Re: Hurricane Sandy
Funny thing is, once in a while they (the powers that be) actually manages to get it right. Banning CFC-gases caused the kind of mild economic disruption that made whole industries move forward, and beside having a positive end result for a niche of the economy, chances are that the ozone layer actually benefitted.
Projections are that ozone will return to 1950 levels by 2080, a good thing. Some draw parallels but A) not blocking the high frequency UV radiation is demonstrably bad for human health (skin cancer anyone?). B) there was little question about where CFCs came from, C) and the cost to society was modest.
For those keeping score, Ozone is a greenhouse gas, so arguably filling the hole over Antarctica will reduce cooling losses there and increase Antarctic temperature. A small price to pay IMO for the wider health benefit to all living things.
Speaking of only sometimes getting it right, I remain apprehensive that government bans on DDT, thwarted inexpensive control of mosquito borne malaria in developing countries, leading to many unnecessary childhood deaths and disease. Of course this isn't simple and DDT is far from risk free, but dying from malaria is forever.
So far, what has been implemented to reduce emission of green-house gases, have been scams with no real effect and rather futile excercises with ill side-effects. Carbon tax and the trade in carbon-equivalents are probebly the best scams since the Y2K scam. While buying a quota or paying tax doesn't reduce the emissions, it makes some people rich, and like any other snake oil scheme, if you market it well and get the right people to take the bait, your fortune is made. While carbon tax in theory might persuade people to choose "greener", the EU and the governments here in Europe are now screwing that up by introducing energy tax on non-polluting energies, making these forms of energies less attractive. The thinking is that any use of energy will ultimately cause carbondioxide to be emitted for various reasons. While this might hold some truth, the end effect is that taxation no longer will be biased towards handicapping carbon emitting energy sources.
I don't want to rehash the old conspiracy theories, so I won't, but if the shoe fits.
Using various food crops to produce fuel has hiked food prices and is potentially very close to causing world hunger.
I notice that the price of generic store brand canned corn has literally doubled over the last several years (1# now $0.68, was $0.33) since ethanol fraction has become mandated. The impact has rippled through the entire food chain as corn made up a lot of animal feed stocks. My observation about what I pay for canned corn is anecdotal, but food prices worldwide are rising for this and sundry other reasons (like energy cost).
I recall maybe ten years ago a small company sold a home heating stove, modified to burn corn. At the time burning corn was cheaper than other heat sources. Not so much now.
Turning waste into fuel, waste that might either be burned anyway or decompose fairly quickly, can potentially be beneficial provided that you don't spend too much energy and resources.
The old "something for nothing" thesis, ignores that even old corn stalks that formerly get plowed under return nutrients to the soil that must be restored by adding more fertilizer, if collected and fermented. I think the electricity utilities should harvest trees near overhead power lines as a temporary bridge solution until the power distribution system can be hardened but not a significant long term source of energy.
I like sugar cane to make the modest amounts of ethanol useful for oxygenation (better than MTBE). The current plan to push ethanol fraction to 15% from 10% scares me. I recently had to replace the fuel lines in my chain saw, because they literally disintegrated from sitting in 10% ethanol. I drive a '97 car that was not engineered for the corrosive effects. Even gas stations need to replace their pumps to survive the more corrosive 15% blend.
But the idea that any biofuel is good is flawed, chopping down a tree and burning it releases carbon that might othewise have been stored for a further few decades or longer. The thinking that if it is already in the cycle it is ok to burn fails to recognize the whole dynamic of the carbon cycle, a cycle that also include fossil fuels (which are biofuels that have been stored a little longer).
Trees need to be grown and harvested to make biofuel from them, so the energy calculus is not simple. I believe there is an experimental biofuel from wood plant in MS, but that is likely the result of federal government throwing bus loads of money at any alternate fuel project. Perhaps a good plan if we were running low on fossil fuel, as has been long predicted (incorrectly IMO). We will run low eventually, just not in my lifetime, and when that happens price increases in anticipation of that actually happening will drive economic alternatives with market forces.
Politicians and a large proportion of the general public tend to jump on bandwagons and only focus on one aspect of any issue or idea.
Sceptics with a broader view are easily put in the same group as the sceptics that refuse to accept even proven facts, and are therefore too easily dismissed.
+1.... but the public is never expected to fully understand the difficult stuff. They are expected to vote their self-interest which in this case seems to be poorly quantified. The number of hyperbolic arguments warning about global warming seem tantamount to snake oil sales pitches, making the credible science supporting warming thesis harder to take seriously, lost in all the arm waving and poor S/N.
It is human nature for this issue to be raised around major weather events. Coincidentally multiple global warming conferences have been postponed or affected negatively due to snow and/or cold weather ironically called the "Al Gore" effect. Trying to avoid snow by scheduling the 2011 meeting in Cancun Mexico and Al Gore staying away, still set a 100 year record for low temperature in Cancun of 54'. Weather events like this are anecdotal so not proof of anything but humans can not resist trying to attach some significance (I don't). If anything I'd say somebody upstairs is messing with Al, but he is comfortable making lots of money from his alternate energy investments.
JR
