Comments on: The Age of (small) Tradeoffs http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/28/the-age-of-small-tradeoffs/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:22:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Bill Becker http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/28/the-age-of-small-tradeoffs/#comment-44462 Bill Becker Fri, 01 May 2009 23:18:32 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6064#comment-44462 Good and helpful dialogue, everyone. Ruth, I agree with Joe. Good point. Good and helpful dialogue, everyone. Ruth, I agree with Joe. Good point.

]]> By: Leland Palmer http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/28/the-age-of-small-tradeoffs/#comment-43425 Leland Palmer Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:22:21 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6064#comment-43425 Certainly, there are tradeoffs, and certainly, Joe's point that these tradeoffs are small seems correct. As the original article pointed out, rare earths like neodymium are not particularly rare, and we do have mines in this country that can be reopened. Practically all mineral problems can be easily resolved by substitution or a price increase which makes marginal mines profitable. Any impending neodymium shortage will likely be transient. Geoengineering tradeoffs are huge, which is probably why geoengineering is a bad idea. I think that carbon negative energy ideas are the most likely solution for the climate crisis, and the tradeoffs in biomass/carbon capture and storage are huge. Nobody wants to see forests invaded, but we need to realize that forests have already been invaded by CO2 and the insect and climate changes stemming from global warming, for example. Nobody likes carbon sequestration, either, although turning the corner on this climate change problem is essentially impossible without CCS. In 10 years, the tradeoffs we will be willing to accept to cool the planet will likely be greater than those we are willing to accept now. And in 10 years it may be too late to do anything about renaway global warming Certainly, there are tradeoffs, and certainly, Joe’s point that these tradeoffs are small seems correct.

As the original article pointed out, rare earths like neodymium are not particularly rare, and we do have mines in this country that can be reopened. Practically all mineral problems can be easily resolved by substitution or a price increase which makes marginal mines profitable. Any impending neodymium shortage will likely be transient.

Geoengineering tradeoffs are huge, which is probably why geoengineering is a bad idea.

I think that carbon negative energy ideas are the most likely solution for the climate crisis, and the tradeoffs in biomass/carbon capture and storage are huge.

Nobody wants to see forests invaded, but we need to realize that forests have already been invaded by CO2 and the insect and climate changes stemming from global warming, for example.

Nobody likes carbon sequestration, either, although turning the corner on this climate change problem is essentially impossible without CCS.

In 10 years, the tradeoffs we will be willing to accept to cool the planet will likely be greater than those we are willing to accept now. And in 10 years it may be too late to do anything about renaway global warming

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/28/the-age-of-small-tradeoffs/#comment-43408 David B. Benson Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:54:44 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6064#comment-43408 Bill Becker --- Well stated! Bill Becker — Well stated!

]]> By: Michael Hoexter http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/28/the-age-of-small-tradeoffs/#comment-43283 Michael Hoexter Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:59:46 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6064#comment-43283 Bill, Excellent piece and well-thought out. We have had a difficulty as a nation in accepting tradeoffs because every issue gets stamped as either "good" or "bad" and becomes a polarized political conflict. Some of this may be necessary, but as we emerge from the "Age of Stupid", we are going to have to start to see more nuance and understand that there are small evils and big evils. There is going to be some disagreement about what is a small and what is a big evil but we need to find room to discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of given technologies and programs in a careful manner that doesn't assume that a perfect solution can be arrived at. Too often people are clamoring for the perfect, when the good is sitting there right in front of them. Bill,
Excellent piece and well-thought out. We have had a difficulty as a nation in accepting tradeoffs because every issue gets stamped as either “good” or “bad” and becomes a polarized political conflict. Some of this may be necessary, but as we emerge from the “Age of Stupid”, we are going to have to start to see more nuance and understand that there are small evils and big evils. There is going to be some disagreement about what is a small and what is a big evil but we need to find room to discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of given technologies and programs in a careful manner that doesn’t assume that a perfect solution can be arrived at. Too often people are clamoring for the perfect, when the good is sitting there right in front of them.

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/28/the-age-of-small-tradeoffs/#comment-43278 Robert Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:32:05 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6064#comment-43278 Industrial society is like standing in front of an avalanche - you have choices: 1. Stay where you are and get flattened 2. Dodge to one side and get buried alive 3. Ski madly downhill and crash into a tree Our way of life relies on mining stuff (fossil fuels, minerals) from deep within the earth's crust and dumping it into the relatively thin and fragile biosphere. It is not sustainable and I can only see it ending in tears. Labelling certain variants of this way of life "green" does not fix the problem. Industrial society is like standing in front of an avalanche – you have choices:

1. Stay where you are and get flattened
2. Dodge to one side and get buried alive
3. Ski madly downhill and crash into a tree

Our way of life relies on mining stuff (fossil fuels, minerals) from deep within the earth’s crust and dumping it into the relatively thin and fragile biosphere. It is not sustainable and I can only see it ending in tears.

Labelling certain variants of this way of life “green” does not fix the problem.

]]> By: hapa http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/28/the-age-of-small-tradeoffs/#comment-43217 hapa Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:07:05 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6064#comment-43217 for instance. let's say one state -- "west virjersey" -- decides rationally and in an open process that it's going to aim for a complete overhaul, and "louisizona" is thinking more "aspirationally" about getting footprint down a little bit by mid-century, if someone hands them a few billion dollars, does all the work for free, and personally shines their shoes -- or whatever's the current federal minimum. west virjersians will need to make some very big planning and equipment changes! louisizonans not as much. almost none, in fact, if you really looked, but they're thinking about it hard, particularly about how much federal money they can get. ok fine. fact: eventually louisizona will have to harmonize with west virjersey. fact: west virjersians will be very upset if their investments are incompatible with the new arrangements. fact: whatever changes louisizonans <em>do</em> make, if they're incompatible with the changes west virjersians made, not only will there be a mess down the road when tight standards are the norm, but also louisizona won't be able to draft off the other state's concerted effort. fact: not every state will agree on every part of every possible standard. it's important to leave open the possibility of aiming higher later. the question, in cases of disagreement, is: is there an upgrade path? if so how do you leave it open? if not how do you make one? if you can't, what's the justification for straggling? for instance. let’s say one state — “west virjersey” — decides rationally and in an open process that it’s going to aim for a complete overhaul, and “louisizona” is thinking more “aspirationally” about getting footprint down a little bit by mid-century, if someone hands them a few billion dollars, does all the work for free, and personally shines their shoes — or whatever’s the current federal minimum.

west virjersians will need to make some very big planning and equipment changes! louisizonans not as much. almost none, in fact, if you really looked, but they’re thinking about it hard, particularly about how much federal money they can get. ok fine.

fact: eventually louisizona will have to harmonize with west virjersey.

fact: west virjersians will be very upset if their investments are incompatible with the new arrangements.

fact: whatever changes louisizonans do make, if they’re incompatible with the changes west virjersians made, not only will there be a mess down the road when tight standards are the norm, but also louisizona won’t be able to draft off the other state’s concerted effort.

fact: not every state will agree on every part of every possible standard. it’s important to leave open the possibility of aiming higher later. the question, in cases of disagreement, is: is there an upgrade path? if so how do you leave it open? if not how do you make one? if you can’t, what’s the justification for straggling?

]]> By: hapa http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/28/the-age-of-small-tradeoffs/#comment-43207 hapa Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:26:35 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6064#comment-43207 this is why we need a USA Green Blueprint or something, with some "unofficial" scenarios. imagine the ruckus as the scale of the effort keeps growing and growing and the targets keep changing. imagine the difficulty of realigning town budgets and goals every year with new information. if we're not willing to set high standards in DC, we need better harmonization or people will go nuts. we need some unified targets so that forward-thinking organizations and areas can align themselves without having to repeat the work. strong and useful frameworks that the feds would have to have a really good reason not to fit their new plans to, when they get around to the inevitable. getting out some scenarios ("zero by 2030," for instance) and maybe a thumbnail guide to tech ("LEED gold would need retrofits under this schedule") would be really helpful. this is a bigger operation than anything we've ever done. i don't like the piecemeal feeling. it doesn't fill me with confidence. this is why we need a USA Green Blueprint or something, with some “unofficial” scenarios.

imagine the ruckus as the scale of the effort keeps growing and growing and the targets keep changing. imagine the difficulty of realigning town budgets and goals every year with new information. if we’re not willing to set high standards in DC, we need better harmonization or people will go nuts.

we need some unified targets so that forward-thinking organizations and areas can align themselves without having to repeat the work. strong and useful frameworks that the feds would have to have a really good reason not to fit their new plans to, when they get around to the inevitable.

getting out some scenarios (”zero by 2030,” for instance) and maybe a thumbnail guide to tech (”LEED gold would need retrofits under this schedule”) would be really helpful.

this is a bigger operation than anything we’ve ever done. i don’t like the piecemeal feeling. it doesn’t fill me with confidence.

]]> By: Ronald http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/28/the-age-of-small-tradeoffs/#comment-43173 Ronald Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:04:25 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6064#comment-43173 I agree that it's good thinking that human caused Global Warming is the problem. Kindof goes to the US Senator who wants to close off all or most of the desserts to CSP. Consider Iowa, where 98 percent of the land has been plowed. CSP would not require anywhere near 98 percent of the dessert, quite a bit less than that. But to use some of the dessert for CSP is a very small price to pay. I agree that it’s good thinking that human caused Global Warming is the problem. Kindof goes to the US Senator who wants to close off all or most of the desserts to CSP. Consider Iowa, where 98 percent of the land has been plowed. CSP would not require anywhere near 98 percent of the dessert, quite a bit less than that. But to use some of the dessert for CSP is a very small price to pay.

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/28/the-age-of-small-tradeoffs/#comment-43170 Joe Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:55:53 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6064#comment-43170 Ruth, it is Bill Becker's piece. The point is well taken, tho. Ruth, it is Bill Becker’s piece.
The point is well taken, tho.

]]> By: Leland Palmer http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/28/the-age-of-small-tradeoffs/#comment-43168 Leland Palmer Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:53:05 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6064#comment-43168 Hi Greg N <blockquote>I’m happy to leave a bunch of environmental problems to the grandkids - they’ll inherit a damaged planet, whatever - so long as it’s not unsolvable problems like 1,000 ppm CO2. </blockquote> Yeah, we have really only one problem - how do we keep the climate system of the earth from going out of control. Everything else, every economic and geopolitical consideration is secondary, and will not be remembered in history. Our future history, if there is one, will only remember what we do about the climate crisis. Our future history, if there is one, might also have a footnote or two about how we got our financial elites and controlled corporate media off of our backs, and overthrew a system that seems intent on destroying the self regulating properties of the biosphere for personal profit. Hi Greg N

I’m happy to leave a bunch of environmental problems to the grandkids – they’ll inherit a damaged planet, whatever – so long as it’s not unsolvable problems like 1,000 ppm CO2.

Yeah, we have really only one problem – how do we keep the climate system of the earth from going out of control.

Everything else, every economic and geopolitical consideration is secondary, and will not be remembered in history.

Our future history, if there is one, will only remember what we do about the climate crisis.

Our future history, if there is one, might also have a footnote or two about how we got our financial elites and controlled corporate media off of our backs, and overthrew a system that seems intent on destroying the self regulating properties of the biosphere for personal profit.

]]>