<DrumBeat: May 31, 2006 The Oil Drum Lessons from Brazil>

51 comments on The world is changing, but do those who should, worry?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Valuethinker on June 1, 2006 - 9:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Lomborg is a political scientist not a scientist or an economist.  Much of what he has written about global environmental change just doesn't stack up.

For his example his opposition to Kyoto is based on naive estimates of the cost of compliance.

Because he opposed Kyoto, he has become a poster child of the right.  However he has also stated that we should do something about global warming, and that Kyoto is not enough.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on June 1, 2006 - 9:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I've read interviews with Lomborg, and I think listened to an Mp3 of one of his presentations.  He's generally pretty rational and nuanced, but he's got his role.  He's The Skeptical Environmentalist.  It really just amused me that on this subject the best skepticism he could offer was a faith in energy markets.  That's kind of a general back-up position.

I do remember that he doesn't own a car and rides a bike around town.  I think he argues for lower energy consumption.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Valuethinker on June 1, 2006 - 12:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
And yet he has become the poster child of people who argue that it is immoral to restrict their driving of SUVs.

He reminds me of those socialists who refused to condemn Stalin and the Soviet Union after the show trials, to show solidarity with the left.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BrianT on June 1, 2006 - 2:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Stalin was a socialist?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TI on June 1, 2006 - 10:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Kyoto is of course completely meaningless. It targets do not suffice to reduce the Cliamte Change a bit, and these targets will not be attained, not even in those countries that support it strongly (mostly EU).

The most important means to do something really is to let the Peak Oil and Gas go its course. This means dismissing the idea of heavily subsidized low EROEI alternative fuels, from ethanol to tar sands, CTL etc. Low EROEI alternatives mean only more CO2 to net energy. This is a real market solution, too: cut all the subsidies and tax breaks for oil, gas and coal industry, ethanol and all. This kills effectively those EROEI-lowering projects. There will be a bit less gross energy available, but only net energy is important, and the CO2 emissions will be definitely lower.

Let the energy prices rise and increase somewhat energy taxes on that to make for investments in conservation. Not for hybrid cars, but mainly for lower residential energy consumption, public transport and so on. And provide help for those affected by the economic changes. Here you have your program. The easy and effective one.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Valuethinker on June 1, 2006 - 12:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A 7% drop in CO2 mandated by Kyoto is not enough, but it is something.

Kyoto was anything but meaningless.

Already the EU is trading carbon futures, a direct result of our Kyoto obligations.

Kyoto was never intended to be anything but the first move.

Market forces will not stop CO2 production fast enough.
What we need is a market price for CO2, based on a traded permits system.

We emit 7 billion tonnes of CO2 pa, we have to get that down to 2 billion tonnes pa. Probably within the next 25 years.  Just to stabilise the world climate in the second half of this century.

As we hit Peak Oil, if we do, our CO2 production will rise inexorably, as we use more high CO2 sources of energy: tar sands, coal etc.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TI on June 1, 2006 - 5:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Kyoto is absolutelu meaningless now, you know that, too, Valuethinker. The EU CO2 trade is not about Climate Change but about energy policy. The US is talking about oil, the EU about CO2, but in fact the EU is also talking about energy, albeit under disguise. The EU is talking about depleting coal, depleting North Sea oil and gas and imports from Russia, but it cannot say this openly, because the news are too bad.

The emission trade is mostly energy policy, quotas for the EU member countries and an attempt to regulate the energy use of non-EU counties in order to maintain competitivness. You say that the CO2 emissions should get down from 7 million tons to 2 million. This is not Kyoto target. The emissions are growing right now, not diminishing, despite of the very modest goals of the Kyoto agreement.

But you are right, the task is really to avoid low EROEI, high CO2/net energy solutions. But the EU is now doing the exact opposite by promoting very low EROEI biofuels. This is economically and environmentally unsound. But this is touted as "green" policy! The EU energy policy is now mostly opening up the markets and importing more. Joining the US in ME wars seems now to be part of that policy. Here we are now.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

51 comments on The world is changing, but do those who should, worry?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version