Re: CO2 and global warming

From: Alain Fournier (alain245_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: 09/27/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:37:23 -0700

Rand Simberg wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:35:02 -0700, in a place far, far away, Alain
> Fournier <alain245@sympatico.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>>>>There seems to be this assumption that if we implement Kyoto we'll all
>>>>revert to subsistence farming.
>>>
>>>
>>>No. The assumption is that if we implement Kyoto, we'll be less
>>>wealthy than if we don't, and in less of a position to solve any
>>>problems caused by global warming if and when they actually occur.
>>
>>Well that might be true today because we are so much closer to 2010
>>then we were in 1997. Having these reductions in such a short time frame
>>would be a too big disturbance.
>
>
> How big is "too big"? Why should we accept your, or anyone else's
> opinion on that?

Well if the changes are applied in a time frame that doesn't require
to throw away any otherwise good equipment, the disturbances can be
essentially nonexistent. If you have a plan to reduce CO2 that starts
with first throw away all of today's power plants and replace them with
more efficient ones, that is too big a disturbance. If the plan is
don't build any more inefficient power plants only efficient ones
the disturbance can be nonexistent.

>>But it wasn't true 5 years ago. Reducing CO2 emissions in a reasonable
>>way doesn't kill the economy. Electricity from wind farms, and from
>>nuclear power plants isn't less effective than electricity from gas
>>turbines. Having more fuel efficient cars, trucks, trains and boats
>>doesn't hurt an economy.
>
>
> It does if the costs of building them to be fuel efficient exceed the
> fuel savings.

It is possible to build very fuel efficient but economically
insane things. But there was no need for that to reduce CO2 emissions
within the parameters of Kyoto.

Many more greenhouse friendly alternatives existed with economical
success before Kyoto (nuclear power plants, electric trains,
regenerative braking for cars etc.).

There is an environmental cost to not reducing greenhouse gases.
Currently that cost is paid for by the ones on whom those
environmental effects fall on (or will fall on). So even if
there was a small economical burden on those
reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, it could make sense
to impose such cost on the producers of greenhouse gases.
But it doesn't seem to be necessary to do so. Just making
the political environment more friendly to projects reducing
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should be sufficient.

For instance, it is more efficient to pump CO2 into the ground to
extract oil than it is to pump water. But water is used because
if you want to use CO2 you have to collect it from an important
source (an old fossil fuel power plant for instance) and pipe
it too the oil well. Getting permits to pipe the CO2 can
be difficult. So water is used. If you change the political
environment then CO2 becomes more interesting, it has
already been done with economical success. So you can
have big reductions in greenhouse gases and make a profit
at it if you have the right political environment.

Alain Fournier

Quantcast