Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy
Thanks to Con for accepting this debate. The resolution covers many issues, and that
will make it difficult to discuss comprehensively. The virtue is that it exposes how
many assumptions are stacked to get to the present policies of heavily subsidizing
uneconomic green energy and discouraging the exploitation of fossil fuels. 1. Increasing
warmth and CO2 are most likely beneficial The average temperature of the earth has
risen about 1 degree C in the past hundred years. [1] The earth was much warmer than
the present during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) about a thousand years ago. [2]
That's when Greenland was actually green and grapes grew in Scotland. The MWP was
a prosperous time in human history because the growing season was longer in the temperate
zone. Temperatures were warmer still during the Holocene Maximum, 5,000 to 8,000 years
ago. That is when the great civilizations of the world began in China, India, and
the Middle East. It was another very prosperous time. Going back in geological time,
earth is currently none of the lowest points of both temperature and atmospheric CO2
concentrations. [3] The current average global temperature is about 14.5 C (58 F).
[4] For most of the period of the evolution of life forms, average global temperature
was around 22 C. Life flourished. CO2 levels are now around 380 ppm, less than a tenth
of early levels. [3] The main depletion of CO2 is from the microscopic skeletons of
plankton capturing the CO2 in carbonates which end up in limestone at the bottoms
of the oceans. Because plants evolved in conditions of high CO2, they are now relatively
starved. Commercial greenhouse operators artificially raise CO2 to about double current
atmospheric levels, There are a few exceptions, but nearly all plant species grow
faster at higher CO2 levels. This fact is supported a vast number of peer reviewed
studies. More plant growth means more food, and that's good. Humans adapt much more
readily to warmer climates than cold. [6] That's apparent from the distribution of
human populations. The same is true of animal species. Of course, there are extremes
that cannot be tolerated, but the climate change controversy is mostly about CO2 causing changes of 1 - 4 degrees C. Warmer is better.
The largest disadvantage of warmth is the rise in sea level. The latest IPCC report
predicts and expected rise of nine inches in the next hundred years. 2. Climate predictions are unreliable The global warming panic peaked around 2000, when confident
predictions were made that the world would fry by the year 2010. In the decade since
then, the world has actually cooled. [1] Why were the predictions so confident back then. The logic was as follows: (a) the earth warmed substantially from 1980 to 2000, (b)
CO2 increased during that period, (c) all other factors affecting climate had been accounted for -- it wasn't the sun, volcanoes, changes in the earth orbit
or anything else, (d) therefore CO2 caused the warming. The physics of CO2 alone did
not explain the warming, so a multiplying effect was hypothesized and the multiplier
was found to be high. About two-dozen computer models using various models built on
the same principles were used to predict the decade of 2001-2010. What actually occurred
was below the error band of all the model predictions. [7] One factor that was omitted
was the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a roughly-60 year cycle that peaked in the 1880s,
1930s, and 2000s, producing widespread melting of Arctic Ice at each peak. Taking
the PDO into account, many now predict we are in for two or three decades of cooling.
[7. 8] Last month, I attended a pitch for M.I.T.'s new effort to rebuild climate science into something reliable. [9] The prof started by saying, "I just returned
from a week-long conference at Princeton. We all agreed on two things: the troposphere
is warming, and we don't know why." For example, a critical element in climate models is the rate of energy transfer between the ocean surface and the atmosphere.
Recent work suggests the previous assumptions are off by a factor of ten or twenty.
There are many other known deficiencies. Because climate models have been proven wrong, and wrong in the direction of wildly exaggerating
CO2 effects, they should not be used a basis for public policy. We should continue
research until the models prove reliable. 3. Fossil fuel restrictions in the US will
have little effect Let's suppose for a moment that CO2 alarmists are correct in worrying
about CO2 increases. China has 23% of the CO2 emissions, the us 18%. However, the
Chinese are increasing consumption at 11% per year, while the US is about stable.
World consumption is growing at 5.6%, with most of the growth in developing countries.
Per capita consumption in China is a quarter that of the US. India is about 1/30.
There is no possibility that China, India, and the developing world are going to stay
in poverty over fear of global warming. Let's suppose the US cut it's CO2 emissions
in half. Because the US population centers cover a large area, transportation needs
are much greater than countries where the population is concentrated, so its a lot
harder to cut energy use. If the US cut by half, India and China can be expected to
grow rapidly. Their populations are now about eight times that of the US, their populations
are growing faster, and they want to to advance their standard of living to US levels.
The US's 18% of emissions will probably be less than 6% of the world total in 50 years.
If we took drastic cuts, it might be 3%. Temperature is proportional to the logarithm
of CO2 concentration. If the temperature rise were 1 degree, our policy of draconian
cuts would be reduce the rise by 0.026 degree, That's negligible. There is no point
in it. 4. Attempts to significantly cut CO2 would cost trillions of dollars Any measure
that reduces CO2 and also cuts costs will be adopted by free markets independent of
government policy. For example, fluorescent light bulbs and hybrid cars save money,
so people are adopting them without a government policy forcing it. Forcing it costs
an enormous amount of money. For example, there are 250 million passenger cars in
the US. Replacing them with $25K hybrid vehicles would cost That's $6,5 trillion.
Going to $40K electric cars would be $10 trillion. All the cars would ordinarily be
replaced eventually, in about 20 years. Advancing that to replace them faster costs
an amount proportional to the total. When the capital, backup, distribution costs
are counted, wind power costs about five times as much as conventional power and solar
power about seven times as much. Hence the green upgrade is the cost to replace all
the power plants in the country, times about six. The UX needs about 900,000 megawatt.
[12] A new 300 megawatt coal plant is roughly $1 billion. [13] A green energy upgrade
would be about $18 trillion. On the other side of the ledger, the US has about $300
trillion worth of fossil fuels that would become worthless. [14] The GDP is $14 trillion.
We cannot afford the costs, so the policy would fail. --------------------- 1. http://www.theregister.co.uk... 2. http://www.geocraft.com...
3. http://www.geocraft.com... 4. http://www.currentresults.com... 5, http://www.co2science.org... 6. http://anthro.palomar.edu... 7. http://clivebest.com...
8. http://notrickszone.com... 9. http://paoc2001.mit.edu... 10. http://www.thegwpf.org...
11. http://factspluslogic.com... 12. http://www.eia.gov... 13. http://www.jsonline.com...
14. http://factspluslogic.com...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
