealth seems a little cleaner in comparison.


 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Dang Anthony, we haven't had a good Bush bash in awhile. Us pea brains need to always be reminded where stand. Thanks for being so smart and sharing it here.
Like you I think we should all stop using anything that produces CO2. Please tell us how you do that so we can follow your lead. (I think those trucks they drive in Mad Max are cool and I aint scared.)

[Tom Birkert]

Reading through your various levels of dissembling on this issue has been a chore. The idea that the accumulated opinion of every reputable scientists or scientific institution in the world having to 'prove' something to your pea-sized brain is laughable...

The fact of the matter is the activities you mention will become cost prohibitive and unavailable to all simply because we are using the hydro-carbon resources on earth quicker than nature replaces them. I;m sure the concept of supply and demand has not escaped you.

The point of making them somewhat cost prohibitive now is that we create an incentive and financial means to create non-CO2 producing avenues for continuing these activities before everyone turns into an extra from Mad Max over a tank of gas.

The notion that this will lead to a transfer of wealth is complete and utter bullshit. The people with capital and intelligence will profit from this turn of events just like they always do. And for the record, Al Gore did not get wealthy over stoking fears that climate change will kill us all. He made about $50m out of his Google options alone. As it turns out, 2000 was very good time to not become President of the US, at least for him...

Is there any need to resort to personal abuse? Just because I have a different opinion, why does that mean I have a "pea brain"? It's precisely this sort of attitude which alienates the majority of people.

All I'm asking for is empirical proof, not a hypothesis or a theory. I'd say that was the minimum we needed before undertaking such a huge financial spree. It would, of course, help if the role of clouds was fully understood. The same clouds which make up by far the largest part of the greenhouse effect. If we can't understand the role of them, what chance have we got?

As for Mr Gore, he's done very well for himself. Especially with carbon trading companies. I'll take him - and others of his ilk - a lot more seriously when they stop flying around by private jet and buying multi million dollar seaside mansions. He can't be that worried about sea rise can he? One of my favourite Al Gore quotes is this one:

"but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, because the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees"

Yep. Real smart cookie is Al.

[Buck Wolter]

Because the cost is huge. Absolutely immense. Trillions of dollars.

Thanks Tom,  But what is it that actually costs money? 

And why is a monetary cost important?  Isn't that just a redistribution of money, from those that produce CO2 to those that dont? 

What is the actual cost of reducing CO2?  How would we be worse off?  How would people in developing countries be worse off? 

Well the cost is that you can't fly to England or Scotland to play golf. You can't fly anywhere. People in developing countries aren't allowed to raise their standard of living because in doing so, their emissions shoot up. They are denied access to cheap energy.

The cost is that you can't drive a car. Or eat meat. Or use the heating / air conditioning as much as you want to. The internet? That's bad too.

Make no mistake, we simply cannot change to a zero CO2 economy. Without CO2, there is no economy.

Reading through your various levels of dissembling on this issue has been a chore. The idea that the accumulated opinion of every reputable scientists or scientific institution in the world having to 'prove' something to your pea-sized brain is laughable...

The fact of the matter is the activities you mention will become cost prohibitive and unavailable to all simply because we are using the hydro-carbon resources on earth quicker than nature replaces them. I;m sure the concept of supply and demand has not escaped you.

The point of making them somewhat cost prohibitive now is that we create an incentive and financial means to create non-CO2 producing avenues for continuing these activities before everyone turns into an extra from Mad Max over a tank of gas.

The notion that this will lead to a transfer of wealth is complete and utter bullshit. The people with capital and intelligence will profit from this turn of events just like they always do. And for the record, Al Gore did not get wealthy over stoking fears that climate change will kill us all. He made about $50m out of his Google options alone. As it turns out, 2000 was very good time to not become President of the US, at least for him...

Talk about hubris -- it takes alot of it for you to start lecturing about supply and demand. This whole thing is about how to take the market out of it and get people to change their behavior based on what a few people think is the right answer, damn the facts. The real economic principle that is at stake here is 'dead weight loss' -- and there is a huge amount of it as Washington and the self-annointed smart people pick the winners and the losers.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tom,
Clouds?
Seed the clouds and dry-land crops grow better and more snow for ski resorts. I remember when I was a kid and and CA was in a bad drought. Seed the clouds and fill the soil full of polymers, that's what the white coats said to do then. (especially the white coats with logos)

[Steve Lang]

Rainmaking 2011..

from http://www.livescience.com/10398-rainmaking-middle-eastern-desert-success-scam.html




and it'll be some time before we run out of energy resources, so don't kid yourself that Mad Max's world occurs for any reason other than complete anarchy and destruction of the industrial complex..

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal



Believed approximate position of the proto-continents toward the end of the Carboniferous period; the light blue represents shallow seas where many of today's coal deposits are found, as opposed to deeper waters which gave rise to oil-bearing rocks derived from marine species. The ice caps were known to be very large, lowering sea levels extensively by locking up oceanic waters into solid ice, though how large the ice caps became is a matter of debate

and some more data to chew on (and maybe spit out!)

Title: Oil reserves by country at the end of 2009.
Definition: Oil reserves in billions of barrels.
Source: Collected and Compiled by Europe's Energy Portal
History: 2008


Ranking: Country: Amount:
1  Saudi Arabia  263.8    
2  Venezuela  172.3    
3  Iran  139.4    
4  Iraq  117.8    
5  Kuwait  103.5    
6  United Arab Emirates  99.5    
7  Russian Federation  75.3    
8  Libya  43.1    
9  Kazakhstan  40.1    
10  Nigeria  36.5    
11  Canada  33.5    
12  United States  27.9    
13  Qatar  27.6    
14  China  14.9    
15  Angola  13.5    
16  Brazil  13.0    
17  Algeria  12.3    
18  Mexico  11.5    
19  Norway  7.2    
20  Azerbaijan  7.0    
21  Ecuador  6.6    
22  Sudan  6.6    
23  India  5.8    
24  Oman  5.7    
25  Egypt  4.4    
26  Australia  4.2    
27  Gabon  3.7    
27  United Kingdom  3.0    
29  Yemen  2.6    
30  Argentina  2.6    
31  Syria  2.5    
32  Rep. of Congo (Brazzaville)  2.0    
33  Equatorial Guinea  1.7    
34  Colombia  1.3    
35  Peru  1.1    
36  Brunei  1.0    
37  Chad  0.9    
38  Italy  0.9    
39  Denmark  0.9    
40  Trinidad & Tobago  0.8    
41  Turkmenistan  0.6    
42  Uzbekistan  0.6    
43  Tunisia  0.6    
44  Romania  0.5    

Title: Natural gas reserves by country by the end of 2009.
Definition: Proven reserves in trillion cubic meters.
Source: Collected and Compiled by Europe's Energy Portal
History: 2008


Ranking: Country: Amount:
1  Russian Federation  44.9    
2  Iran  29.0    
3  Qatar  25.2    
4  Saudi Arabia  8.1    
5  Turkmenistan  8.0    
6  United States  7.0    
7  United Arab Emirates  6.6    
8  Venezuela  5.5    
9  Nigeria  5.1    
10  Algeria  4.5    
11  Iraq  3.2    
12  Indonesia  3.1    
13  Australia  3.0    
14  Malaysia  2.4    
15  China  2.4    
16  Egypt  2.2    
17  Norway  2.0    
18  Kazakhstan  1.8    
19  Canada  1.8    
20  Kuwait  1.7    
21  Uzbekistan  1.7    
22  Libya  1.5    
23  Azerbaijan  1.3    
24  Netherlands  1.1    
25  India  1.1    
26  Oman  1.0    
27  Ukraine  1.0    
27  Pakistan  0.9    
29  Vietnam  0.7    
30  Bolivia  0.7    
31  Romania  0.6    
32  Myanmar  0.6    
33  Yemen  0.5    
34  Mexico  0.5    
35  Papua New Guinea  0.5    
36  Trinidad & Tobago  0.4    
37  Argentina  0.4    
38  Brazil  0.4    
39  Thailand  0.4    
40  Brunei  0.4    
41  Bangladesh  0.3    
42  Peru  0.3    
43  United Kingdom  0.3    
44  Syria  0.3    
45  Colombia  0.1    
46  Poland  0.1    
47  Bahrain  0.1    
48  Germany  0.1    
49  Italy  0.1    
50  Denmark  0.1    

Title: Coal Proved Reserves by end of 2009
Definition: Proved Reserves in Million tonnes
Total: Anthracite, bituminous, Sub-bituminous and lignite
Source: Collected and Compiled by Europe's Energy Portal
History: 2008


Ranking: Country: Amount:
1  US  243,069    
2  Russian Federation  156,994    
3  China  113,209    
4  Australia  76,367    
5  India  57,955    
6  Ukraine  32,988    
7  Kazakhstan  31,626    
8  South Africa  30,713    
9  Poland  7,574    
10  Brazil  7,001    
11  Canada  6,763    
12  Colombia  6,672    
13  Germany  6,560    
14  Czech Republic  4,550    
15  Indonesia  4,415    
16  Greece  3,942    
17  Hungary  3,291    
18  Pakistan  2,090    
19  Bulgaria  1,963    
20  Turkey  1,832    
21  Thailand  1,344    
22  Mexico  1,227    
23  North Korea  609    
24  New Zealand  566    
25  Spain  541    
26  Zimbabwe  502    
27  Venezuela  479    
27  Romania  398    
29  Japan  360    
30  United Kingdom  152    
31  Vietnam  151    
32  South Korea  132    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()