Seattle Times: "The truth about global warming"

Well, because no one has yet come up with data so conclusive that it succeeds in convincing the opposition, why can't we all agree that it is just simply time for us to get over gas?  Isn't our innovation and ingenuity a big part of what has made our country the great one that it is?  Don't you think people will find ways to turn standards and regulations into commercial oppportunities and financial windfalls for the companies that come up with the first inexpensive, ecologically friendly,  good-looking, fun-to-drive (and most importantly: cool-imaged) vehicle?  And the great thing about capitalism: won't that be a financial windfall for the savy investor as well?  I too am wary of a nanny government, and I completely respect that opinion.  But unfortunately most people will not make any sort of change on their own solely for the greater good, unless it makes financial sense or it's cool.  And neither of those factors will fall into place as long as commercial interests and marketing campaigns dictate public preferences.    And companies won't start changing the products they push until public demand... well... demands it.

So it's time to get over gas.  Just like we realized it was time to get over cigarettes and recently we are realizing it is time to get over junk food (at least in some regions).  The only logical reasons why those two banes persist are that the companies that produce them are compelled to push them in order to continue to make money and that the product itself happens to be ADDICTIVE.  And the same is true for gas, and as a society we need to get over that.  I would prefer that such a movement would occur from within the people; that people would demand it, but until the people are given more choices they won't.  Over time I'm sure demand will grow strong enough that auto manufacturers will see it profitable to produce more choices (and to some degree that is happening), but I see implementing tougher standards as simply a way to speed up the process.   I don't see it being the lifestyle ruining, finance devastating change that some do, and in fact it would show an unusual amount of foresight to make such a societal change BEFORE a crisis occured, rather than after it occured.  And I don't see why it has to be a political issue at all -- I don't see why we can't all agree that it would be better to cease relying on gas.   But on a political note, can't we all agree that it would make our Middle-East policy simpler (and thus address some national security concerns as well)?

(and for the record, I drive on biodiesel)

Even though I believe that the Global Warming argument is faulty, I fully agree that we need alternative energy sources.  The petro industry and their lobbyist have really jerked us around.

Brazil is now fuel independent with it's own sugar-alchohol fuel system.

Iceland has been totally dependent on imported fuel, but now has set off on a course to use geo-thermal energy to create electric --> hydogen fuels and use fuel cell vehicles. 

BTW - there is no oil shortage, just not much competition.  And when you look at all the big oil producing countries.... Except for Canada, their average citizens are living in the dirt under some form of oppression.... sad.

Historically, the British had to be convinced that oil was the fuel of choice - they had felt that coal was the big energy source.  Imagine how dirty that was.   Yes, things are always changing.

I have more to say about the global warmest's, but later....

Below is a quote of President Bush from an interview in People magazine ( I can only read stuff that is short and brief like in  People-{there, throwing barbs at myself -I hope nobody objects}):

Do you think Gore is right on global warming?
I think we have a problem on global warming. I think there is a debate about whether it's caused by mankind or whether it's caused naturally, but it's a worthy debate. It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline.

(end quote)

What was said makes a lot of sense. I do not endorse it because it was said by the President, but because it happens to agree with many of my own thoughts on the topic. I would hold it up as an example that some who may not endorse the popular human-caused GW disaster theories still have thoughtful concern that is translated into action. I would argue that new and better ($$ more economically feasible for all) technology is a good direction, instead of limiting the present technology by drastic political restrictions. As I have previously stated, I feel that drastic political restrictions affect people- often adversely, and often affect the weakest, lower financial classes and may generally be detrimental to our economy and standard of living.

My friend regaled me during the drive to Mt. Adams last week with a lot of information about hydrogen-power systems for automobiles. Sounds great, but has not been implemented because of economic influences. The issue of human- caused GH gas emissions can be solved if necessary.

On another related note,  I read that the EEC is proposing adding the equivalent of 40 British Pounds to each continental airfare to pay for carbon emissions credits.

Yet in Bush's address this morning, he said the solution to high gas prices was to increase supply by building more oil refineries.  What are the economic influences that you're talking about that prevent hydrogen-power systems?  Is it that that it cannot be produced cheaply enough?  Applying Bush's simple economics (no slam on Bush -- it really is simple economics), it follows that hydrogen-power systems could be made cheaper by increasing supply.  So essentially what I'm talking about is the tone at the top.  We need our national leaders to demonstrate a commitment to the new technology.  To incentivize increased production of the technology, whether it's hydrogen, ethanol, electric, or biodiesel.  As more companies get involved and more of the products are designed, built, sold, redesigned, rebuilt, sold, the technology will get cheaper.  Kind of like DVD players. 

Like I said, normally demand from customers causes this, but do you realistically expect that great of demand to occur while we still have a relative abundance of oil in the short term (whatever that is -- say the next 20 years)?  I admit you're right that applying strict restrictions could hurt the weakest classes...  I guess I'd like to think that it would be short-lived, because that type of hurt would cause the demand for alternative fuels to sky-rocket, prompting companies to jump into the market, thereby increasing supply and bringing prices down.  It'd be an artificially created market, but the government does that all the time, albeit more subtly with the preferencial tax treatments or other less obvious regulations.  But that's a whole 'nuther can of worms. 

Anyway, I don't know if regulations are the best solution.  I just know I would like to see our country leading the world in the move to alternative fuels, and to do that might require some action on the part of our government, that's all.  It irritated me to no end to hear Bush say that about increasing supply this morning, because going back to simple economics again, the other half of the formula is demand (remember the old supply & demand curve from econ 101?).  He could have just as easily said, "The solution to our high gas prices is to decrease demand for gas by increasing our output of alternative fuels."  But (here comes the jaded anti-Bush rhetoric), that would have gone over none too well with his buddies in the oil industry. 

BTW, good comments, Larry.  Add Norway (7th largest oil producer) to Canada as a country whose citizens live well.  Having been to Russia (2nd largest) recently, I'd say they're actually doing pretty well, too, considering all the changes they're going through.  I agree though, the list has some remarkably bad places to live. 
{top oil producing countries in 2004}

Sorry, had to edit to point out how interesting it is that we are the 3rd highest producer, but also the highest consumer & importer, yet we don't even make the list of exporters! I think it just shows how out of wack our infrastructure is in terms of giving people viable alternatives to driving gas-powered cars. I guess the flip-side of it though, is that our people are well enough off that they don't currently need alternatives.

This is an interesting thread by people who could certainly be affected by climate change in the future. So the question is, is climate change real and is it human produced? Probably one of the bigger hinderances to the population understanding the basics of climate change is the lack of understanding of the physical processes that give us the habitable Earth in the first place. For instance, why does the atmosphere transmit light but is opaque to infrared radiation? A little quantum mechanics and the study of resonance is somewhat vital in understanding this. So I will attempt to add references that all should read to make themselves better prepared to make intelligent arguments:

Basic Physics:
"Physics" 4ed by Halliday, Resnick, and Krane, is my favorite.

Basic Chemistry:
"Chemistry: a physical approach" by Sheehan, old but I like it.


Essentials of Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics:
"Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics" by Reif, thorough.
"Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer", 5th Edition by Incropera and DeWitt

Intoductory Quantum Mechanics
"Introductory Quantum Mechanics" by Liboff
"Quantum Mechanics" by Cohen-Tannouji et al. . . .a massive volume, but has lots of info.

More advanced QM
"Advanced Quantum Mechanics" by Sakurai, old but some stuff about light scattering in the atmosphere

Putting it all together for study of the atmosphere:
"An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics" by Fleagle and Businger, these are UW scientists
"Atmospheric Science" by Hobbs
"Planetary Sciences" by Imke de Pater, Jack J. Lissauer stuff on inner planets


Okay, this is just the base of human knowledge about the physics and chemistry of our atmosphere. Now, how the atmosphere behaves when perturbed by increased CO2 is certainly more complicated, but having at least a basic understanding this system is certainly helpful. Of great use is an understanding of the relation between the atmospheres of Venus, Earth, and Mars. Theirs is an insightful journey into the effects of greenhouse gases (a misnomer) on temperature and climate.

Another quesiton, aside from dedicated students of science, who has time to read all this? Again, these books give only the more general principle, even experts in physics or chemistry will not be up to date on the details of climate change models. So do we trust the experts who spend their lives dedicated to the research? Do we trust political pundits on both sides propagating their agendas? I supose we answer these questions by our minds, but extra knowledge never hurts!

Thanks