Comments on: Frank Laird on Peak Oil, Global Warming, and Policy Choice

By: MT

MT — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:37:35 +0000

If market forces alone create a global rush towards nuclear energy, how will that technological fix affect the security of the world in the present ideological climate? Imagine thousands of new nuclear plants and their waste. Do we want everyone to reprocess spent fuel of which plutonium is a product? We also hear today about the Russian plan to build a floating nuclear facility. Such nuclear fixes seem to overwhelm the global cooperation we see in the world.

If we convert food sources to power our cars, how will that effect nutrition in the third world?

I think mitigation and adaptation require us to look at the big picture. This means debating the unintended consequences of action and inaction as well as ALL the threats to global stability. We read about bees dying from cell phone transmissions and over fishing depleting the ocean’s genetic stocks. Certainly numerous environmental degradations and threats are part of the big picture.

The author points out a “consensus”, but the basic science regarding the lag time between temperature and increases in CO2, the percentage of human forcing of CO2 v the amplification cycle started 5000 years ago and even the inevitability of another glacial period down the road are uncertain and leads us to consider making our policy very carefully adn in an framework that rests on verifiable global cooperation.

Just a thought from the public gallery…..

By: Steve Gaalema

Steve Gaalema — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:31:36 +0000

>”Talking about inevitability also short-changes society because it is an effort to restrict the scope and creativity of policy making, shutting out competing voices and narrowing the scope of thinking about what are multi-dimensional problems.”

While responding to GW likely has a need for policy making, why do we need ‘policy makers’ help with peak oil (other than removing barriers they have erected against various other energy sources)?

Talking about _policy making_ also short-changes society because it is an effort to restrict the scope and creativity of the _free market_, shutting out competing voices and narrowing the scope of thinking about what are multi-dimensional problems.

By: Mark UK

Mark UK — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:49:30 +0000

“How do you get the first three to make sacrifices for the benefit of the latter? ”

You don’t. Is the rich west making any sacrifices now for the develope world?

By: Paul Dougherty

Paul Dougherty — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:14:06 +0000

“Now is the time to expand our thinking about everything from diplomacy to economic and social development, as well as technological innovation.” Indeed, no one talks about the agencies that will effect the solutions. Global Warming abatement will require unprecedented international cooperation. In addition to the aspirations of developing nations, GW will produce nations/areas that will be winners or unaffected as well as the loosers. How do you get the first three to make sacrifices for the benefit of the latter?

By: Jonathan Gilligan

Jonathan Gilligan — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:00:52 +0000

“[T]he purpose of policy analysis is to open up alternatives for policy makers, not tell them the one best thing to do, much less try to persuade them that they only have one choice.”

This nugget too often gets lost in detailed technical discussions of the adequacy or inadequacy of forecasts about environmental resources or hazards. It’s great to see Laird set it forth so clearly and succinctly.