So begins Paul Krugman, in a column titled "Interests, Ideology and Climate," and I was going to complain about NYT columns that hook us with the announcement that there's a list to follow but then the list isn't list-y enough. It doesn't pop with numbers and boldface and the other format conventions of the genre known as listicle.
But in fact, Krugman gets the second and third item out in the next 2 sentences: "Second, in pure economic terms the required action shouldn’t be hard to take: emission controls, done right, would probably slow economic growth, but not by much. Third, the politics of action are nonetheless very difficult."
So, good enough. It's not like I'm a fan of listicles. It's just that I'm annoyed by the invitation to a listicle that utterly buries the items, as exemplified by Thomas Friedman's new column "5 Principles for Iraq." Try finding the five items: "the first is... The second principle for me derives from... Principle No. 3... Fourth:... Finally...." He doesn't even say "5" or "Fifth," just "Finally"!
Is that supposed to feel erudite? Anyway, there's some interesting material in there, like, "in Iraq today, my enemy’s enemy is my enemy," which means what you think it means: Sunnis and Shiites killing each other is good news. Or, no, he can't say that. He says Sunni nor Shiite leaders are bad. And it's because they don't share our values. They are not "inclusive." The leaders are not inclusive, that is.
So enough with the not-quite-listicles bugaboo. I'm going to take Krugman's first thing absolutely seriously. We need "quick action to limit carbon emissions." Here's my proposal: Everyone who cares about man-made global warming should abstain from air travel. Look at this chart, from a 2013 article titled "Your Biggest Carbon Sin May Be Air Travel":
Sin! That's a heavy-handed word, but once you know the facts, if you are certain (as Paul Krugman is) of the calamity that is man-made global warming, it is a sin to continue to travel by air. I'm using moral suasion here, but many of those who believe as Krugman does support government intervention in markets, and it would be easy to propose taxes on air travel. How about extremely heavy taxes, used to support much better roads for the cars and buses we should be using?
Why am I saying we should be using cars and buses? Because cars and buses are what get us to work and through the errands of daily life in and around where we live. Airplanes are for those longer trips, which are almost entirely dispensable. They are frivolities that have no place in the current emergency.
Quick action is needed: Everyone stop flying now.
Posts
112 comments:
Krugman can't stop flying, he's high as a kite and unlikely to return to earth anytime soon.
Wait. Ask the East Coast columnists and the Hollywood stars to stop flying? Haw gauche! How will people in far-flung luxury resorts make a living? How will they descend from the clouds to allow us to touch the hems of their garments and kiss their rings? How will they make $200k per speech if they can't show up?
frivolities = things other people do.
Has Obama or the Democratic leadership pushed for a higher tax on airfare? Disguise is as more fees for the FAA or aviation infrastructure. It seems like low-hanging fruit. An obscure tax to attack a big source of carbon.
Paraphrasing Glenn R
I'd be more convinced it was a crisis, when the people telling me it's a crisis, actually behave as though its a crisis...
How many tons of CO2 did Obama produce when he flew to Palm Springs to attend a fundraiser and play golf last weekend? If he was serious about reducing CO2 emissions, he wouldn't do such things. We're talking about him taking a 747 (and one of the least fuel efficient versions of the 747 at that) on a round trip between DC and California, along with the necessary military transport plane(s) necessary to carry the presidential limo and/or helicopter.
Until the people who claim it's a crisis start living like it's a crisis, I'm going to continue living my life as I please, to include air travel when necessary. They can all kiss my ass.
1 simple question for the AGW'ers: Why has there been no warming for over 17.5 years?
(Be sure to show your work...no more "gee, we lost all the raw data that we used for all of our models")
Side note: lots of data sure gets lost/misplaced in the obama/"man-made global warming" era, doesn't it?
Second, in pure economic terms the required action shouldn’t be hard to take: emission controls, done right, would probably slow economic growth, but not by much.
Leaving aside uncertainty over the accuracy of existing climate models, my understanding has been that the emissions controls that are commonly proposed (and sometimes implemented) fall far short of what would be needed to reverse warming under current models. At best they push the same predicted level of warming back, what, a couple of decades, if that? A real solution has to involve either carbon sequestration technology and some level of geoengineering, or the deaths of billions.
All that aside, banning air travel would be one way to lower carbon emissions dramatically, yes. Also taxing clothes dryers heavily, and promoting traditional-style architecture with deep overhangs and shades and cross-breezes.
Not just flying! We need to stop driving cars, boats, and trains. We need to stop building houses, offices, roads, bridges, and factories. We need to stop mass producing food, and medicine. We all need to move back into the woods and live like the Amish. All of us, that is, except for a small elite group of brilliant oligarchs like Paul Krugman, Al Gore, and Nancy Pelosi who should be given special dispensation because they are our betters. They are our high priests of the new religion of global warming. And even if we do as our high priests command, it's likely we will still be under 20 feet of water in a few years!
Krugman Friedman and the socialist urban elite have got us by the listicles and are squeezing hard.
Sorry, but there is a climate conference in Tahiti and they have those drinks with the little umbrellas, so I am going to have to say "no."
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/walking-walk-warmist-mann-to-warmist.html
The real objective is to get us out of our cars and in to choo choos which will carry us from center city to center city where we are all supposed to live. Cars are bad. Suburbs are especially bad.
Airplanes are OK actually, because they will carry us to those far flung European cities where we can learn how being crammed together in city centers is a good thing, something to aspire to.
Also airplanes get us to our speaking engagements where we can earn six figures in less than an hour.
Isn't that very first item a classic, perfect example of question begging?
Paul Krugman is as correct about his climate hysteria as he is about every other topic; that is to say, 99% wrong.
First, the "science" of global warming is mostly fraudulent. Everything is based on mathematical models which have proven themselves useless. Given data from the past, they fail to "predict" the present.
Second, most of the supposed "data" is synthetic. Thermometers are a relatively recent invention, so for any supposed "measurement" over about 250 years, scientists need to develop some sort of proxy data. Something like tree growth rings. Now, even a modern thermometer is hard-pressed to measure to the tenth of a degree; proxy data, to the extent that it is useful at all, is much less precise.
Third, much of the proxy data has been fraudulently obtained. Some of the "scientists" have selected a small number of unrepresentative samples because they fit the desired result.
Fourth, most of the Warmists are "deniers" themselves; they deny the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, during which the Earth was warmer than it is now. They also deny the existence of the "little ice age", or that sunspot cycles (and variations like the Maunder Miniimum) could have any effect on the climate.
Finally, the noisiest of the Warmists are not scientists at all. Al Gore, for example, flunked out of divinity school before going into politics. That's why he cloaks everything he does in terms of RELIGIOUS beliefs. Althouse does the same thing here, referring to this as "sin", which is an entirely religious concept.
A great listicle would be rebrandings that "global warming" has undergone, and why.
First, it was the term "climate change". While the critics of that rebranding focus on replacing the word "warming" with "change" (to eliminate any particular directionality and to encompass weather instability), expungement of the word "global" is also key. If the problem is global, then unilateral action is not effective. Can't have that under the current regulatory regime.
Next, it was rebranding the harm as a public health threat. You saw this subtle change if you listened carefully to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy on Bill Maher this week.
What's interesting about this is the asserted but not often mentioned causality of the public health threat. It's not that CO2 is a poison or that higher CO2 levels directly harm people. It's that higher temperatures cause more plant life, and more plant life causes more pollen in the air, and more pollen in the air causes more asthma!
Seriously, check it out.
Airplane travel causes pollen!
I think there are four important questions to answer about global warming.
(1) Is the earth's climate warming (or is it "changing"), and if so, how much?
(2) To what extent is the climate's change the result of man's actions (e.g., carbon emissions) as opposed to natural phenomena?
(3) What are the consequences of taking no government action to address climate change?
(4) If it is desirable to address climate change with government action, what effective government actions can be taken and how much do they cost?
Climate science is incredibly complex, so while there might be significant scientific opinion, even consensus, about questions 1 and 2 -- although there is reason to be skeptical about both -- I do not think there has been any serious agreement about questions 3 and 4. Most of the alarmist commentary about question 3 is strikingly similar to the end-times rhetoric coming from crazy Christian apocalyptic types. And there's basically no serious answer to question 4, although there are numerous green energy firms more than happy to pretend that they're on the cusp of solutions, if only the government would give them millions of dollars in funding.
Those air travel carbon numbers are averages. Since the part of the plane where Krugman and Friedman travel uses 3-5 times as much floor space as the average, and correspondingly more carbon per seat as a result. We think that if Paul and Tom have to continue to globe trot they should do so in coach.
There's a leap from "Everyone who cares about man-made global warming should abstain from air travel." to "Everyone stop flying now."
Not everyone will enjoy the car ride across Nebraska. They'll need incentives, and I would suggest that the biggest incentive to drive would be to allow smoking on flights once again.
At a minimum frequent flyer discounts should me made illegal, shouldn't they, if you believe in AGW?
"The consequences will be terrible."
I disagree.
We hear lots of anecdotal claims of warmer being worse (more hurricanes & tornadoes, etc.), but many of these claims turn out to be statistically false.
Given the choice, I would chose warmer over the same or colder temperatures in Wisconsin. I'm not a denier. This is a reasoned choice for a more comfortable environment in my old age.
The arrogant stupidity of "intellectuals" has been exposed. First by their swallowing nonsense from Sc-fi cartoonists dreams about the end of the world, and next by doubling down on the delusion that trace CO2 is a heat trapping pollutant as the the earth slips into a mini ice age while they cling to their first belief and hope that more and more silly propaganda will stop the truth from coming out.
England is now facing brown outs and electrical rationing of already tripled costs electrical power, all from replacing innocent carbon based generation plants with useless windmills meant only to enrich a few insider cronies.
Obama will have the same outcome happen here next year if Congress does not rise up and stop his lawless EPA's rape of coal power.
There will be terrible consequences someday if other people don't take quick action.
Althouse posts her own inconvenient truth.
I love it!
No problem. I've never been able to fly. Once jumped off the roof with a beach umbrella and that didn't work, either.
I think these guys are wrong about most of the global warming stuff (that it will be a catastrophe, that it is a problem that needs to be solved, that the solutions they have proposed are the right ones and finally that they have even proven that we are warming significantly at all)
So I will continue to fly where I like thankyouverymuch.
I love how Democrats like to say, "If done right."
So many political proscriptions can be dismissed because they weren't done right.
Communism would've worked, if done right!
Obamacare would've worked, if done right!
What a great way to excuse all failures. They never get around to telling us though the exact, perfect, right way it should be done before it's done. Only after the fact can we see so clearly why our "if done right" idea wasn't quite done right.
Now that the FAA is basing air traffic controller hiring on diversity vs. experience, like some of our armed forces has,I actually may have to agree with Ann.
Silly Drago, the heat is trapped in the oceans! Lurking, waiting to be released. Shame I didn't read the Insty link about volcanoes.
Have you buried a tree today?
Reminds me of (1)a story from a few years ago that Sting, committed proponent of the looming global warming disaster, had a private jet on standby so that after every show he could jet home to the wife and kids, no matter where he was performing. Don't get me wrong: Kudos to Sting for being a family man. I just don't want to be lectured by he and the rest of his hypocritical ilk; and (2) Al Gore's 26k sq ft, spotlighted mansion. One pundit actually said something along the lines of, "Hey, come one. Gore is a millionaire. He should be able to do what he likes." Again, don't get me wrong: Kudos to Al Gore, millionaire conspicuous consumer. I just don't want to have to listen to his crapola any more.
Two reasons climate change legislation never passes.
1. Even if the U.S. cut its carbon admissions by 90%, China and India keep emitting more than we cut. Progressives believe if the U.S. leads, our actions will persuade India and China to reform. This is beyond naïve, but consonant with the progressive approach to foreign policy.
2. The elite, like the average citizenry, will not cut their lifestyle to reduce carbon emissions. If the elite force it on the citizenry but continue their jet-setting lifestyle, there will be nowhere for the elite to hide.
Krugman's blithe hand waving regarding the ease of the "solution" (point 2) reminds me of a Monty Python children's show.
Host Eric Idle tells the kiddies how to cure all known diseases.
First, become a doctor and find a marvelous cure for something. And then when the medical community really sits up and takes notice, make sure that they get everything right and there will be no diseases ever again.
I would limit that to politicians and celebrities flying. The others may be doing something of value.
Why has there been no warming for over 17.5 years?
This statement is inaccurate on its face. But if you really want an explanation of what is happening (which I doubt) try this article
Friedman owns a giant mansion in Maryland: http://wonkette.com/413811/this-is-literally-thomas-friedmans-house
He is fabulously wealthy. He married Ann Bucksbaum, heir to a fortune made by financing suburban shopping malls. I reckon that Friedman's lifestyle produces as much carbon pollution in one week as I produce in a year.
Friedman claims that he "pays for" his carbon-heavy lifestyle by buying carbon credits. I can't afford carbon credits. In Friedman's world, only the rich are allowed to pollute without damaging the environment, and it's wicked to be poor.
Is it permissible to "shop around" for carbon credits? You wouldn't want to pay a third world country to not chop down 100 trees when you can achieve the same glow of moral superiority by paying a third world country to not chop down 50 trees.
So Mr. Enron thinks it's good to slow down the economy and raise the price of food?
Well, I certainly would be in favor of curtailing the First Family's flying somewhat. Previous presidents have also flown, but never anything like this - especially for private jaunts or on purely Party business.
if you believe in the fraud that is so-called "man-made global warming" then you must realize that not only are you a part of the problem, but you ARE the problem. By why stop at limiting your air and vehicle travel. Put your fucking money where you mouth is, or better yet, put the business end of a shotgun where your mouth is and cease being a problem.
Don't worry about the afterlife, either. There will be 72 nasty-ass unshaven and unshowered hippies waiting for you on the other side.
Yes, we can!
Here are some modest proposals:
-No more cars except for important and necessary officials. The Global Community Technology Initiative will phase automobiles out by 2020.
-Mandatory light rail and green buses will begin operating on subsidized oil for a while, then electric and battery as the technology comes online.
***On some hills, wind power may be able to push the buses along, lowering energy costs.
-Bi-monthly Community Council meetings and public outreach centers will be created where problems can be addressed by the community as this project moves forward.
-Advertising space will cover some costs and public outlets such as NPR and the People's Lottery will leave space for morally uplifting poems and random acts of Creativity.
***I've been informed we may require a large machine to destroy all cars if the goals aren't reached by 2020.
Jobs! It's be like the Hoover Dam or Three Gorges.
******I've been informed by the utilitarians that a few people each year may need to be fed to the machine in order to keep it running.
I've been told by the social democrats, soft Marxists and socialists to shut the f**k up and build the machine.
It's. The. Law.
Why do you resist a general tax on carbon in proportion to the amount used? The unneeded carbon-y air travel and unneeded carbon-y local travel should both be discouraged in proportion to the harm they cause.
Krugman: "Second, in pure economic terms the required action shouldn’t be hard to take: emission controls, done right, would probably slow economic growth, but not by much."
Let's grant him the accuracy of that statement, for argument's sake.
Problem is, there are numerous other left wing proposals, each of which can be justified because it's negative economic impact slows economic growth, but not by much. Add them all together (as we are already doing in real time in the actual economy) and growth is restrained to a considerable degree.
But it's still growth, right? How bad can it be? For someone with the wealth and earning power of Paul Krugman, and for most of his readers, that reduced growth won't change their lives in a hugely discernible way. But for the billions in the world who need economic growth to have even a chance to rise from third world poverty, the consequences are very bad.
Second, in pure economic terms the required action shouldn’t be hard to take: emission controls, done right, would probably slow economic growth, but not by much.
This from a man who believes that any form of government spending, no matter how stupid or wasteful, stimulates the economy. In other words, a moron.
David,
Rising gas prices and even the small dent in used car inventory by Cash 4 Clunkers is bad for people on the margins in the U.S.
Not just the 3rd world.
First, the consequences will be terrible if we don’t take quick action to limit carbon emissions."
They've been saying we need to act quickly since it became an issue. Since we haven't in fact done what they say, and a certain period of time has passed do we really need to act quickly?
And by they way, we've brought down emissions anyway, through fracking. And the left opposes fracking.
David wrote:
Problem is, there are numerous other left wing proposals, each of which can be justified because it's negative economic impact slows economic growth, but not by much. Add them all together (as we are already doing in real time in the actual economy) and growth is restrained to a considerable degree.
That's exactly how the left does it. DIblasio wants free day care for all kids in NY. And when asked how we'd pay for it he says "tax the rich fat cats" All well and good, but isnt't that their argument for everything they want to implement? Tax the rich fat cat for this, and tax the rich fat cat for that and tax the rich cat for the other.
Those taxes on the rich fat cats add up. They seem to think that all their spending just happens in a vacuum.
The part I like (hate) is where we blow off the folks who have missed modern development and let them live their primitive lives, complete with diseases that could be cured if...
Regards — Cliff
Global warming is the lefts infomercial. It's marketed hysteria and you need to ACT NOW.If you don't though, the same commercial is going to be on next week.
Freder the lefty liar doubles down: "This statement is inaccurate on its face."
LOL
Freder then links to this climate.gov "article"
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
First sentence: "The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean."
Ah yes, the tricky trickster ocean is sucking up the heat!!
That's the ticket.
Except the models never predicted that and are being furiously "massaged" at this moment to try to account for this lack of warming.
Let's review that first clause of the first sentence again: "...The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so.."
LOL
The "last decade or so"? Talk about "precision"!!
My favorite: "The most likely explanation..."
"..most likely explanation..."?
Hey Freder (or S*** for brains), we are looking for the "settled science" answer, not the "gee, what the hell do we say now that there has been no warming for 17.5 years" answer.
The one that is repeatable and reproducible.
You know, the "science-y" answer.
You can return to your marxist fantasies now.
You also might consider taking a remedial statistics course and/or any basic physics course.
But I doubt it.
Krugman always starts with something that he says in inarguable, yet it isn't.
"the consequences will be terrible if we don’t take quick action to limit carbon emissions"
The consequences are based on an unvalidated model. The results of warming are even more unreliable and unpredictable than the temperature predictions.
Call me crazy, but warming will allow for greater food production. People will gradually move inland as the coastline changes. Only the movies show all the change happening in the blink of an eye.
Even if the U.S. cut its carbon admissions by 90%, China and India keep emitting more than we cut.
Agreed. Getting developing countries to sacrifice cheap carbon for something more expensive is nearly an intractable problem. One might hope that all the aerosols they emit might have a cooling effect to offset the increase in emitted Greenhouse Gases. Hard to root for pollution though.
And even if the Earth doesn't cool because of an increased aerosol-induced albedo effect, the elevated CO2 will continue to change the chemistry of the ocean. Enjoy your shellfish now.
Someone should make an app that tracks the number of times these pundits and celebs travel by air, and their carbon footprint because of it.
EDH
The latest buzzword is "Climate Justice".
http://www.climatedepot.com/
Professor's fellowship 'terminated' after WSJ OpEd declaring ‘the left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false’
Climate Statistics ...
IPS email of 'termination'...
'We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies...Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours'
(emp supp)
David: "But it's still growth, right?"
Careful David.
Right here on these boards we have lefty morons like ARM and garage who believe that negative GDP = "economic growth".
Freder Frederson said...
"This statement is inaccurate on its face. But if you really want an explanation of what is happening (which I doubt) try this article."
Let's see ... real world temps don't match our model's predicted temps ...
SOLUTION: Non-temp data (ice and sea levels) prove our warming earth models! And besides temperature data is variable anyway. F-U temperature data! SCIENCE wins.
"We's Smarter than you anti-science duffuses."
...
In a sane world you would be intelligent enough to realize models are crap if they don't interpolate known data. And declaring war upon the poor and all developing countries based upon your crap models is insane.
It is sickening to watch people use computational mathematics and statistics, who really don't understand computational mathematics and statistics. Or others ignore simple truths of the field (e.g. dynamical systems don't allow predictions beyond short term iterations) jump on board the crazy train.
Well Ms. Althouse, if you were a third year editor on a law review somewhere, and Herr Professof Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman submitted this op ed as a potential law review article, you'd savage it for incoherence. And properly so I might add.
I think this is just an extension of the sin tax. You know, taxes on cigarettes, booze, heterosexual marriage, being white, and so on.
Here's the scene from the movie Apocalypto, where the high Mayan chiefs wink and nod at the eclipse that they knew would come and pass, because of their early knowledge astronomy, but used it in cynical contrivance with their sacrificial ritual to prove their proximity to the gods.
Lesson: even "science" can be used to grind-up the commoners and your enemies in a fake ritual intended to consolidate your power.
CWJ,
"Host Eric Idle tells the kiddies how to cure all known diseases"
That was the "How to do it" sketch, wasn't it? Similar to the South Park Underpants Gnomes strategy, and just about any policy proposal from the left.
I've flown twice this year, once overseas. On the plus side, we don't use a/c, keep the thermostat at 63F in winter, nor drive the car much ('tho now that the daughter is back in town, car usage will jump) and I walk to work. And our car gets 40-50 mpg, depending on the season.
I'm very virtuous.
As I don't fly (much), I'm totally for a BIG old carbon tax on flying. Taxes on things like natural gas and electricity will just lead to conservation and that inevitably leads to higher rates.
Evan Hansen-Bundy said...
Why do you resist a general tax on carbon in proportion to the amount used? The unneeded carbon-y air travel and unneeded carbon-y local travel should both be discouraged in proportion to the harm they cause.
A carbon tax would be a massive tax on almost everything produced and consumed in the United States. Take food as but one example. Carbon dioxide is produced in growing food and creating fertilizers. Carbon dioxide is produced transporting the food to processing centers, during product production, and in transportation to markets. The markets consume energy so they'll pay carbon taxes, too. All of those carbon taxes get rolled into the price of every food product. Look at just about everything else and see where energy is used and/or carbon dioxide is released in production, all subject to a carbon tax.
Even worse, unless specifically idemized on receipts, all we'll see is that the prices of everything increased. This is the definition of a stealth tax, such as corporate taxes and the cost of regulatory compliance that get passed on to consumers. Most people will see the increased prices and complain about greedy corporations when it's actually greedy government behind the higher prices.
Freder,
You might want to look at your own link. Which shows a pause in the surface temperature increase quite clearly.
What is funny is that at the beginning of the pause, nobody was looking at "Ocean Heat Content" which is a huge number when measured in joules, but when measured in degrees? Not so much. You see, the oceans are huge. Not sure how that heat can warm the atmosphere significantly. How does a rise in temperature on the order of hundreths of a degree warm the air by more than a couple hundredths of a degree?
Maybe you know and can explain, Freder.
I would propose a straightforward way to 1) solve global warming; 2) increase economic growth and 3) increase personal freedom. Pass a Constitutional Amendment that repeals the 16th Amendment, bans all federal income, VAT or other consumption tax but that imposes a carbon tax that raises exactly the same amount of funding as the income tax raises now.
The lefties heads would explode from the cognitive dissonance -for them, they get a "clean" environment but they have to give up the class warfare of the graduated income tax.
As a conservative, I would take that deal in a second. Calling Ted Cruz......
CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). With the end of the world approaching, isn't it time to destroy China, India, and other developing nations' ability to flood the atmosphere with carbon emissions? I think the secular cult lacks faith in its prognostications.
That said, how are the carbon credit exchanges doing? It was once a profitable scheme. Perhaps carbon reform is in order. Similar to Obamacare in order to effect a progressive capture of private capital and thereby control.
I thought the chart's 2010 annual average electricity usage per US household of 11,496 kilowatt-hours wildly improbable, so I just went back over my electric bills: 130 kwh total for the past year. And no, I'm not Amish. Plus, all the lightbulbs in my house are incandescent.
What ass did they pull these numbers out of?
Travel does use energy. For a comprehensive list, cf. table 2.12 of chapter 2 of the transportation energy data book. Intercity Amtrak is best, about 17% more efficient (measured by energy per passenger mile) than air travel. Driving is about 27% worse than domestric air travel, but I believe that the study looked at all driving (and stop-and-go local driving tends to be less efficient). But then you've got various amounts of cargo on planes, trains and cars also to be considered. If you have two people in your car (typical passengers per vehicle, i.e., passenger mile per vehicle mile, is 1.55) , it's all pretty comparable. With more than two, I'd say car is most efficient, while with just one, it is clearly the worst. But trains would be very efficient, too, if they were packed as in WWII (81 person miles per gallon at that time, I read somewhere).
The most striking waste to me, looking at the data, is how much more more energy (Table 2.1) the commercial sector is using than 40 years ago. The bubble in commercial real estate is not only idiotic from the point of view that there are too many buildings to be used efficiently, it's also terrible for the environment heating and cooling all the excess capacity (not to mention the energy wasted in constructing it).
According to a David Stockman column, there are 47 square feet of retail space per person in America, which is 12 times what it was in 1960, and 8 times more than any country on earth. It seems like office buildings are also much more prevalent than when I was young--ridiculously so, even if the proliferation of administrators and non-productive largely superfluous sectors such as real estate, insurance, and finance is ridiculous as well.
"Freder the lefty liar doubles down: "This statement is inaccurate on its face."
LOL
Freder then links to this climate.gov "article""
Drago, thanks for looking at that link so I didn't have to.
My basic rule is that when the left supports nuclear power, I will take their stuff about CO2 seriously. Not until then.
The 1950s anti-nuclear hysteria was a KGB operation that is still working.
Freder Frederson Wrote:
"This statement is inaccurate on its face. But if you really want an explanation of what is happening (which I doubt) try this article".
So I go to the article he links and it says:
"The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. "
The article therefore acknowledges that there isn't warming, so the statement isn't innaccurate on its face.But then the article brings up things like La Nina events. Isn't that what happens with weather? We are always going to have la nina type events that disrupt climate one way or the other. If you're not taking those into consideration then how accurate are your models going to be?
"Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon."
So it's back to the same promises made by the global warming alarmists in the first place which we were supposed to take at face value THEN.
And when those didn't come to pass for 17 years its still "Soon" Any day now. this is a song thats' been on replay for 17 years now.
Boltforge wrote:
It is sickening to watch people use computational mathematics and statistics, who really don't understand computational mathematics and statistics. Or others ignore simple truths of the field (e.g. dynamical systems don't allow predictions beyond short term iterations) jump on board the crazy train.
Isn't the problem that climatology is a relatively new science and simply doens't know a lot about how climate actually works but presumes that it knows everything?
No, your biggest carbon sin is NOT flying, it is breeding.
A woman DOUBLES her carbon footprint when she pops out that first baby. And the father has no right to stop it.
Basta! said...
I thought the chart's 2010 annual average electricity usage per US household of 11,496 kilowatt-hours wildly improbable, so I just went back over my electric bills: 130 kwh total for the past year. And no, I'm not Amish. Plus, all the lightbulbs in my house are incandescent.
What ass did they pull these numbers out of?
My guess is they looked at total US electricity consumption for all reasons and simply divided that by the number of households. That way, you get to see your share of electricity used by industry and government, not just your individual consumption. It's bogus, of course, but while figures don't lie, liars can figure.
How does a rise in temperature on the order of hundreths of a degree warm the air by more than a couple hundredths of a degree?
We solved the energy problem!
Two things:
(1) You cannot consider the climate of the Earth without considering the climate of the ocean as well. The atmosphere and the ocean are linked.
(2) El Nino/La Nina are climate phenomena. That is: they change the climate of the Earth (thereby changing where/how weather events occur). For example, the 1998 year that is used as a benchmark to say no warming has occurred since then? Strong El Nino.
Or others ignore simple truths of the field (e.g. dynamical systems don't allow predictions beyond short term iterations) jump on board the crazy train.
You are confusing initial value problems with energy balance problems.
"Second, in pure economic terms the required action shouldn’t be hard to take: emission controls, done right, would probably slow economic growth, but not by much."
":No. No. No. I want a boat with THREE propellers."
Ralph Cramden
What is the carbon footprint of importing a Mexican peasant to an American lifestyle?
I'll take the train.
The goal of progressivism is to control the future. Free market economics make it impossible to control the future. This is because individuals, rather than an oligarchy made up of progressives, decide what has value and what does not have value in a free market.
The response of the progressives, these days, is to make the free market economy dependent on a higher economy that they control. You may want to buy a car for $10k. Someone may want to sell you a car for $10k. The progressives don't like that deal. They want you to pay $100k for the car.
So one way or another, they will make certain that each dollar you use to buy that car costs you $9.
We think that if Paul and Tom have to continue to globe trot they should do so in coach.
**********
Good idea! I see a parallel here between airline seating and urban housing: if we are supposed to be living in the densest manner possible - we should travel in the densest manner possible. A good first step would be to outlaw first class - in order to fit more people on each plane.
Am I the only one who thinks that, on the whole, humanity will focus on the wrong thing entirely? While we are bitching and arguing about AGW, we won't notice our vulnerabilities in other areas such as the end of antibiotics or Islamic-led countries with nuclear bombs?
It will be something else entirely that creeps up from behind and bites us on the ass - and we won't see it coming.
jr565 said...
"Isn't the problem that climatology is a relatively new science and simply doens't know a lot about how climate actually works but presumes that it knows everything?"
The study of dynamical systems like climate/weather has been around for a very long while now. It has really taken off when we got the ability to model them (read approximate them) with technology [research Lorenz circa 1961]. We can make reasonable computational models of climate and weather all day long.
The "problem": these models are, and always will be, worthless for prediction beyond a few iterations. Period. It is simply a mathematical fact. What is cool about this is that it is not a true problem. It is a necessary feature of stable complex systems.
The political "problem": idiots acting like they can predict from these models. And bigger idiots using those idiots to make decisions that actually matter.
As for the modelers, they need to study Occam's razor. And then they need to pick between "Our predictions/models are wrong" and "The ocean is magically moving heat downwards to the bottom of the ocean and hiding it against all known laws of heat motion and distribution in a way that we can't measure it".
If your listicle contains a thisticle
And a blisticle erupts,
Then apply some pink liniment imment-
Ly, lest the eruption corrupts.
(c) Bob Ellison...music by Irving Berlin
My understanding -- I get my climate science from Lubos Motl's blog -- is that any action, quick or not quick, very expensive or not very expensive, will have a negligible impact on the climate in this century, and that, furthermore, it seems more likely than not that a slightly warmer world will be good for humanity (more food, a larger temperate zone that is hospitable for people).
I also know -- and this I know -- that people in Krugman's circle are not allowed to have any other opinion on this subject if they want to remain in good standing with their peers and colleagues. Race and climate are the two unmentionables.
One might hope that all the aerosols they emit might have a cooling effect
Any effect will be local.
Did you guys notice that the Tea Party Cop Killers were actually Occupy Wall Street types, according to their facebook timeline, anyway?
Did it ever occur to anybody that placing Gadsden flags on their victims might have been a bit over the top? Kind of like something a MOBY might do?
Sweet. I haven't flown in forever. Looks like I can blow all the earthbound carbon I want.
Moisture in the air is by far the most significant "green house gas." Since moving to Texas, I've had my nose rubbed in the fact that the humidity also regulates day-to-night temperature swings. After 9/11, airplanes were grounded for 3 days and the resulting change in global temperatures was astounding.
http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/geo_current_116/116J_2008_Jet_Contrails_Science_Daily_August_8_2008_Alter_Temperatures.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020808075457.htm
Although there is now some disagreement. The "global climate model" couldn't reproduce the actual results, so obviously the effect had to be from something else. (Although I can't help but wonder exactly how they modeled contrails, which are not exactly a uniformly distributed phenomena). Since cloud cover isn't modeled, it was decided that variations in (global) low lying clouds must have been the reason.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/climatechange/2009/05/911_contrails_study_challenged.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL036108/abstract
Isn't science wonderful?
Consider the carbon usage in printing Krugman's paper.
1. Destroy trees.
2. Ship timber to paper mill
3. Convert wood to paper.
4. Truck paper to printing press.
5. Truck printed papers to retailers.
6. Truck discarded papers to landfill, recycle center, etc.
Is the science really settled? I guess if the gold standard IS the computer model (which BTW hasn't been able to correctly predict yet), the sure. By definition.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081231/full/news.2008.1335.html
I'm on board! Anything up to around 800 miles, I'm driving. Granted, I'm driving because I dislike airports and the total elapsed time (including time buffers for security, etc) is about the same, but ... still counts!
Similarly, I started boycotting ML Baseball after the first players strike. Before that, I just didn't attend because of the expense.
RE: carbon taxes
Carbon taxes would probably end up very similar to taxes on cigarettes: always going up up and up but never really addressing the problem it was meant to solve.
jimbino said...
No, your biggest carbon sin is NOT flying, it is breeding.
jimbino's mother (the "breeding sinner") was not interviewed for this jimbino posting.
If jimbino really believed what he was saying, he would kill himself.
Since he is here posting, we can now safely ignore his rantings.
Oh, and just for the sake of continuity and completeness:
"Global Warming has paused for 17.5 years!!"
Blacks hardest (or not hardest or somewhat hardest or kinda sorta hardest but not really 'cuz deceptive whitey) hit.
Why would people who believe in the danger of man made climate change *want* to fly?
I believe meth is bad for you, so I do not even want to try meth. I believe leaving a baby alone in a bathtub is dangerous, so I never did that. I believe not wearing a seatbelt could have bad consequences for me, so I do that.
I'm going to try coining a phrase. Let me know what you think:
Actions speak louder than words.
FWIW, 2008 is several generations ago, climate-model-wise.
If Basta only uses 130 KWH per year, even at 50 cents per kwh his ANNUAL electric bill would be $65 plus taxes and fees. Anyone else think he misplaced a decimal?
"Actions speak louder than words."
That might just catch on.
Basta said: " I just went back over my electric bills: 130 kwh total for the past year."
I'm sorry, but I find that completely implausible. That means your power usage averages to less than 15 watts. Just having 2 40 watt bulbs on for 6 hours a day gives you more than this - 175 kWh per year.
I have seen figures that the typical US household uses 30 kWh per day (average power 1250 watts). This leads to 11,000 kWh per year, about what is quoted. With big ticket items such as refrigerators and air conditioning, I find this totally plausible.
chrisnavin.com said...
David,
Rising gas prices and even the small dent in used car inventory by Cash 4 Clunkers is bad for people on the margins in the U.S.
Not just the 3rd world.
Agreed. It's not just gas prices that will rise.
In my little town, people were up in arms recently over a 2% local surcharge on electric rates that would expire after 7 years. The funds would be used to improve electric infrastructure in the town.
These same people have made nary a peep about various environmental regulations and proposals that are going to increase their electricity costs by considerably more than 2%, year after year, for some time to come.
We have people who can barely afford their electric costs now. What are they going to do?
Those are all apples, oranges, and grapefruit comparisons.
Let's get a closer comparison, say Honey Crisp to Macintosh.
Instead of flying those three round trips from SanFran to Philly (see "FLYING COAST TO COAST"), let's drive instead.
Google Maps thinks it's 2877 miles one way. Round trip it's 5754, times three round trips equals 17262 miles driven.
If driving 9608 miles generates 3.5 tons of CO2, then driving 17262 would generate:
17262 / 9608 x 3.5 = 6.29 tons of CO2.
Flying: 6 tons per passanger
Driving: 6.29 tons per car.
And that doesn't take into account the CO2 generated for the hotel you'll most likely stay in (it's a 44 hour drive, non-stop), nor the food you will likely eat, nor the waste you will generate along the way.
Krugman is an idiot, as are those who take him seriously.
Models are an estimate of the physical phenomena. Induction (i.e. extrapolation) is not a valid scientific method. It can serve as a guide; but, ultimately, they have to use deduction, and specifically observation and reproduction.
Science is distinguished from other philosophies in that it is constrained to a limited frame of reference and does not rely on created knowledge. This is a necessary condition of a valid scientific method because the system is chaotic (i.e. incompletely characterized and unwieldy).
Telling that Krugman leads with what is actually the least-supported assertion.
Jimbino,
Ah, so you are the fault of your father too, not just your mother? I'm supposed to hate them both for their wrongdoing, is that it???
Yo Kirk Parker,
You must have been asleep when the courts gave all rights (and the house) to the mother and all financial support obligations to the father. As they say, the case of Halle Berry "proves the rule."
If the prospective mother wants the kid, the father can't abort. If she wants to abort, he can't stand in her way.
And if she wants to stay at home on welfare and attend to the kid, the father pays bigtime for 18 years, even if he decides against the birth.
So YES, we have to place the "fault" on the mother. Of course, it isn't a fault to breed, any more than it is a fault to drive a Ferrari, as long as YOU bear the expenses.
Up to now, neither the BMW owner nor the breeding woman bears the CO2 expenses, but nobody's talking about the breeder responsibility for global warming.
So when are you offing yourself, jimbino? Go ahead and make up for your breeder forebears, will you????
As the climate cools, outright lies are all the Warmist Conspiracy pols have left:
Asthma attacks and CO2 are totally unrelated.
Normal Sea Level rise is slowing.
Ocean water acidification is in a harmless and normal range.
When Paullie "The Beard" Krugman and Tommy "Chinese" Friedman like things, I can be sure the things are bad.
There are approximately 600 coal fired power plants in the US out of approximately 2,300 worldwide. About 1,000 are planned or under construction in foreign countries. Most of those are in the third world: China, India, Africa, etc. The odds that 300 million Americans will accept a serious cut in their standard of living in order to have no effect whatsoever on climate? Miniscule.The odds that hundreds of millions of impoverished people around the world will give up the chance to have a 21st century middle class life in order to stave off a highly speculative disaster a century from now? Less than miniscule.
MadisonMan said...
Two things:
(1) You cannot consider the climate of the Earth without considering the climate of the ocean as well. The atmosphere and the ocean are linked.
(2) El Nino/La Nina are climate phenomena. That is: they change the climate of the Earth (thereby changing where/how weather events occur). For example, the 1998 year that is used as a benchmark to say no warming has occurred since then? Strong El Nino.
(3) Natural phenomena that occur on land that effect the weather. Volcanos.
'jr565' said, "That's exactly how the left does it. DIblasio wants free day care for all kids in NY. And when asked how we'd pay for it he says "tax the rich fat cats" All well and good, but isnt't that their argument for everything they want to implement? Tax the rich fat cat for this, and tax the rich fat cat for that and tax the rich cat for the other.
Those taxes on the rich fat cats add up. They seem to think that all their spending just happens in a vacuum."
You don't understand Krugman's new new accounting. Perhaps you think if a billion dollars could pay for this, or it could pay for that, or it could pay for something else then it couldn't pay for all of these.
But in Krugman's accounting, the same money can be spent over and over again!
Call it triple-entry accounting, if you will: every credit generates an additional, equal credit; thus, the books never balance but the money never runs out.
It worked when Krugman was still an advisor to Enron, and it continues to work for Krugman now. Krugman's new accounting creates funds without limit- what's not to like?
Surely this is the biggest advance in accounting in 500 years: why Krugman won that Nobel?
The chart is BS. I checked the first number, 10.4 tons of CO2 produced per passenger flying 3 rounds trips Chitown-Frankfurt.
Using the weight of jet fuel (0.8kg/l), the distance New York to Frankfurt (rounded up to 7000km), and fuel use for a four engine (hence inefficient vs a 777) 747 (12 liters/km), with 467 passengers on the plane, one obtains 863 kgfuel/passenger for 3 round trips.
863kg of fuel, assumed to be pure Carbon for ease of calculation, produces an overly generous estimate of about 7600 pounds, or a mere 3.8 tons of CO2 AT MOST per passenger.
I hate it when people lie about readily calculated numbers.
It makes me very suspicious they don't know what they are discussing. or are just lying to my face.
Ah, of course, rules for the peasantry and not the nobles.
And besides, when did anyone think that the government was really interested in stemming the climate when all it's been is a massive attempt to nationalize industries, materials, and blast a deluge of new taxes?
Ah, of course, rules for the peasantry and not the nobles.
And besides, when did anyone think that the government was really interested in stemming the climate when all it's been is a massive attempt to nationalize industries, materials, and blast a deluge of new taxes?
Mikee - Oh, they're lying to our faces. I'm not one to say Krugman is competent, if half-literate, but they play around with numbers all the time.
They lie and lie and lie to get what they want.
Post a Comment