A note about global warming

According to a general, non-scientific, poll on weather.com, 38.7% of those polled are "not convinced that [global warming] is true."

On a related note, 38.7% of those who participated in the weather.com poll have spent the last 10 years of their live mimicking ostriches and sticking their heads in the ground.

I understand if you don't think global warming isn't a particularly alarming issue (although I personally think it's pretty alarming), but to outright deny that it's occurring is ridiculous. I've stated my opinions about global warming before here.

Oh well, there's no cure for fools.

Frustrated with humanity,
Greg

A rant about energy

Quick tidbit about oil prices from, of all people, Eddie Vedder. Vedder mentioned at Bonnaroo during Pearl Jam's set that the average price of gas in the US when President Bush first took office was $1.46 a gallon. The other day, I was paying $4.22 a gallon.

Another little note: a year ago, a friend of mine was doing similar work I'm doing this summer and was canvassing for wind farms off of Long Island. The wind farms were ultimately defeated because they would be 'eyesores' and the cost of the wind farms didn't seem justifiable at the time because energy was affordable. The cost of oil was $70 a barrel. A year later, the cost of oil is about $140 per barrel and still climbing. The cost of an offshore wind farm doesn't seem to be too bad now doesn't it?

What I'm saying is that even if you don't agree with environmentalists, they're right about one thing: As far as energy sources go, the United States (and the rest of the world for that matter) needs to find alternative sources quick. This summer seems to be proving that the peak oil hypothesis is true. Drilling in Alaska and the Dakotas might be a quick fix, but ultimately, the truth is that oil is a limited resource. Some alternatives that seem feasible? Bio matter fuel from quickly-reproducing algae (screw corn- it exacerbates the world food crisis [by the way, subsidies for farmers in this country is a joke, but that's for another rant at another time]), solar energy, nuclear energy (stop it, it's much safer than oil- anyone who took and paid attention in high school chemistry would know that), salt water (read this- I really hope this is not a hoax like cold fusion was), and wind energy all seem reasonable enough.

Unfortunately (like I've said many times before in this blog) people generally hate change and thus do not have the abilities of foresight and prognosis. It's only when things are too late do people decide action is needed. Even then, it's not even unanimous. The ultimate downfall of humanity will be due to hubris, lack of foresight and laziness- mark my word.

Cynically,
Greg

You want to talk about electability?

Who wants to about electability? I understand what the reality is at the moment when talking about potential Democratic party nominees. It seems Obama has it all wrapped up- all Clinton has to hope for is an assassination or some miraculous deal at or before the convention. Take a look at this graphic to the right.

What's it about? The graph is a general election poll. Although I have no idea who conducted the poll, the general idea behind this is that the blue-colored states are states that both Obama and Clinton both beat McCain, the Red states are states McCain won regardless of democratic nominee. The brown states are sates where only Obama beat McCain and the pink states are states that only Clinton beat Obama. Just looking at the differecne between pink and brown states, Clinton has an advantage in the electoral college. That's just straight electability for you.

Here's the breakdown:

• The map is from http://www.electoral-vote.com accessed 5/24/08
  
• Democrats will win 200 votes from the electoral college regardless of candidate.
• McCain will win 144 votres from the electoral college regardless of the democratic candidate.
• An Obama nomination will provide the Democrats with another 66 college votes and the Republicans 114 college votes. Final tally is D-266 vs. R-258.
  
• A Clinton nomination will provide the Democrats with another 114 college votes and the Republicans with 66 college votes. Final tally is D-314 vs. R- 210
  
• The numbers were too close in to call Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes- those 10 votes weren't accounted for in the tallies above.

So the short version is this: an Obama nomination will prove to be a much closer presidential race with McCain possibly winning (if the Republicans win Wisconsin). A Clinton nomination is projected to be a definitive victory.

What does this mean? Hillary Clinton is the more electable candidate for the Democrats, at least according to the poll above. I guess this means the nations is less sexist than racist. My opinion? I've reiterated that a couple times on this blog. I prefer Clinton, but I'm cool with Obama- very cool. That's all I got for now.

Wishing for a Democratic victory in November,
Greg

Global warming? Global warming!

Global warming is occurring- it's a fact. The argument was, and always has been, the extent of the human impact on global warming. Everyone is familiar with the An Inconvenient Truth version of the story: the human impact of (among other things) deforestation, emission of greenhouse gases and over-exploitation of natural resources is contributing to accelerating global warming. We, according to this argument, can reverse our input if proactive action is used. The consequences can be as drastic as a change in society as we know it.

The other side of the coin is the argument that global warming is a part of an natural oscillation in mean global temperature that can be seen in ice records- there's nothing humans can do to reverse it and the human impact on this process is negligible.

Most scientists (economists are not scientists!) are on board with the first half of the argument. They generally acknowledge the natural oscillations of mean global temperature but they stress the human impact in accelerating this process. This is the mainstream point of view.

Unfortunately, there are many people who completely reject the first and the popular opinions. One of these is the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman. He's bought into the second opinion (humans have a negligible effect on global warming).

***

Okay, my turn to talk.

Let’s just think for a second. We can think of the costs and the benefits of acting and not acting against global warming- a cost-benefit analysis if you will. We have four possible outcomes of global warming generally speaking, two for the extent of the effects of global warming and two for the measures (the costs) against global warming. It's only worth looking at the best and worst case scenarios for both because everything else will be in-between.

For the effects of global warming, the best case scenario is nothing happens. Global warming was, was hysterical paranoia, nothing happens; the climate remains the same for the next 1000 years. We'll call this "minimal global warming."

The worst case scenario for the effects of global warming ends with the end of society as we know it. Increasing global temperatures lead to the melting of the ice caps, which, in-turn, leads to major flooding- perhaps as far as wiping islands (like Manhattan or Long Island) off the map altogether. These changes in turn affect climate and weather patters around the world, making traditional staple-grain producing plains unsuitable. These interact together killing off billions of people world wide from flooding and hunger leading to a massive crisis and fundamentally changes in how society is structured from then on. We'll call this "maximum global warming."

For measures taken against global warming, the minimum is not changing anything- the status quo. No extra costs for making America more 'green.' Will call this "minimum cost."

The worse case scenario for measures taken against global warming is a complete overhaul in making everything 'green.' Taxes go up, billions of dollars (say 15% of GDP) are redirected towards researching energy resources that do not contribute greenhouse gases (like renewable energy, 'clean' coal and nuclear), funding subsidies to help consumers ease the transitions (perhaps offering a very large tax deduction for installing personal solar panels or something), and provide aide funding and research to developing nations that contribute vast amounts of greenhouse gases (like China and India). We'll call this "maximum cost."

The best case scenario in the end is “minimal global warming” with “minimum cost” – the status quo is maintained at no extra cost to anyone. The absolute worst case scenario is “maximum global warming” with “minimum cost” – here nothing is done as society itself may crumble as we know it.

The other two possible combinations of outcomes are not as undesirable as the absolute worst case scenario. If “maximum global warming” occurred with “maximum cost,” the hope is that minimizing of greenhouse gases and creating a more ‘green’ society assuaged some of the pressures of global warming – some changes would have occurred due to global warming, but the effects wouldn’t have been as bad had nothing been done - society can go on. If “minimal global warming” occurred with “maximum cost,” the only thing is lost money – this is not as bad as society as we know it crumbling.

Alright, so what’s my point? The extent of the true effects of global warming isn’t something anyone has real control over. What we do have control over is the cost against global warming. Both scenarios where there was a measure of cost against global warming were taken resulted in outcomes that weren’t the most undesirable outcomes. Yes, it was a “minimal cost” scenario that produced the best possible outcome, but it also had the worst possible outcome as well. By not even considering the mere possibility of the effects of global warming, you’re turning the entire thing into a coin flip between best and worst case scenarios. Wouldn’t it be better if you were guaranteed a scenario that didn’t end with the possible dissolution of society as we know it? The only part of this thought experiment we can actually control is the cost of taking measures against global warming.

The absolute worst things that will happen is that spending in the US will increase. It won’t be too much different from the Cold War if we end up spending about 15% of the GDP against climate change. The only difference will be that it’s against climate change instead if communism.

Plus at the very least, such spending should end US dependence on fossil fuels- something that needs to be either way. More on that another day…