Chill out.

Washington Post ^ | October 14, 2007 | BJORN LOMBORG

[Lorianne]

Proponents of pacts such as Kyoto want us to spend enormous sums of money doing little good for the planet a hundred years from now. We need to find a smarter way. The first step is to start focusing resources on making carbon emissions cuts much easier.

The typical cost of cutting a ton of carbon dioxide is currently about $20. Yet, according to a wealth of scientific literature, the damage from a ton of carbon in the atmosphere is about $2. Spending $20 to do $2 worth of good is not smart policy. It may make you feel good, but it's not going to stop global warming.

We need to reduce the cost of cutting emissions from $20 a ton to, say, $2. That would mean that really helping the environment wouldn't be the preserve of the rich but could be open to everyone -- including China and India, which are expected to be the main emitters of the 21st century but have many more pressing issues to deal with first.

The way to achieve this is to dramatically increase spending on research and development of low-carbon energy. Ideally, every nation should commit to spending .05 percent of its gross domestic product exploring non-carbon-emitting energy technologies, be they wind, wave or solar power, or capturing CO2 emissions from power plants. This spending could add up to about $25 billion per year but would still be seven times cheaper than the Kyoto Protocol and would increase global research and development tenfold.

Cutting emissions is said to be our "generational mission." But don't we want to implement the most efficient policies first? We also need to remember that the 21st century will hold many other challenges, for which we have low-cost, durable solutions.

[ari-freedom]

The way to achieve this is to dramatically increase spending on research and development of low-carbon energy
-
yes but when govt does the spending, you’ll end up with lots of $ going to dubious ideas such as ethanol and windmills.

The spending has to come from the private sector. but how?

[boop]

"The spending has to come from the private sector. but how?"

I agree. I think the problem is the private sector doesn't see $ in it. If they did, you better believe we'd see some results. Who wouldn't want to become rich by coming up with something great? Another problem is no matter the source energy doesn't come free. Ethanol is stupid now because it costs about 120 dollars a barrel to produce something less efficent than oil. The only real answer is nuclear power, but no one has the guts to really push it.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Chill this.

NASA - The sun is much larger than Earth. From the sun's center to its surface, it is about 109 times the radius of Earth. Some of the streams of gas rising from the solar surface are larger than Earth.

The following example may help you picture the relative sizes of the sun and Earth and the distance between them: Suppose the radius of Earth were the width of an ordinary paper clip. The radius of the sun would be roughly the height of a desk, and the sun would be about 100 paces from Earth.

The part of the sun that we see has a temperature of about 5500 degrees C (10,000 degrees F).

[Rudder]

The major greenhouse-warming-effect gas is not carbon, however. Water vapor far outdistances CO2 in that regard.

We must learn how to become less water vapor dependent.

[ari-freedom]

if government pushed nuclear specifically (with $ or tax credits, not merely loosening regulations), you’d also have a free for all in that sector.

Nuclear energy won’t power my oven or my car either.

[djxu456]

the rest-of-the-world should go first,

in whatever stupidity is being called for.

[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

"Ideally, every nation should commit to spending .05 percent of its gross domestic product exploring non-carbon-emitting energy technologies, be they wind, wave or solar power, or capturing CO2 emissions from power plants."

Sounds tantamount to economic planning...or am I missing something?

[steelyourfaith]

AGW™ ping

[AFPhys]

I recently heard that power companies have started the processes needed to build on the order of thirty new nuke power plants.

Hoping they get built.