Planning to move to New ZealandtevarinJune 27 2006, 16:41:29 UTC
I agree with a) (very good point) and b) and the first half of c). I'm not sure the second half of c) necessarily follows.
Do you really think global warming will cause the end of civilization?
I understand what you're saying about the real costs and disruptions caused by global warming. A few hundred square miles of Pacific islands will be in bad shape, and coastal cities will need to build/improve their dikes, levees, seawalls, etc. From what I've read "half of Florida" is a rather large exaggeration. See elevation map on below link.
But I would set against that, first, the millions of square miles (literally, 1000 x 1000 mile areas) of Canada, Greenland, Siberia, that will presumably be more habitable, more pleasant due to global warming. Second, the substantial costs of trying to prevent global warming by immediately massively reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Even if global warming is a net negative (and it almost certainly is in the short term, since people will have to move and adapt farming methods, etc. over a few generations), trying to prevent it by reducing carbon dioxide output (and thus driving up the cost of electricity) may well have greater costs in money and lives.
I worry that global warming is a red herring, a dramatic, scary movie plot covering a wishy-washy, gradual, and ambivalent reality.
I care very much about oil independence, and I think people should use the most fuel-efficient means of transport they can. Maybe that means less CO2 emission, or maybe not. If we can solve oil scarcity and not change CO2 output at all, I'd still call it a very big win. A Supreme Court ruling won't necessarily help there.
You are not that naive to think that the millions of people displaced all over the world will happily go live together in Greenland and Siberia?
And who cares what exact percentage of Florida goes under? Most people in Florida live on the coast. It would be way more than half the population.
Were you not a boy scout? Is it really responsible to take this issue and say "Let's worry about it in a few decades so we can save some money now"? Are you that confident that you are correct and 99% of the world's scientists are mistaken?
We're going to spend a LOT more later if we don't do all we can to prevent it now. Compare the price of the war with the price of cleaner power plants. It isn't even close. And the car companies that are doing really well now are the ones that are embracing clean technology and fuel efficiency. The American car companies like Ford that are keeping their heads in the sand are the ones that are failing economically. There's every reason to believe that protecting the environment will SAVE money and jobs.
Re: Planning to move to New ZealandtevarinJune 27 2006, 20:20:00 UTC
I'm not that concerned with what company I'm in. Guilt by association? IMRHO, Rove is a malignant disgrace to humanity and the American political system, but that doesn't mean everything he says is wrong by definition.
I think you have a point that displacements and migrations due to global warming may not be easy or peaceful. But note that it's not the end of the world. New Orleans has levees. Venice is building barriers to keep out high tides. The Dutch have been pushing the ocean back since before carbon dioxide was discovered. Cities can be saved if needed, when needed. Displacements can be minimized.
And a few decades can make all the difference. To me, it seems foolish to spend lots of money now fixing a problem that won't cause serious harm for a hundred years. Better to invest that money in research and education to come up with a better solution twenty years from now. To take an extreme case, should we be buying big piles of ice and air conditioning units now to hold out when the sun expands into a red giant star in a few billion years? That will surely be a bigger catastrophe than a few flooded islands.
I were indeed a boy scout. The responsible take on this issue seems to me to be to deal with it in a way that minimizes costs and maximizes benefits. There's room for legitimate disagreement on methods, but sometimes "Let's worry about it in a few decades so we can save some money now" really is the best and most efficient response.
I don't think I am in disagreement with 99% of the world's scientists. I don't deny that global warming exists. I don't deny that it's a problem that will have to be dealt with one way or another. I do think that the currently proposed methods for dealing with the problem (e.g. Kyoto) are badly flawed, and we're better off investing in research and looking for better solutions over time, rather than bulling ahead with expensive and uncertain measures now.
I'm all in favor of clean technology and fuel efficiency. See previous comment. I'm even all for protecting the environment. I just think thst global warming isn't the most serious threat the environment (or mankind) faces. If it's a choice between spending a million dollars on squirting waste carbon dioxide into old coal mines, or spending the same money on a bunch of windmill electrical generators, put me down in favor of the windmills.
Re: Planning to move to New ZealandtevarinJune 28 2006, 01:53:26 UTC
Do you really think global warming will cause the end of civilization?
If we can't cope with it, then there is a danger, actually. Big population shifts around coastal areas, or areas adversely affected by climate changes, can lead to famine, pestilence, war, and death; your standard apocylptic foursome. With the sorts of natural disasters we've had in the past, unaffected areas could at least help the unfortunate ones. But this might no longer be possible. I think it's a bit remote, but things can certainly get out of hand, at the very least a lot of people would backslide somewhat. I don't want that to happen.
From what I've read "half of Florida" is a rather large exaggeration.
That map puts Miami, Palm Beach, and Orlando underwater. That's millions of people displaced. Put dikes around them and they're still susceptible to flooding and hurricane damage, as happened in New Orleans. They'll have no wetlands to act as a buffer, and more frequent and more powerful storms just make things worse. Abandon the cities and move the people, and we have problems with that, especially as the main asset of families in the US is the family house, which will be lost. That won't be pretty either.
But I would set against that, first, the millions of square miles (literally, 1000 x 1000 mile areas) of Canada, Greenland, Siberia, that will presumably be more habitable, more pleasant due to global warming.
Why? The northern permafrost is melting, causing the forests to die (the trees topple over, no longer having sturdy footing), and it basically ends up being mud and bogs. I've never heard anyone suggest that it would make good farmland or anything. There's a reason why hardly anyone lives in those areas, or anywhere nearby.
trying to prevent it by reducing carbon dioxide output (and thus driving up the cost of electricity) may well have greater costs in money and lives.
Meh. Reducing electrical use will mitigate increased electrical costs. E.g. making aluminum coke cans uses lots of electricity, so switch to glass or fountains. We can prioritize somewhat so that lives aren't lost, but our lifestyle changes.
Re: Planning to move to New ZealandtevarinJuly 3 2006, 00:26:18 UTC
If you've got deep ethical or psychological objections to it I won't press, but otherwise I'd second the suggestion to get an account. You don't have to post any entries or personal information. I've got a bunch of posts marked friends-only, and you can't see them without an account:(
(The abstract engineering and random philosophy stuff tends to be public, posts about family, personal stuff, and details on the climber project tend to be locked).
Alternately, I'd be happy to make a second account and send you the username and password if you're interested. Let me know.
Re: Planning to move to New ZealandtevarinJuly 3 2006, 01:33:57 UTC
Oh, I'm just incredibly lazy (and recently extremely busy), and I do, as a rule, prefer open posting areas. I almost never create accounts anywhere. Metcalfe's Law being what it is, I figure that closed areas probably aren't that interesting anyway.
Re: Planning to move to New ZealandtevarinJuly 5 2006, 04:01:05 UTC
Interesting strategy. I looked up Metcalfe's Law. it seems pretty neat, but limited. It doesn't seem to account for decreases in value due to spam and other pollution. More generally (as brought up by Odlyzko and Tilly) it assumes that all users are equally valuable to all other users.
For discussions relating to topics of only personal interest (e.g. Kalina learns to walk), I'd put a high value on distributing the information to a small circle of friends and family, but a low (or even slightly negative) value on inviting comment and discussion by the rest of the world. So my best bet is a closed community. Granted that Livejournal isn't an ideal forum, from a technical point of view, but it has the merits of ease of use, and the mini-Metcalfe's-Law advantage that many of my target audience regularly check it already, which saves them extra hassle. Doesn't help iconoclastic loners like yourself, I admit:)
Re: Planning to move to New ZealandtevarinJuly 6 2006, 02:24:26 UTC
It doesn't seem to account for decreases in value due to spam and other pollution.
Meh. Noise is ignorable, and what constitutes noise will vary from person to person.
but a low (or even slightly negative) value on inviting comment and discussion by the rest of the world
Well... I think that a stranger is just a friend you haven't met. If you meet someone new that you like, you benefit. If you don't like them, ignore them (e.g. filter them out) and you don't particularly lose.
Doesn't help iconoclastic loners like yourself, I admit:)
Do you really think global warming will cause the end of civilization?
I understand what you're saying about the real costs and disruptions caused by global warming. A few hundred square miles of Pacific islands will be in bad shape, and coastal cities will need to build/improve their dikes, levees, seawalls, etc. From what I've read "half of Florida" is a rather large exaggeration. See elevation map on below link.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSLRMapsGulf.html
But I would set against that, first, the millions of square miles (literally, 1000 x 1000 mile areas) of Canada, Greenland, Siberia, that will presumably be more habitable, more pleasant due to global warming. Second, the substantial costs of trying to prevent global warming by immediately massively reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Even if global warming is a net negative (and it almost certainly is in the short term, since people will have to move and adapt farming methods, etc. over a few generations), trying to prevent it by reducing carbon dioxide output (and thus driving up the cost of electricity) may well have greater costs in money and lives.
I worry that global warming is a red herring, a dramatic, scary movie plot covering a wishy-washy, gradual, and ambivalent reality.
I care very much about oil independence, and I think people should use the most fuel-efficient means of transport they can. Maybe that means less CO2 emission, or maybe not. If we can solve oil scarcity and not change CO2 output at all, I'd still call it a very big win. A Supreme Court ruling won't necessarily help there.
Reply
You are in really shady company.
You are not that naive to think that the millions of people displaced all over the world will happily go live together in Greenland and Siberia?
And who cares what exact percentage of Florida goes under? Most people in Florida live on the coast. It would be way more than half the population.
Were you not a boy scout? Is it really responsible to take this issue and say "Let's worry about it in a few decades so we can save some money now"? Are you that confident that you are correct and 99% of the world's scientists are mistaken?
We're going to spend a LOT more later if we don't do all we can to prevent it now. Compare the price of the war with the price of cleaner power plants. It isn't even close. And the car companies that are doing really well now are the ones that are embracing clean technology and fuel efficiency. The American car companies like Ford that are keeping their heads in the sand are the ones that are failing economically. There's every reason to believe that protecting the environment will SAVE money and jobs.
Reply
I think you have a point that displacements and migrations due to global warming may not be easy or peaceful. But note that it's not the end of the world. New Orleans has levees. Venice is building barriers to keep out high tides. The Dutch have been pushing the ocean back since before carbon dioxide was discovered. Cities can be saved if needed, when needed. Displacements can be minimized.
And a few decades can make all the difference. To me, it seems foolish to spend lots of money now fixing a problem that won't cause serious harm for a hundred years. Better to invest that money in research and education to come up with a better solution twenty years from now. To take an extreme case, should we be buying big piles of ice and air conditioning units now to hold out when the sun expands into a red giant star in a few billion years? That will surely be a bigger catastrophe than a few flooded islands.
I were indeed a boy scout. The responsible take on this issue seems to me to be to deal with it in a way that minimizes costs and maximizes benefits. There's room for legitimate disagreement on methods, but sometimes "Let's worry about it in a few decades so we can save some money now" really is the best and most efficient response.
I don't think I am in disagreement with 99% of the world's scientists. I don't deny that global warming exists. I don't deny that it's a problem that will have to be dealt with one way or another. I do think that the currently proposed methods for dealing with the problem (e.g. Kyoto) are badly flawed, and we're better off investing in research and looking for better solutions over time, rather than bulling ahead with expensive and uncertain measures now.
I'm all in favor of clean technology and fuel efficiency. See previous comment. I'm even all for protecting the environment. I just think thst global warming isn't the most serious threat the environment (or mankind) faces. If it's a choice between spending a million dollars on squirting waste carbon dioxide into old coal mines, or spending the same money on a bunch of windmill electrical generators, put me down in favor of the windmills.
Reply
If we can't cope with it, then there is a danger, actually. Big population shifts around coastal areas, or areas adversely affected by climate changes, can lead to famine, pestilence, war, and death; your standard apocylptic foursome. With the sorts of natural disasters we've had in the past, unaffected areas could at least help the unfortunate ones. But this might no longer be possible. I think it's a bit remote, but things can certainly get out of hand, at the very least a lot of people would backslide somewhat. I don't want that to happen.
From what I've read "half of Florida" is a rather large exaggeration.
That map puts Miami, Palm Beach, and Orlando underwater. That's millions of people displaced. Put dikes around them and they're still susceptible to flooding and hurricane damage, as happened in New Orleans. They'll have no wetlands to act as a buffer, and more frequent and more powerful storms just make things worse. Abandon the cities and move the people, and we have problems with that, especially as the main asset of families in the US is the family house, which will be lost. That won't be pretty either.
But I would set against that, first, the millions of square miles (literally, 1000 x 1000 mile areas) of Canada, Greenland, Siberia, that will presumably be more habitable, more pleasant due to global warming.
Why? The northern permafrost is melting, causing the forests to die (the trees topple over, no longer having sturdy footing), and it basically ends up being mud and bogs. I've never heard anyone suggest that it would make good farmland or anything. There's a reason why hardly anyone lives in those areas, or anywhere nearby.
trying to prevent it by reducing carbon dioxide output (and thus driving up the cost of electricity) may well have greater costs in money and lives.
Meh. Reducing electrical use will mitigate increased electrical costs. E.g. making aluminum coke cans uses lots of electricity, so switch to glass or fountains. We can prioritize somewhat so that lives aren't lost, but our lifestyle changes.
--josh
Reply
Reply
Anyway, I'm not really interested in getting an account.
--josh
Reply
Reply
(The abstract engineering and random philosophy stuff tends to be public, posts about family, personal stuff, and details on the climber project tend to be locked).
Alternately, I'd be happy to make a second account and send you the username and password if you're interested. Let me know.
Reply
--josh
Reply
For discussions relating to topics of only personal interest (e.g. Kalina learns to walk), I'd put a high value on distributing the information to a small circle of friends and family, but a low (or even slightly negative) value on inviting comment and discussion by the rest of the world. So my best bet is a closed community. Granted that Livejournal isn't an ideal forum, from a technical point of view, but it has the merits of ease of use, and the mini-Metcalfe's-Law advantage that many of my target audience regularly check it already, which saves them extra hassle. Doesn't help iconoclastic loners like yourself, I admit:)
Reply
Meh. Noise is ignorable, and what constitutes noise will vary from person to person.
but a low (or even slightly negative) value on inviting comment and discussion by the rest of the world
Well... I think that a stranger is just a friend you haven't met. If you meet someone new that you like, you benefit. If you don't like them, ignore them (e.g. filter them out) and you don't particularly lose.
Doesn't help iconoclastic loners like yourself, I admit:)
Yeah, I'm a rebel.
--josh
Reply
Leave a comment