"If nuclear power is replaced with natural gas, the nation could expect to lower power generation prices if it handles shipping and storage properly. Thus, it is possible that nuclear power could be replaced by natural gas. However, more thermal power plants will result in an increase in carbon emissions."He is however, soft-peddling that; of course it is "possible" to replace nuclear power with natural gas, the question is at what cost. However, the immediate economic context for the decision must be made clear: the cost of installing natural gas power stations may or may not be lower than the cost of the nuclear power stations, but it will certainly be lower than the cost of installing the equivalent in wind turbines and solar panels. Moreover, unlike renewables gas-fired power stations do not suffer from the disadvantage of being naturally intermittant in their supply. Those are the follow-up points that had to made, but which the professor's editorial neglects to mention.
As for carbon emissions, the following three points ought to be made again and again and again...
1) Taiwan's C02 emissions are something like 1% of a global total which increases by more than that (perhaps 3%) every year. So even reducing them 100% would fail to prevent the increase in global emissions, but even reducing them by say 10-20% would impose considerable domestic costs.
2) Aside from the hysteria about "tipping points", there are ample reasons to think that the current long-term warming trend will have positive externalities and not just negative ones. The obvious case being the amount of currently frozen land that could potentially become arable over the course of this century in places like Canada and Siberia. Yet the case for reducing C02 emissions typically relies on a simplistic formula of adding up all the possible negative externalities and dismissing the possible positive externalities.
3) The fact that there has been no statistically significant warming trend over the past 15 years despite increasing atmospheric C02 concentrations indicates that there is reason to believe that there are other mechansims responsible for the long-term warming trend besides the greenhouse effect. Taking note of that statistical fact is not "denialism", as even climatologists are discussing the current temperature standstill amongst themselves and ruling out their higher estimates of climate sensitivity. It may be that even if C02 emissions could be significantly reduced, the planet will continue to warm over the course of this century anyway.
" indicates that there is reason to believe that there are other mechansims responsible for the long-term warming trend besides the greenhouse effect."
ReplyDeleteOkay. Then the question is if there is a long term warming effect that does not fit the Earth's patterns of warming and cooling is it anthropogenic or not. Both answers to that question then require another question - What is precisely is causing it and is there anything that can be done to slow or reverse this process?
Either way, there seems to be a consensus that unusual climatic changes are underway and these will impact the livelihoods of billions of people. If millions of people are forced to migrate to safer or mood food secure regions what impacts will that have on the environment and on global economies.
I think my key criticism of the tone of your arguments Mike is that they belie a somewhat privileged attitude - you don't think it will affect you. You have the resources / advantages / strategy to make sure you're alright but what about those who don't? Water is an essential resource - many of the world's wars have been fought over it and it is currently one of the elephants in the room of the Palestinian - Israeli conflict. My concern is a) that uneven and unpredictable scarcity and overabundance will spark a greater scale of deadly conflict b) that the free market mechanism motivates businesses to seek out profitable as opposed to non profitable consumer bases - a minority of wealthy peoples will retain access to more than sufficient stocks whilst a growing majority go on rationing.
"Then the question is if there is a long term warming effect that does not fit the Earth's patterns of warming and cooling is it anthropogenic or not..."
ReplyDeleteAll that is known about the Earth's natural patterns of warming and cooling is inferred from the geological record, and by that standard the current warming trend is insignificant.
"What is precisely is causing it and is there anything that can be done to slow or reverse this process?"
That's two separate questions, but the second one requires economic cost-benefit analysis: what can be done, by whom and at what costs? And those costs encompass not only material costs reflected in the price system, but also immaterial costs which cannot be priced - such as human freedom. It is revealing that Paul Nurse, the current President of the Royal Society, seems to believe in the "pragmatism" of scientific management of social problems - just like the eugenics people a century or so ago. It does not seem to occur to him that other people's lives and values are not his or anyone else's to subject to grand Statist engineering solutions.
"If millions of people are forced to migrate to safer or mood food secure regions what impacts will that have on the environment and on global economies."
First, since climate sensitivity is still uncertain (current estimates are between 1 and 2.5 degrees), predictions of climate impacts on how people live ought to reflect that uncertainty.
Second, if the long-term warming trend continues and we get say 1 or 2 degrees of warming over the next century, then there will be some negative impacts - but the difficulty of dealing with these will reflect their scale. And then there will be some positive impacts too, as pointed out above.
"...you don't think it will affect you."
Probably not by much if we're talking a 1 or 2 degree rise by 2100 since I'll be long dead before that year comes around.
"... the free market mechanism motivates businesses to seek out profitable as opposed to non profitable consumer bases - a minority of wealthy peoples will retain access to more than sufficient stocks whilst a growing majority go on rationing."
As Turton would say... "sigh". Why have you conflated "non-profitable consumer bases" with "a growing majority"? Do you not understand what an economy of scale is, Ben? You don't make money by selling water to a small number of people, unless you charge skyrocket prices - and then you don't make any money either because the competition knocks you out. You make money from selling water by selling it to large numbers of people at the cheapest possible prices.