“Indeed, if it turns out that northern hemisphere temperatures are increasing primarily due to black carbon from dirty Chinese coal plants, the most effective mitigation may be for the developed world to simply buy them scrubbers.”

If by “plants”, you mean “electric power generation plants,” most scientists agree that coal-fired electric power plants do not emit significant black carbon.

Black carbon is caused by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels such as coal and diesel. Electric power plants are generally thought not to emit significant black carbon because the combustion process at an electric power plant (of any reasonable size) is generally pretty efficient (i.e., producing little unburned carbon).

There are significant black carbon (BC) emissions from China. But those emissions are thought primarily to come from such activities as residential coal combustion and “beehive” and other obsolete coke ovens.

See Table 1 of this document. (Note: China represents somewhere around 90% of the emissions from “East Asia.”) One can see from Table 1 that emissions of BC from “Power” are negligible, but BC emissions from “Residential and “Industry” in East Asia are very significant.

http://www-as.harvard.edu/chemistry/trop/gcap/streets_2004.pdf

So the solution to greatly reducing China’s black carbon emissions is to assure that all “beehive” and other primitive coke ovens are shut down, and to make sure that residential coal use is either eliminated or greatly reduced (e.g. replaced with natural gas, propane, electricity, or neighborhood coal-fired power plants that produce both electicity and hot water).

Also, “scrubbers,” when used with respect to coal-fired power plants, generally means flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubbers. They remove mostly sulfur dioxide (SO2), not particulate. (Since SO2 actually cools the planet, reducing SO2 emissions will tend to warm the planet, not cool it.)

Putting in scrubbers would do wonders for China’s acid rain problems and ambient air fine particulate concentration problems, but it would do virtually nothing to reduce black carbon emissions, and the reduction in SO2 emissions would actually tend to increase warming.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/methanehydrateclub/message/2639

This statement/questions sums up much of what I have just read. The nature of the problem is not what is important – the solution is what is important. It is not even necessary that the action we take effectively address the problem, since we do not really understand the source of the problem. All that is necessary is that we “do” something – that we have a policy to address the problem. The symbolism of the action is far more important than the efficacy of that action.
The sad truth is that despite what the IPCC’s latest report says we understand very little about our changing climate. Any action we take may will not impact the climate in any meaningful way. If we are fortunate, the action(s) will have a meaningful impact on some other problem we are facing. At what expense? Could the effort and moneys not be more wisely spent?

You also questioned Gore’s assertions regarding the competitive cost of nuclear power: “the cost-per-BTU of nuclear vs. the cost-per-BTU of coal with full CCS installed? I’m not sure CCS-coal is going to win that one.”

The Australian government commissioned a 2006 study of power generation options by the University of Sydney — which produced as a sub-report a survey of the literature titled “Life-Cycle Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia” [PDF]. I hope you have a chance to review this work and comment on it. The study looked well-done to me — shameless plug for a post on the study

http://seekerblog.com/archives/20070205/nuclear-energy-life-cycle-analysis-of-energy-and-greenhouse-gas-intensities/

which leads off:

Summary: greenhouse gas [GHG] intensities correlate closely with energy intensities. During their entire life cycle, conventional nuclear reactors generate about 20 times less GHGs than typical brown coal plants, and about half as much GHG as photovoltaics. Wind turbines and hydroelectric generate roughly three times less GHG than conventional nuclear.

Thanks for your commentary on the Senate EPW hearings. You mentioned “This is the first time I’ve heard Mr. Gore specifically endorse a carbon tax”. I checked into that a bit — it’s not the first time, though I can’t certify that Mr. Gore has been proposing a carbon tax for 14 years as he claimed at the NYU Law School:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/9/18/154846/236

“For the last fourteen years, I have advocated the elimination of all payroll taxes — including those for social security and unemployment compensation — and the replacement of that revenue in the form of pollution taxes — principally on CO2. The overall level of taxation would remain exactly the same. It would be, in other words, a revenue neutral tax swap. But, instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage business from producing more pollution.”

The particular tax swap Gore proposes plays directly to his Demo constituency as it is a highly regressive tax. My personal preference would be to swap for taxes which inhibit growth of investment and productivity — but by far the critical policy issue is revenue neutrality. Gore’s pick of payroll taxes is the most politically astute choice, so I suggest we get behind his proposal.

It’s definitely agreed there is an established risk. There are also a multitude of losers either way.

Finally, the established risk itself cuts both ways:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0530earthgreen.html

so should not discussions of policy ramifications include those not able to afford to buy clean energy, but who have to sell and use their e.g. coal to bring their standard of living up to an acceptable level?

Thanks for your response. Indeed, if it turns out that northern hemisphere temperatures are increasing primarily due to black carbon from dirty Chinese coal plants, the most effective mitigation may be for the developed world to simply buy them scrubbers. Contrast this with a 5 million square mile land mass that is not warming at all (Antarctica) and to think we know enough to develop “policy” is indeed putting the cart before the horse.

The only “policy” we should be espousing is to vastly increase research into climate, because the potential penalty for failure is in fact huge. As pointed out here:
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12

Temperature rise has most definitely not increased, and in fact seems to have stopped, so there’s really no crisis. We have time to figure this all out – an emotional reaction pushed by people wanting to make a buck off carbon trading sounds like the wrong thing to do.

I apologize for the diversion into the scientific argument, but it does give me the opportunity to make the following point, which I believe is central to the purpose of Prometheus:

Harry,

You asked,

“How can one determine policy if one doesn’t know what one is “policying” about??”

That is a very good question! It would seem unwise to write policy to address a problem that (in my mind) probably doesn’t even exist. But if we break down the threat of AGW into its component parts, we find a myriad of problems that already exist and would simply be exacerbated if the planet continues to warm like the IPCC suggests.

If we can develop policy that effectively addresses problems of water usage, agricultural efficiency, severe weather resilience, the spread of disease and how we manage energy, then we win no matter what the future climate brings!

Even if AGW turns out to be “worse than we thought”, it is doubtful that focusing all of our efforts on CO2 mitigation will result in significant benefits, certainly not in our lifetimes and barely even measurable in the lives of our children. If the skeptics are closer to correct, efforts towards CO2 mitigation are a huge waste.

Right now, AGW supporters are seemingly stuck on advocating CO2 emissions regulation while skeptics are being portrayed as those who advocate ‘doing nothing’. Neither policy stance is constructive.

Prometheus has been portrayed as offering a ‘middle ground’ perspective. I strongly disagree! Prometheus is not advocating something that is half-way between doing nothing and the total regulation of CO2. Prometheus is advocating the best policy choices for dealing with real problems that could get worse in the future. Prometheus is about generating good policy; not about compromising between two bad policies!

That is why I come here and participate. Even though I disagree with Kevin and Roger on the science of climate change, this site has taught me that we can pursue effective policy together.

I think skeptics need to realize that the ball is rolling. Until temperatures start to cool, politicians are going to ‘do something’ about the threat of climate change. We can either sit and pout in the corner or try to steer the debate towards policies that generate a real bang for the buck, regardless of future climate.

Whether or not I agree with Al Gore’s interpretation of the science is irrelevant here (as Kevin has indicated). The purpose of my original post was to argue that Al Gore’s policy suggestions are almost totally focused on CO2 mitigation and will very likely be ineffective. I was trying to make the point that there is little reason to celebrate the ball finally moving, if it is not moving in the right direction!