Comments on: Richard Benedick on Climate Policy http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4076 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Marlowe Johnson http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4076&cpage=1#comment-7866 Marlowe Johnson Sat, 27 Jan 2007 02:43:29 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4076#comment-7866 I think most people agree that it is inappropriate to look at the success/failure of the Montreal protocol on ODS as a model for regulating GHGs. To anyone who is remotely familiar with both issues, it is immediately clear that the only thing the two problems share in common is that their effects are transnational and potentially long lasting. The GHG/climate change problem is orders of magnitude more difficult to solve because: 1. the gross assymetry that exists between winners/losers both in time and space; 2. there is no one single politically/economically acceptable solution on the horizon (unlike Dupont with HCFCs). International agreements are hard. Especially when there is no obvious 'silver bullet'. Should we be suprised that progress has been slow? No. Is there a CREDIBLE alternative? No. IMO technolgy prizes, increased R&D budgets, regional coalitions of the willing and variants are tokenism and won't result in real progress. Having said that I am fully willing to entertain arguments which suggest otherwise -- a little hope is never a bad thing after all... btw for a good read on the ozone issue I would suggest Karen Litfin's work: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023108/0231081375.HTM I think most people agree that it is inappropriate to look at the success/failure of the Montreal protocol on ODS as a model for regulating GHGs. To anyone who is remotely familiar with both issues, it is immediately clear that the only thing the two problems share in common is that their effects are transnational and potentially long lasting. The GHG/climate change problem is orders of magnitude more difficult to solve because:

1. the gross assymetry that exists between winners/losers both in time and space;

2. there is no one single politically/economically acceptable solution on the horizon (unlike Dupont with HCFCs).

International agreements are hard. Especially when there is no obvious ’silver bullet’. Should we be suprised that progress has been slow? No. Is there a CREDIBLE alternative? No. IMO technolgy prizes, increased R&D budgets, regional coalitions of the willing and variants are tokenism and won’t result in real progress. Having said that I am fully willing to entertain arguments which suggest otherwise — a little hope is never a bad thing after all…

btw for a good read on the ozone issue I would suggest Karen Litfin’s work:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023108/0231081375.HTM

]]> By: Vasco http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4076&cpage=1#comment-7865 Vasco Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:42:07 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4076#comment-7865 "Rather, it was an informal accord among a loose coalition of like-minded nations, including Australia, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and the United States, to individually and separately ban the use of CFCs in aerosol spray cans." The replacement of CFC with the hydrofluorocarbon, unstable, expensive, corrosive, toxic, inorganic,carcinogenic, wetland-damaging greenhouse gas HFC-134a was very welcome to DuPont who was about to lose the CFC patent rights and its 40 Billion business in the US alone. Most of the people in the refrigeration industry know that the CFC ban was a scam “Rather, it was an informal accord among a loose coalition of like-minded nations, including Australia, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and the United States, to individually and separately ban the use of CFCs in aerosol spray cans.”

The replacement of CFC with the hydrofluorocarbon, unstable, expensive, corrosive, toxic, inorganic,carcinogenic, wetland-damaging greenhouse gas HFC-134a was very welcome to DuPont who was about to lose the CFC patent rights and its 40 Billion business in the US alone. Most of the people in the refrigeration industry know that the CFC ban was a scam

]]> By: Steve Hemphill http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4076&cpage=1#comment-7864 Steve Hemphill Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:20:31 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4076#comment-7864 The current debate is corrupted (both consciously and subconsciously) by those who have seen the money made in the original Oil for Food scam and the potential with a global "solution" here. It is worth their while to continue to confuse the AGW issue by exagerating the CO2 component (which is unproven outside the lab anyway - not meaning it doesn't exist, but that the feedbacks appear stronger than the forcings since there is no evidence thereof in the record) and this convolution, plus the actual lack of knowledge of the CO2 effect including feedbacks, puts the whole thing at a logjam. The science may be settled, qualitatively, but that's a long way from understanding the reality. Many don't get that, either. The current debate is corrupted (both consciously and subconsciously) by those who have seen the money made in the original Oil for Food scam and the potential with a global “solution” here. It is worth their while to continue to confuse the AGW issue by exagerating the CO2 component (which is unproven outside the lab anyway – not meaning it doesn’t exist, but that the feedbacks appear stronger than the forcings since there is no evidence thereof in the record) and this convolution, plus the actual lack of knowledge of the CO2 effect including feedbacks, puts the whole thing at a logjam.

The science may be settled, qualitatively, but that’s a long way from understanding the reality. Many don’t get that, either.

]]> By: Bill F http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4076&cpage=1#comment-7863 Bill F Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:46:29 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4076#comment-7863 Great point about how direct action by a group of concerned countries spurred a larger consensus on how to act. I can't see how such an action would work though, given the current focus on carbon trading as the fashionable solution to carbon emissions. Such a market scheme inherently favors smaller countries and the slow moving economies of old europe over the growing economies of countries like the US, China, and India. If most of the cost of the preferred solution falls on the shoulders of the countries whose inclusion in the solution is most critical to its success, I can't see how we expect to successfully implement that solution. That is especially true when the costs of inaction may be quite limited in those countries when compared to the rest of the world. Relying on moral outrage and assaults on our way of life to try to get the US to change its course is and always will be a flawed strategy for the rest of the globe. We are used to being called "the great satan" by now and a large section of the American population has by now accepted that nothing we will ever do will prevent Old Europe from seeing us as uncivilized savages who are the root cause of most of the bad things that happen in the world. There is a certain segment of the US population that spends a great deal of time wringing their hands over how the rest of the world views us, but the rest of us have made our peace with the disdain the rest of the world publicly expresses for us while knowing that when the stuff hits the fan, we will always be there when the world needs us. In order to reach a global agreement on how to reduce emissions, the rest of the world has to recognize that calling us names and blaming us for everything isn't the way to ask for cooperation when the price of that cooperation will be much higher for us than it will be for them. Great point about how direct action by a group of concerned countries spurred a larger consensus on how to act. I can’t see how such an action would work though, given the current focus on carbon trading as the fashionable solution to carbon emissions. Such a market scheme inherently favors smaller countries and the slow moving economies of old europe over the growing economies of countries like the US, China, and India. If most of the cost of the preferred solution falls on the shoulders of the countries whose inclusion in the solution is most critical to its success, I can’t see how we expect to successfully implement that solution. That is especially true when the costs of inaction may be quite limited in those countries when compared to the rest of the world.

Relying on moral outrage and assaults on our way of life to try to get the US to change its course is and always will be a flawed strategy for the rest of the globe. We are used to being called “the great satan” by now and a large section of the American population has by now accepted that nothing we will ever do will prevent Old Europe from seeing us as uncivilized savages who are the root cause of most of the bad things that happen in the world. There is a certain segment of the US population that spends a great deal of time wringing their hands over how the rest of the world views us, but the rest of us have made our peace with the disdain the rest of the world publicly expresses for us while knowing that when the stuff hits the fan, we will always be there when the world needs us. In order to reach a global agreement on how to reduce emissions, the rest of the world has to recognize that calling us names and blaming us for everything isn’t the way to ask for cooperation when the price of that cooperation will be much higher for us than it will be for them.

]]>