What is Plan B....since there is ZERO chance of CO2 reduction.....?
Currently, CO2 atmospheric concentrations stand at 386 ppm. Even the most optimistic adherents of AGW admit that this figure will rise as there is no global will to reduce CO2 emissions. Already, the "tipping point" of 350 ppm has been reached. So, would it be more sensible, not to spend money on CO2 reduction, but spend money on coping with any consequences that may arise?
2010-10-18T03:07:37Z
@ Antarticice...Apparently you are satisfied that CO2 levels will reduce. Nothing to worry about then. Bit picky with my CO2 figures. I got them from here....but if you have more faith in NASA...so be it http://co2now.org/
2010-10-18T03:15:20Z
@ Karl Hungus...there is oil and coal adding to CO2 concentrations. With coal use rising it is hard to judge when suppplies will run out, with estimates between 125 and 250 years. I think AGW realists would have a fit if we continued to pump CO2 into the atmosphere for that long.
Anonymous2010-10-17T05:25:34Z
Favorite Answer
Bob, you are making a little too much sense here. Expect broad based attacks from both angles. The religious zealots can not lay down their mantra, and will be offended by the notion of a can't win scenario. Deniers will plainly explain that AGW is false.
But I agree with you. There is zero chance of us putting down fossil fuels. Entirely too much money and power is wrapped up in it.
Electric cars are fashionable, but will never replace gasoline as long as it is available. Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, nuclear, etc. all have their own crippling limitations.
So until one of these big-brained internet-scientists gets on with it, and does something useful, like invents cold fusion, we will continue to burn dinosaurs for energy.
CO2 emission would be forced to decrease when we run out of oil (which isn't far off.) So there's more than a zero chance of CO2 emissions reduction by some means. There isn't a lot that people are going to be willing to do to reduce their personal emissions, but cutting off fossil fuels would certainly affect that.
Mitigation is only half the picture. Adaptation is the other half. (I won't consider geo-engineering here, I personally think it needs much more research before being considered). Mitigation is preventing the uncontrollable. Adaptation is controlling the unpreventable. If we adapt without mitigating, then the adaptation will never end, and potentially everything is suddenly unpreventable. At the same time we can't be so naive that we think we can change the way the world works, so there are things even for the most optimistic that are unpreventable. So adaptation is required.
Both cost money. Both will be expensive. I suppose it would come down to combining them as much as they could be combined in order to reduce the cost. Adaptation is much shorter-term, while mitigation might not have an impact for decades. It's often hard to justify to people projects with benefits that won't be seen by this generation... so it's all tricky.
We're going to have to spend the money to deal with the consequences, period. Meanwhile, we can work on technologies to outcompete fossil fuels in spite of government biases in their favor. We can work on more energy-efficient ways of doing things. And, eventually, we're going to have to come up with a way of scrubbing out the excess we've already put into the air and ocean. Real energy efficiency policy - that was plan a, 30 years ago. Decent governmental policies towards carbon emissions, as started by Kyoto, were plans b through about f. Depending on technology miracles, even ones you're working actively on, to solve a problem that shouldn't have arisen in the first place, is definitely around plan z.
Plan B is adaptation. There will be enormous costs to rebuild infrastructures, move people etc. But adaptation can be done by individual countries without the need for very thorny international treaties.
Then there is Plan C: geo-engineering. That is a thorny political issue too. Who has the authority to decide what steps will be taken to alter the environment, whether through global dimming, massive installation of scrubbers, or iron salting the oceans.
So the analogy of that logic would be We should not fix the crack in the dam, but wait and see if the dam breaks and the then rebuild the town. Except of course in the case of 'the town' in relation to AGW it is thousands of town around the world. Current atmospheric CO2 concentrations stand at 390 ppm (not 386) the rate of increase has climbed to ~2ppm per year. http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#CarbonDioxide