Specifically, there is this outrageous and ludicrous statement, passed on without a shred of supporting evidence. (Why? Because no evidence is available, obviously!) It’s Paul Ehrlich (remember him?), quoting John Holdren:

“As physicist John Holdren has written, ‘A CO2 climate-induced famine, killing a billion people before 2020, certainly cannot be ruled out.’”

Absolutely appalling.

P.S. Actually though…it’s not so off-topic after all. Roger, if you also think that “A CO2 climate-induced famine, killing a billion people before 2020, certainly cannot be ruled out”…I can certainly understand why you would think government regulation is necessary! (What I can’t understand is why you would ever accept such a statement without volumes of supporting evidence!)

You write, “For most of those people opposed to greenhouse gas regulation advocating air capture would require first admitting that greenhouse gases ought to be reduced in the first place, an admission that most on this side of the debate have avoided.”

Your wording strongly implies that those against greenhouse gas regulation are simply avoiding admitting a truth. Otherwise, why would you use the words “avoid” and “admission”?

But why do you think governments need to regulate CO2 (either emissions or atmospheric concentrations)?

What do you have against plants?

Mark

P.S. Seriously, what significant harm do ***you think*** will be avoided by governments regulating CO2 (emissions or atmospheric concentrations)?

That is a classic fallacy I have encountered before.

If you happen to find yourself as the only person in a row boat, which you believe is going n the wrong direction, the only rationql thing to do is abandon the oars and grab the rudder.

I though you of all people would appreciate the political motivation of such behaviour

If we simplify the climate change debate to a Pascal’s Wager-like 2×2 grid, with Climate Change a Problem/Not a Problem on one axis and Technological Progress a Solution/Not a Solution on the other, how would most fill in the probabilities on this grid? Assuming its possible to simplify a very “shades of gray” problem into two “black-white” questions, my expectation is that answers to these seemingly objective questions would be strongly influenced by one’s feelings toward current resource and energy consumption levels.

James – Nuclear power?

Rich – Welcome! Excellent points, and I certainly agree with your 4
criteria for evaluating sinks.

Jim Clarke- Thanks for these comments and for clarifying a skeptical perspective!

Kit- Ditto for a non-skeptical perspective!

Tom- You dismiss prizes a bit too quickly I think. Also, extending your argument to its logical conclusion there would be essentially no directed government investment in technology research. Have a look at this paper:

http://www.druid.dk/ocs/viewabstract.php?id=114&cf=1

Thanks all!

Reasonable people might worry about where all the energy is going to come from (and whether it might not be more efficient just to use that energy to replace fossil fuel power generation). Also, if the practibility is possible but tendentious at this stage, they might worry that a ‘jam tomorrow’ technological fix might be used by advocates of complacency to avoid taking practical steps today. It would be a gamble to rely on this hope, in other words – and your attitude to that gamble would depend upon your political preconceptions.

The best way to make the judgment independently of such preconceptions is to leave it to market forces. With this in mind, your post also (inadvertently, I’m sure!) underlines the value of Kyoto. As a result of Kyoto, a value for CO2 emissions has been set by carbon trading. Companies now have a calculable incentive to undertake the research that would lead to air capture – and they can judge whether risk is worth the potential profit.

Giving a prize is less effective, because the prize is for a specific technology achievement, rather than for a policy achievment. In other words, a prize means that a bureacrat has decided that ‘technology X’ is what should be researched. A carbon marketplace leaves the choice of technology (free air capture, point of source capture, alternative energy, energy efficiency, or some optimal combination of all four) up to the market.

From the point of view of a skeptic, I have to wonder why you think skeptics would start to advocate sequestering CO2? Although a skeptic would not find sequestering in itself, harmful, I believe it would be considered a waste of time and energy, unless a viable and profitable use could be found for the sequestered carbon (which is another interesting speculation. See below).

At the core of the skeptics understanding is the theory that CO2 is NOT a major driver of climate change, so tweaking the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere either way, is not likely to produce a significant difference in climate!

I must, however, strongly disagree with the sentiments you expressed in this statement:

“If such a transformation occurs, then we have the irony of seeing the climate skeptics become the technology advocates and the greenhouse gas regulation advocates become technology skeptics.”

There is no irony in climate skeptics becoming technological advocates, for that is what we are today. While the term ’skeptic’ refers to our skepticism that CO2 is a major climate driver, we are also strong advocates of the idea that technology will make the debate a mute point. For example, Roy Spencer’s latest editorial on the TCS website illustrates this perfectly. Most climate skeptics recognize the inevitable progress in technology and view the IPCC projections of increasing CO2 emissions for the next 100 years as totally irrational.

Advocates of greenhouse gas regulation, on the other hand, are already skeptical of technology, referring to the undeniable march of progress as ‘pie-in-the-sky’, and ‘wishful thinking’!

I, for one, find no compelling reason to damage the biosphere by depriving plants of essential nutrients, but if it makes people feel better about themselves and they are willing to pay for it, who am I to complain! The problem is that these people are not willing to pay for it, but will certainly insist that we all contribute.

(On the other hand, would it not be ironic if a private company found a way to extract the carbon from the atmosphere and turn it into a highly profitable product? Imagine the consternation that the environmentalists would have as this corporation ‘rapes’ the atmosphere for money! Presidents will be persuaded to proclaim whole sections of the atmosphere as ‘National Atmospheric Parks’ to prevent industry from profiting off the atmospheric CO2, which rightfully belongs to the people! Now THAT would be ironic!)

Congratulations on a very interesting post! I anxiously await a reponse from DeBeers and their proposal for alternative products to be produced.

CO2 sinks are limited under Kyoto – they are there at all largely there due to US negotiations. If the goal is to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations, shouldn’t sinks of any kind be included? There are legitimate worries about all C sinks. But I think that most are derived from the feeling that efforts devoted to sinks reduce focus on what ought to be core efforts to reduce emissions. If I were a regulator of CO2 reduction activities, I would restrict activities to those that led to a net reduction on CO2 concentration. If a complete evaluation was not feasible, I’d attempt to discount those activities accordingly.

Air capture sinks ought to be evaluated by the same terms as any other sink or emission reduction activity. All sinks ought to be evaluated on how much CO2 they store, how long that CO2 remains there, secodary environmental impacts/benefits, and cost. A prize could entice research, development, and/or application, but IMHO it ought to be structured to address these four key areas. A prize focused on air capture could lead to reduced atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but could lead to investment in an option that is not the best option for one of several reasons.

Energy-dense fossil fuels drive modern industrial economies. They are so entrenched and valuable that any country, industry, etc that gave them up would be missing an opportunity for growth/prosperity. But emitting CO2 to the atmosphere has a cost. Sinks are a logical response to these observations and I suspect their appeal will grow in parallel with efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The real STP issue here is how should scarce research dollars be best used to identify and evaluate competing options. How can existing programs (e.g, that at DOE: http://www.fe.doe.gov/news/techlines/2005/tl_regional_partnerships_phase1.html) be improved? This is must be all the more challenging in the current environment in which, as prometheus suggests, research may be supported to allay action.