Posted on 04/11/2007 8:59:31 PM PDT by ckilmer
Ok lets get the 5% wrong part out of the way. Both Newt and Kerry agreed that the current warming goes back 400 years. It only goes back about 200. Current reseach shows that there was a cooling period or mini ice age from the early 1400's to the early 1800's. Up until about 1810 the Thames River in England froze over sufficiently for London to have fairs on the river annually. After about 1810 those fairs ended. The ice was not solid enough to support the people.
Both Kerry and Newt agreed that carbon dioxide has gone up since the first industrial revolution which began in the 1830's. Both seemed to suggest that man burning coal oil & wood was the principle reason for the upsurge. Scientists are saying these days that since Mars is currently warming its more likely that the reason the earth is warming has more to do with the suns radience.
More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is an effect rather than a cause.
Still the earth is warming on average and carbon dioxide may be one the reasons for the warming.
So why did Newt agree with Kerry and say not only that there is a problem but that the problem is so urgent that it calls for immediate and dramatic action right now.
Environmental concerns over carbon dioxide and national security concerns over oil dependence on regimes that wish US ill and monetary concerns over the current accounts deficits are three sides of the same problem.
The faster the USA can get out from under dependence on foreign oil the better all around.
The center of the arguement was how to drop carbon dioxide use the fastest and most cost effectively. Kerry was argueing for what he referred to as cap in trade or the Europeans call carbon credits. Cap in trade or carbon credits are disincentives in the form of taxes for carbon dioxide emmissions. Newt was arguing for tax breaks and more federal spending on research. Tax breaks and federal dollars for research are incentives for creating new technologies.
I agree with Newt's line of reasoning. His arguement that any regime that doesn't include the indians and the chinese won't be effective in cutting world wide carbon dioxide emissions. He said the way for India and China to cut their carbon dioxide emissions and -- also their dependence on mid east oil was to create the technologies that precluded the need for such things as oil.
He concluded his remarks by mentioning that 100 years ago no on could have imagined the LA that we know today. There simply is no water in the area. There is an amazing amount of technological adaptability at our disposal.
Newt didn't say so but I think one thing that will happen in the next decade will be that the cost of water desalination will collapse to 1/10 current costs thereby making it possible to turn the deserts of the world green and doubling the size of the habitable planet and reversing the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere.
Actually, I thought that shortcut with Helium is easier, but the true way to get There, while more difficult, is righteous.
Lovely posts; thanks for putting a smile on my face.
Exactly.
This was supposed to be a debate about whether global warming was man-made or not and whether man can control climate change. Mixing in energy policy muddies the waters. Newt not only conceded that man is responsible for global warming but that we must take urgent action to address it. He said he was ashamed of his own party and what was needed was a Green Conservative. Kerry and Newt were just discussing the means to control global warming and not the underlying assumption that global warming is man-made and that it can be controlled by limiting and eventually eliminating carbon based energy sources.
The fact is that the science is not settled about the causes of global warming and whether carbon dioxide is the result or cause of it. Moreover, the hubris involved in believing that man can attach some sort of thermostat to the earth's climate and maintain an ideal temperature is just plain nuts. We are being asked to make a huge investment of resources in something, which may not have any effect at all on climate change.
Newt aided Kerry and Gore in their stampede for us to take action immediately on global warming. They are asking us to hobble our economy while China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, ignores any such regulation. As it grows more affluent, the demands for energy and consumer goods will rise. In order to compensate for China's increased pollution, the US and Western Europe must reduce its energy use and increase the costs of goods and services to its populations, not to mention making itself less competitive in the global economy.
"While in Beijing there are still 2.4 million people who ride their bicycles to work every day, nearly 1,000 new cars hit the streets daily. China's roads are expected to be clogged with 170 million vehicles by 2020 says the World Bank -- by which time the country would have surpassed the United States in total car ownership."
Seven million cars are sold in China each year. That means China this year left Japan behind to become the second-largest car market in the world after the U.S., where more than 16 million cars are sold annually.
Such phenomenal growth has had analysts rushing to calculate the environmental consequences if every Chinese family realised its dream of owning a car.
Emissions from cars in the U.S. alone now account for about five percent of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. If China matched the U.S. in per capita ownership, the country's vehicles would make a huge contribution to global carbon dioxide output, dwarfing any cuts in the emissions that the rest of the world can make.
And then there is India....
The marketplace should do that, not central planning by government. Oil is a global commodity. Our dependence on "foreign" oil is going to grow for the foreseeable future. Since 1970 the US population has grown by 100 million, since 1990 by 53 million and since 2000, by 20 million or the equivalent of the population of our seven largest cities. The Census bureau projects that we will have 364 million by 2030 and over 400 million by 2050.
3/4 of that population growth can be attributed to immigration, legal and illegal. Our energy requirements as well as other infrastructure needs will increase. We can't conserve our way out of this dependence nor can we afford to hobble our economy and be competitive globally.
the contribution that the feds would make would be tax incentives and R&D.
the world is getting warmer. there’s good scientific evidence to suggest that the reason the world is getting warmer is that the sun is shining brighter.
Would the "tax incentives" include sticks as well as carrots? And wouldn't federal funded R&D skew the direction that we would go in terms of other forms of energy? I would rather see a reduction of federal and state requirements on environmental impact regulations and restrictions on nuclear power, oil explorations, etc. that are hurting our ability to develop existing energy resources.
So why is Newt agreeing with Kerry that man is the main cause of global warming or suggesting that we can control it and must do so on an urgent basis?
So why is Newt agreeing with Kerry that man is the main cause of global warming or suggesting that we can control it and must do so on an urgent basis?
////////////////
Newt didn’t say that man was the principle cause. He did agree that that science was saying consistantly that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has been increasing. he also agreed that there is a creditable case to be made that carbon dioxide is at least one factor in global warming.
What that means...whatever the reason....the world is getting warming. In the USA that translates to mean that the west is getting drier.
The urgency has to do with fast diminishing water resources and teh fact that the USA is getting oil from countries that want to destroy the America. It is absolutely not smart to be relying for energy on people who wish us ill.
Newt implied as much, which is why man must take immediate action, i.e., we have both a casuative effect and an ability to control climate change by our actions. Newt is accepting something that has not been proven conclusively. CO2 levels have been much higher in the earth's history, long before man came on to the scene. It has been hotter and it has been cooler. I wonder if Newt has ever watched The Great Global Warming Swindle. There is some doubt that CO2 is a climate driver. Rather it appears that increased CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause.
What that means...whatever the reason....the world is getting warming. In the USA that translates to mean that the west is getting drier.
LOL. So what. We will have to adapt. The idea that man can control climate change is just nonsense. The earth's climate is continually changing. We had the Little Ice Age in Europe [c. 1300 to c. 1850).
The urgency has to do with fast diminishing water resources and teh fact that the USA is getting oil from countries that want to destroy the America. It is absolutely not smart to be relying for energy on people who wish us ill.
What actions can we take that will prevent diminishing water resources? Do you believe that reducing on reliance on carbon based energy sources will increase water resources in the West? Actually, global warming increases the amount of precipitation in the atmosphere.
Oil is a global commodity. In any event, the US gets most of its importted oil from Canada and Mexico followed by Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. If we don't buy it from the Middle East, the Japanese and Chinese will.
I agree with everything you said except for the last two paragraphs.
Newt has been saying that there will be more scientific and technological innovation in the next 25 years than in the last 125 years. This is innovation on a scale we have not seen before.
Therefor I’m guessing that there are technological means soon to come to get around dependence on foreign oil and to circumvent carbon based energy resources.
I am an advocate of doing the research to collapse the cost of water desalination & transport. The research is moving rapidly in this field. I believe in under 10 years the cost of water desalination & transport will be collapsed to 1/10 of current costs. The consequences of this is that it will be economically possible to turn
the deserts green and double the size of the habitable planet.
The government could speed up the process and play a visionary role.
Newt sees the governments role in revolutionary changes in energy & water technology as one to stimulate innovation through tax credits R&D and prizes.
Eventually, we will move to other sources of energy. That's a given. You don't have to be a soothsayer to figure it out. If the marketplace is allowed to operate, the impetus will be based on supply and demand and costs. Until these alternatives can compete with oil, we will stay with our present mix of energy sources. Japan and France are embarking on a major expansion of their nuclear power capabilities while we are stimied by environmental wackos and the NIMBY crowd.
I am an advocate of doing the research to collapse the cost of water desalination & transport. The research is moving rapidly in this field. I believe in under 10 years the cost of water desalination & transport will be collapsed to 1/10 of current costs. The consequences of this is that it will be economically possible to turn the deserts green and double the size of the habitable planet.
Saudi Arabia and Israel are already using desalinization on a widespread basis for drinking water and crop irrigation. We have the technology already. It just doesn't make sense in most places where you have water readily available. In Arizona, a lot of water has been diverted to crop use. Why should we double the size of the habitable planet?
The government could speed up the process and play a visionary role. Newt sees the governments role in revolutionary changes in energy & water technology as one to stimulate innovation through tax credits R&D and prizes.
As I mentioned, I watched the entire "debate." No need to regurgitate it. Newt is full of glib and nice sounding phrases. The devil is always in the details. Both he and Kerry are really big government types. One uses carrots, the other sticks. The marketplace will do a far better job than the government in stimulating innovation and change. The problem is that the government has emeshed the private sector in red tape, i.e., regulations, that make it difficult for entreprenuers to function. I recall well the Congressional hearings with the US CEOs of the major oil companies. They were asked if there was one thing Congress could do that would help them do their jobs better. The CEOs were all in agreement. Ease the regulatory burden associated with their operation. For example, it takes years to get all of the permits and clearances to build a refinery. The same holds with the nuclear and coal industries. The environmentalists are the tails wagging the dog. In the meantime, our competitors can operate much more freely.
Newt [and Kerry] are mixing energy policy with efforts to control climate change. That is a mistake. They are two separate issues. Linking them can actually hurt our ability to address our future energy needs. In just 23 years we will be adding almost 63 million people to our population. We need all options on the table. We can't be ruling out carbon based energy sources based on pseudo-science that really has become a religion.
If that's the case, we're gonna need a helluva lot more CO2 to green it up ............... FRegards
“...The consequences of this is that it will be economically possible to turn the deserts green and double the size of the habitable planet...”
If that’s the case, we’re gonna need a helluva lot more CO2 to green it up ............... FRegards
Preferably the CO2 will come from energy sources that originated in the USA.
Newt was dead WRONG in agreeing to any part of the “debate” with Kerry: Global warming AND COOLING CYCLES GO BACK 600,000 years, and the current warming cycle is now - not NOT at its peak (based on previous cycles!) but has another 2.5 - 3.5 degrees HIGHER to go...
Before it tips into another Ice Age.
Mankind DOES NOT have anything to do with the current cycle.
Eventually, we will move to other sources of energy. That’s a given. You don’t have to be a soothsayer to figure it out. If the marketplace is allowed to operate, the impetus will be based on supply and demand and costs.
Newt’s point in the debate was that it is the proper role of government to encourage alternate energy sources with incentives/pleasure like tax cuts & R&D money —rather than the Kerry model of disencentives/pain by taxing carbon emissions..
Saudi Arabia and Israel are already using desalinization on a widespread basis for drinking water and crop irrigation. We have the technology already.
True. But the cost of desalinized water is 10-20 times the cost of well water or river water. But if the cost were cut by a factor of ten — a lot more uses could be made of water.
Why should we double the size of the habitable planet?
People need room to grow. You fly over the southwest and its mostly unihabited uninhabitable desert. Bring some water to those deserts and people can go there and raise families.
As it is water demands rise annually all over and current resouces are tapped. There are no more rivers to dam. So another source of water has tobe found. The ocean is that source. But a means needs to be found to collapse the cost of desalting. That research is going on right now.
We can’t be ruling out carbon based energy sources based on pseudo-science that really has become a religion.
True. Nor do I think you would get a great deal of disagreement from newt on that point.
Newt was dead WRONG in agreeing to any part of the “debate” with Kerry: Global warming AND COOLING CYCLES GO BACK 600,000 years, and the current warming cycle is now - not NOT at its peak (based on previous cycles!) but has another 2.5 - 3.5 degrees HIGHER to go...
Before it tips into another Ice Age.
Mankind DOES NOT have anything to do with the current cycle.
///////////////////
I agree that Newt should have said that fluxuations in the sun’s radience were the primary cause of global warming.
Even naturally caused however, there are consequences. For the USA the consequence will be a much drier west. The answer there is to collapse the cost of water desalination and transport.
As well the carbon dioxide pollution and national security concerns over dependence on foreign oil are two sides of the same coin. Dependence on foreign oil needs to be killed pronto. If that dependence can be accompished by non carbon based means—all the better.
SWCC, responsible for supplying 50% of all municipal water in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, took the initial decision to invest heavily in desalination against a backdrop of chronic water shortage and rising population. According to predictions from the Saudi Arabian Central Department of Statistics, the Kingdom's total population will exceed 29 million by 2010 and rise to 36.4 million ten years later. Taking a baseline consumption of 300 litres per person per day, the resulting demand for water will increase to over 3,000 million m³/year by 2010 and nearly 4,000 million m³/year by 2020.
Saudi Arabia is now the world's largest producer of desalinated water with desalination meeting 70% of the country's present drinking water requirement and supplying major urban and industrial centres through a network of water pipes which run for more than 2,300 miles. Several new desalination plants are planned, or under construction, which will ultimately bring the final total to almost 30 such facilities.
desalted water currently is 10-20 times as expensive as water available on the east coast of the USA. the saudis can use desalinated water on a massive scale because energy for them is free—and because of their relative wealth . (energy is 1/3 of the cost of desalinated water)
Similiarly cars and computers were used by the very rich but when their price came down they changed the world. This same thing is happening right now with wind and solar power. The price of both is coming down rapidly;
same will happen with desalinised water.
If water is required to survive and there is a limited availability of it from conventional sources, desalinization will be used on a large scale to make up the difference regardless of cost. The point is that the technology already exists and is supplying 70% of the drinking water to more than 25 million people in Saudi Arabia, a place I lived for five years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.