Global warming and trees

I've heard there's been marketing for "offseting" carbon footprints by doing things like paying someone to plant trees.

At one level it seems harmless enough - people rich enough to afford carbon credits can pay others to do good things. But on the other hand, I'd question how such a "trade" is measured. By question, overall I mean I don't believe it.

For instance, let's say someone plants a tree for me and over its life, 100 tons of CO2 is extracted from the atmosphere. Someone might say that tree can pay for 100 tons of CO2 production, but that is a wrong calculation if the tree EVER is allowed to decay or is burned. Then its all released again. What's a proper calculation? The tree must be guaranteed to be processed in a way to NOT burn or let it decay. I mean guarantee to mean some sort of future effort is needed to preserve the wood, even if risks exist.

The promise isn't a bad one - especially if the tree wood can be used for building, although even a building can't last forever. Eventually fires will come or the wood will get wet and rot and the house torn down. At least productive uses of the trees mean it more likely that the CO2 can stay out of the atmosphere longer. AND it suggests choices - you might plant "fast growing trees" to maximize CO2 uptake or "slow hardwoods" that can be used for building lumber in the end.

If you grow a tree that is expected to be BURNED for energy, it can't be used as an offset at all, although I've read the idea that charcoal burial can be used both to store carbon AND enrich the soil.

Still overall, I imagine the work of "offsetting" fossil fuel burning takes more energy than if it was left in the ground in the first place and renewable energy was used instead. So overall, I think it's probably an illusionary idea, ESPECIALLY for the rich who want to continue an unsustainable lifestyle and think they're making a difference.

If the rich really wanted to make a difference, they'd be better off investing directly in renewable energy source. So I expect, but who knows?

Richardson's energy plan - Act Boldly, Act Now

An impressive plan from any perspective... What can I say but WOW - I'm a pessimists it can be done economically, but I have no doubt we must act courageously or we'll be reacting to limits and costs later even harder.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/page/s/energyplan

Act Boldly, Act Now

In order to make America a Clean Energy Nation, as I made New Mexico a Clean Energy State, we need a man-on-the-moon program to end our addiction to oil and abate our global warming crisis. And we need to do it much faster and much more boldly that most people are suggesting. Some politicians and some industry people will say we can’t do what I propose – I say we need to change fast or sink slowly. Now is the time for bold actions, clear vision, and complete commitment.

Consider this a call to action, for Congress, the energy industry, and the public. I am calling for a New American Revolution – an energy and climate revolution. And I am calling on you to join it.

My Plan:
* Cut oil demand: 50% by 2020 - We must reduce oil imports from around 65% to 10%. We can reach these goals in part by getting the 100 mile per gallon (mpg) car into the marketplace, pushing fuel economy standards to 50 mpg by 2020, and setting a life-cycle low-carbon fuel standard that reduces the carbon impact of our liquid fuels by 30% by 2020, including increasing use of alternative fuels.
* Change to renewable sources for electricity: 50% by 2040 - I am calling for a national renewable electricity source portfolio standard of 30% by 2020 – which will rise to 50% by 2040. This is aggressive, but necessary as we start using more electricity for automobiles. I will push for an energy productivity law requiring a 20% improvement in energy productivity by 2020. We could easily save customers $21 billion a year by 2020. Also, my market-based cap and trade program for greenhouse gas emissions will create incentives for the electric and industrial sectors to make significant reductions in their carbon emissions.
* Dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions: 90% by 2050 - 20% by 2020, and 80% by 2040 -- ten years faster than scientists say is necessary, because we must lead the world, and we can’t afford the possibility of backsliding and inaction. We will start with a market-based cap and trade system. Economists say the world can protect itself from drastic climate change at a cost of 1-3% of our economic activity. We can afford to protect the climate. Given the risks of catastrophic climate change, we can’t afford not to.
* Lead by example and restore America as the world’s leader - We must return to the international negotiating table and support mandatory world-wide limits on global warming pollution. We will work closely with fast-growing nations and, as President, I will cooperate with the European Union, the World Bank, and other allies to help finance the incremental cost of “doing it right.” I will create a North American Energy Council with Mexico and Canada, which supply about 20% of our oil, and make sure our relations with these neighbors are firm and friendly. As we reduce our demand for foreign oil, we should work with the Persian Gulf nations, and our partners in consuming nations and the United Nations Security Council, to try to create a multilateral system for protecting the Gulf so that within 10 years the U.S. presence there could be sharply and safely reduced.
* Get it all done without breaking the bank - We will raise some revenue from the sales of carbon permits, for example. Further, I will get out the “green scissors” to cut back on wrongly-placed tax subsidies. Over time, this program will yield huge productivity increases in our economy, as well as significant budget savings and revenues. We will create more than 10 times as much value in the American economy by reducing our oil imports as we spend to make this program happen.

On energy policy, we need to change fast or sink slowly. We need to act boldly and act now. Defy conventional wisdom and join the revolution -- endorse Governor Richardson's bold new agenda for an American energy and climate revolution.

---

Dismay over Nuclear ‘Solution’ to Climate Problem

Oh, a tiring fight to me, one I can't face... opposing nuclear power

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/10/1090/ Dismay over Nuclear ‘Solution’ to Climate Problem

I'm afraid I must retreat from my activist friends who "love to hate nuclear", oh, there's too much fear all around, and I don't know about the long term viability of nuclear power, but at least I can not reject it. I mean we have two sources of fundamental energy (1) Nuclear fussion from the sun (2) Nuclear fission from the earth. Both of these will continue for millions of years. To categorically reject nuclear power is surely wrong.

And it simply won't happen because sooner or later people will BEG for power as fossil fuels deplete, so you must either accept a humanity "die off" in the immediate future or nuclear power, and even if a dieoff happens, there will be nuclear power. I mean ultimately it is a survivalist strategy - like all modern power - those who lead with technology will prosper over those who don't.

YES, I'm as outraged as anyone to think my home could be radiated for decades by an accident, but to me this means fighting for good technology, reactors that have passive safety mechanisms which will cool on their own under a system failure.

YES, there are costs, human costs, pollution costs, and risks, but a sensible people faces these with sensible precautions. SURE, I'd be happier with a "low power" future where we can "afford" to live entirely on renewables, and I can FEAR nuclear can help divert R&D in safer, smaller scale solar options that can scale to human needs.

YES, I think humanity is INSANE, and sooner or later a nuclear weapon will likely be used by an insane state or group, and I don't like this reality. I don't like that processing Uranium creates depleted uranium used in ammunition and creating environmental toxicity in battlezones that can't be cleaned up. I wish this can be banned sooner than laster.

Anyway, I'm not an optimist, but I just don't have the will to fight nuclear. Sorry well-meaning friends, just can't do it. Rationalism will fail us, but we need to pick our fights - like Minnesota in 1994 - agreeing for above ground storage of nuclear casks in exchange for expanded wind power. It was a good exchange, and I support many such victories while we muddle towards sustainability.

...millions will die

I'm a sympathetic environmentalist, but I just can't easily take in claims of guarantees in an unknown future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2069395,00.html The rich world's policy on greenhouse gas now seems clear: millions will die

I'm glad for people like Monbiot to offer their grimest demands upon us, HOPING this is "the worst", knowing that's not even a promise. Okay we all know atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280ppm preindustrial to about 400ppm now, and no sign it is flattening out at all, and predictions of what might happen if it ONLY tops out at 450, or shoots past 600 in the next century. Models predict global average temperature increases, but it looks like polar regions will get more of their share at least.

Even skeptics admit world temperate has increased in the last 15 years, but they say its just part of a normal cycle, and they might be right... temperatures might level out and even decrease over the next 15 years, for all we know, even if human induced global warming is happening. I accept there are natural cycles that mask our effects, so best to take care to not PROMISE any future as if it was fact. I mean discussion rises with the warm "cycle" and perhaps will fall when the cool cycle returns. If it is really a 50-100+ year problem we need to be careful to not overstate the evidence.

I'm even willing to accept that the climate models are not accurate predictors of future temperature increases with CO2. I'm not saying they're wrong, only that they can't be treated as "facts" but "best models so far". So all predictions are messy nonsense.

It seems foolish to me to say (1) 2C increase is "acceptable" (2) 450ppm CO2 will likely limit increase by 2C.

It's nice to try to "manage" the problem, but it seems over quantified AS IF we had data which we don't.

I'm glad to accept a hypthesis of future warming, but alone it is insufficient to motivate action. I mean ultimately which is worse (1) doubling of CO2, (2) Elimination and desertification of the Amazon rain forests (3) Peak oil and economic collapse? Or an other "problem" of our modern unsustainable consumption and destruction of the natural world and systems that support us?

I can't get very excited about GW in 100 years if I think economic collapse is imminent within 20 years.

I support reducing CO2 emissions purely on reducing our dependency upon unsustainable energy sources and unsustainable consumption. I see the virtue of conservation and defensive investments which can reduce our future consumption requirements.

Millions will die... SURE, we're all guilty. We're not doing enough. But DAMN it, we'll let those millions die when OUR BACKS are to the wall, as long as they are not us.

I just don't think you can guilt people who are merely trying to live their lives. We can all cut back and still not do enough. The only guarantee for our innocence is to kill ourselves now. Anything short of that means we're GUILTY. We should be punished. AND we shall. Guaranteed. We who shall live will someday know we could have done more, and didn't.

And it will be too late. And we'll muddle along through what we can salvage after that, millions lost or not.

Lost touch with the real world

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1173407.html House-Senate conferees OK nickel gas tax increase - The increase, designed to increase gradually to 7½ cents, anchors a new try at funding roads. Pawlenty vows to veto it but could face an override.

Pawlenty's spokesman, Brian McClung, said it will be vetoed. "Coming forward with a big gas tax increase on a day when the gas price in Minnesota is $3.02 a gallon shows these DFLers have lost touch with the real world," he said.

I HAD to snicker at this great quote from the Governor's office. I guess the "real world" means "political world".

Gasoline tax is $0.20/gallon, out of say $2.80/gallon average cost, or 7%. It hasn't been raised since 1988, and inflation factor about 1.7 since 1988, so 1988 tax would be equivalent to $0.34/gal tax in 2007 dollars. Plus the gas tax only covers a small fraction of the annual cost of road and bridge maintenance.

It's sort of funny. The BEST reason against the gas tax is that it is "regressive", hurting poor more than rich, so that's a democratic position. I guess the governor wants to BOND road projects, but even so I don't see a conflict between bonding and raising tax to pay for the bonding!

It's strange - if the gas tax can't be raised partly because of the high prices, why not call for the elimination of the gas tax? I mean perhaps the republicans WOULD support this crazy idea.

As always, my concern is most on conservation. Higher prices mean higher incentive for conservation and alternative fuels. I'd add a $0.50/gal gas tax, and remove the ethanol $0.50/gal subsidy to make sure ethanol is economical.

Overall my conservation issue is a federal one. I admit the state really can't do too much to conservate or positively affect consumption.

I think everyone has lost touch with reality - that we're 60%+ dependent upon imported oil from many undemocratic countries that may not even like us very much. It's crazy to wait for the next oil crisis, and I think someday soon $4/gal gas will be a bargain!

Maybe the republicans will see reason and help override the veto. And the antitax governor can gain his political points for the little guy to spend another year commuting 50 miles to work each day. And we'll all live happily ever after.

The end

Saver switch and gas vouchers?

I have a switch on my A/C electricity line which can turn off my A/C under times of high demand. This allows my electric company to reduce electricity demand in high peak periods by cycling users on and off. This could mean keeping the highest cost electricity sources off line, and also help avoid "brown outs". For my allowing the switch, I get a 10% reduction in my electricity bill. This happens whether or not I use any A/C.

Similarly busineses which use a lot of electricity get a special rate in exchange for voluntary shutdowns of their electricity in the worst peak demand times when the system is in danger.

I wonder if any sort of similar system could exist in the gasoline supply? I mean as a nondriver, I consume no gasoline myself, and I benefit by not paying for gasoline, but no "reward" for helping to keep consumption down and avoiding shortages.

Electricity is an unstorable energy source, so avoiding peak demand is more important. Electricity is also harder to properly bill based on time-of-day usage, while costs vary based on time of day. If we had time-of-day metering, that would allow voluntary reduction of consumption under peak times.

Gasoline is easier to store, although under FEAR of shortages, can encourage hoarding and make matters worse. Since we don't want to allow "demand pricing" for gasoline (calling it gouging), the reality we'll get is long lines for gasoline and running out.

I guess with a "voucher system", everyone would get a base quota of gasoline, and people who don't need them could sell extra, and people who need more can buy surplus. That's one way I could benefit as a nondriver.

I'm not even defending an "equal rights" to gasoline necessarily. I mean even if you are patriotic and said equal for all Americans, we consume 5 times more oil than the average world citizen, so we're sitting on top of the world.

Interesting, if I had gas quotas, and would only sell them for 10x market value, people would say I'm "hoarding" or "price gouging". Probably better that the government could offer either vouchers with a fixed cash value. Technically it should be illegal to sell above face value, even if a "black market" can't ever be avoided.

I mean as a nondriver, I'm happy to sell my vouchers at face value, although I might as well reduce to sell them at all, but that's sort of like refusing to spend money.

I suppose vouchers can't promise anything if shortages really happen. I mean local shortages will always happen in dangerous times. PLUS vouchers really can't be "saved" since it would allow hoarding that can cause future shortages.

Say vouchers are added to debit cards quarterly. Different cards could have different expiration times to avoid harsh boundaries, but basically anything left at the end is lost.

Oh well, fun stuff, sounds too complicated... Someday we might need it!

Change done right?

I keep wondering, when I see how dirty and ugly politics seems, desparation for attention in a world of distraction, self-interested blindness, inconvenient truths, and exaggerations, playing on fears, and offering unrealistic hope that we can have our cake and eat it too.

Still, my bottom line says if an issue can only be won on partisan lines, it is not worth the price of that victory.

It is interesting the democrats in DC and Minnesota both have passed partisan bills that were vetoed by republican president and governor.

How much is political points? How much is serious? I don't know. Maybe some issues are doomed to partisan power, but I hate as much the idea that my representative is voting party line for or against something.

Certainly it is annoying to be in the minority. It is liberating to gain a majority and dream big. I don't discount wishing to do great things. I must simply consider the bigger picture - what's the use if everything is reversed in the next election cycle?

What if the majority party (in any voting body) said they'd withdraw any bills that couldn't gain at least 25% of the opposing party's vote? If you imagine a close 52-48 split, that means a hefty 64% support, although you'd imagine perhaps 25% of the majority party might still not walk the line.

It's sort of like the fillibuster rule in the Senate - needing 60% to agree to get something discussed. I really think it's SILLY for a majority party to discount this rule as harmful, asking for a "up or down vote". Fillibustering is an up or down vote requiring a larger support.

Well, having an opposition party executive offers a check I suppose to power, a reason to compromise. Again looks dirty, veto power, but can be overridden if you take the time to get enough support. The veto power says "Please work together".

I suppose the annoying thing is your supporters will say "You had the power, but not the balls to take it." Implying a failure to advance partisan causes is a failure of leadership.

I know I'm as bad as anyone when I "know what's best", ha-ha, but as ugly as compromise is, it seems nicer than brute power for a small majority position. I know I can be as frustrated as anyone by irrational arguments, and seriously every debate with emotion ultimately relies on being close minded to the weakness of your position.

I don't know where the balance lies - in retreating from Iraq, or funding state government.

I just wish "voices of reason" from every side could step forward. I mean, once someone has shown himself incapable of reason, move on, but make sure its not YOU too!

The Great Global Warming Swindell?

Always annoying to have a debate when both sides don't have enough facts to prove anything, like global warming:
Slick anti-GW video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXc9H5JSyow

SURE, we don't know everything. The future will be what it will, whatever we believe. Facts are open to analysis, and we're not in a position to predict the future. Man-made CO2 (burning fossil fuels, and biomass), is only a fraction of the carbon cycle. Past CO2 was high (millions of years ago). We are in an interglacial period of an ice age, in one of the coldest periods of the history of the earth. Atmospheric CO2 has risen from a preindustrial level of 280ppm to over 390 ppm now, whatever long term effect this has.

I suppose the main lesson to learn from slick videos is to admit they exist on both sides of a debate.

Oh, it is really annoying for a society fully DEPENDENT upon ever increasing levels of energy consumption to claim the "Global warming" movement is a "jobs swindell" because people who support the theory are dependent upon careers that need problems to get funding. Just annoying to suggest. Ultimately it's just name calling, as everyone can claim self-interest.

What's Al Gore's game? Does he hope to get rich selling GW?

It's crazy to me since whatever happens, our future must exist without burning fossil fuels, and so whether climate change or dependence upon energy we won't have in the future, energy that gets harder to get, and dirtier to extract.

What does the "precautionary principle" suggested? Do we continue our "uncontrolled experiment" in climate change or do we work for a future that is more sustainable.

I guess the doubters suggest that even if GW exists now, it is NOT driven by human activity, and its part of a natural cycle, and that it'll turn back around in the future.

Well, I'm a skeptic too, prefer to wait for evident to come in, but when I say "wait", I don't mean do nothing, I mean keep gathering evidence AS we do what we can.

I admit my caution says predictions are dangerous. If temps go up, and you call it GW, and then temps go down for a while, even if you can account for it by models of other variables, its still a dangerous thing to overstate the evidence. Even if GW is human caused, natural cycles exist and can hide this effect.

I'm still annoyed by suggestions that because solar variations can dominate variations on temperature, doesn't mean human effects will not drive the patterns differently, BEYOND the natural cycles.

On the other side I fully accept past correlations of temp and CO2 doesn't mean anything since we've never had man-made CO2 input before.

The graphs they show on solar radition correlating with temperature for the past. Rather than subtracting the curves, they say "Sun has always dominated", so that's all there is.

Perhaps we need not worry. Perhaps in 2017 we'll start cooling again, glaciers will start rebuilding again. Certainly another 10 years of data is nice to have.

By 2017 we can say CO2 will rise above 405ppm, pretty clear prediction. We will have another solar cycle to contrast the relations. Perhaps the artic ice will return rather than continue to diminish. We can keep watching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

On the depressing side, besides peak-oil, I don't have any hope world CO2 production will decrease any time soon, so the experiment is on whatever we do.

Now about about the claims we need to reduce CO2 production by 80% by 2050, is this a goal we really need to fight for?

I sort of think about a couple of lovers. One is uncertain about marriage, and the other is sure that's what he wants. So he spends everything he has to convince his lover that she should accept. Well, in this fight, he's going to ignore all his uncertainty, project his fears onto her. So if she suddenly switches side and wants to rush to marriage, suddenly he has to re-evaluate and question his own fears that he neglected in his wooing.

Similarly when a debate comes out and people are afraid of losing something, both sides can exaggerate the virtues of their side, neglect the failings. Scientists ultimately ought not to enter into politics, at least Science, when it has no political implications, is easier to be done rationally. And if it takes 500 years to reach the end, then that's what science can do.

In short, science can't do well when it enters politics when there's high stakes in the truth which is not known. So mainly this means to me that decisions in evaluating risk can't be done by knowns, but best guesses.

Some perhaps think atmospheric CO2 can rise from 280ppm to 600 ppm without any effect on global warming. BUT might have other effects we didn't predict, like acidifying the oceans and harming life there.

If we consider humans as part of nature, then everything we do is "natural", and its up to individual animals and species to compete as they can or perish, and if they perish, the stronger will survive and new adaptations will fill the voids.

The failure of that argument is the speed of the effects. Evolution requires time, so generally it suggests extinctions must grow until a new equilibrium is reached and it could take millions of years for life to expand to the diversity we've had in the recent past.

Anyway, in my skepticism, I lean to surrender. Fine, we're screwed or not. Let's keep going and see what happens. But if things turn out badly I can't say "I told you so" since I really didn't know, but that seems a big responsibility for you to too easily just say we're not changing the world in a bad way.

I must softly support that ALL sides have propaganda. All respectable scientists should leave the political realm and stop bothering people.

I just don't like rejection of fears because we don't know. There's no downside to setting limits to human activity while we're dependent upon unsustainable use of resources.

I don't know if GW is a priority issue, but I think the solutions to it pretty well agree with the solutions we need in other problems. There's no long term downside to learning to use resources our descendants will still have in 100 years.