One huge gap in the Superfreaks’ reasoning is in this bit: ‘the only way to solve it is to convince people to “put aside their self interest and do the right thing even if it’s personally costly.” ‘ So they prefer a centralized, top-down, government-by-fiat techno-fix, which might be impossible to implement through any kind of democratic process? Geoengineering is sure to be a bigger hot potato than carbon pricing.

And aren’t these guys supposed to be economists? How can they claim that it is just too hard to get people to change their behavior? Two words: price signal. If you apply a price to an externality, the rationally-self-interested public will immediately adjust their behavior in proportion to that price signal.
I would in fact be far clearer simply to have a carbon tax or comparable cost imposed through capped emission permits, tradeable if you prefer; with that, we would get a real, direct *market* signal of what our carbon footprint is for each product or service. No more of these wild guesstimate reports “what is the carbon footprint of dog food / imported wines / paintball / Chilean sea bass / etc?” Those are the exact questions we would rely on the market to answer for us, once we have agreed together to have a common price signal to internalize the GHG externalities.

I’ll note that no less than Wal*Mart has undertaken to post the carbon footprint of every product on their shelves over the next few years – that’s an enormous challenge, and only such a giant could impose this extra work on all their suppliers. L&D imply that all we are going to do is get that info on the shelf display, without any price signal, and then leave it to the goodwill of consumers to factor in carbon footprint as an ethical factor outside of actual cost, and on top of whatever other ethical concerns we bring to the store (no sweatshops, is it 100% recycled/recyclable? etc.)

–
Jim Prall
Toronto, Canada

Sweden generates less than half of its electrical power by nuclear means; the country you are thinking of is France (which depends on nuclear power for about two-thirds of its electricity consumption).

Sweden does indeed import about 5% of its electricity, presumably because it makes economic sense. Norway, after all, has even larger hydroelectric resources, and the countries participate in the Nordic energy market, one of the first liberalized energy markets in Europe.

Note that Sweden is currently the eleventh richest country in the world in terms of per capita GDP according to this year’s CIA world factbook, with 7 European nations ahead of it. The US occupies the 17th position. Being the eight richest country in Europe means you’re a very, very rich country; nothing to scoff at. We could do a lot worse than to emulate Sweden.

Best wishes,
Leo

TSX drops triple digits on fears recovery is stalled
http://www.cbc.ca/ money/ story/ 2009/ 10/ 28/ tsx-oil-drop.html

I understand your point, of course, that lots of people aren’t scientists and that we mustn’t assume that people will be able to understand unless very clear explanations are provided. So, I agree with those aspects of your point.

But you seem to be offering an additional point or question as well. You mention, for example, questions of causality. Could you provide the largest question of causality that you feel you have?

For example, some people who don’t really understand the science of the matter might think, “well, if there is some correlation between higher temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations, then how do we know whether the higher Ts cause the higher CO2 or the higher CO2 contributes to the higher Ts, or both, but if both, what is the first and main driver?” In other words, “what causes what?”

Yet, of course, we also know (independently) that CO2 absorbs certain bands of radiation, and we know why, and we know that such energy is then converted to kinetic energy, i.e., temperature. So, by these (and other) means we can understand causality much better. Indeed, that’s part of what the eighteen scientific organizations (who sent a recent letter to the Senate) mean by multiple independent lines of evidence.

So, what specific question of causality has you in considerable doubt, and does the doubt you imply relate to climate change itself, or are you talking about something specifically related to whether geoengineering is a good idea or not?

Thanks,

Jeff

And I think this is problem for environmentalists. Ryan Wiggins makes the point that Stewart only had a superficial understanding of the issue. Well I think that’s going to be the case for 99% of the population. I have strong knowledge of econ/stats/math/science (although not in atmospheric sciences), and whenever I’ve had anyone try to prove either position, there are so many questions I can ask regarding causality that I always leave the conversation not completely convinced.

My point is that Stewart and others who aren’t experts in this field I think are not lazy. I think the experts are currently providing very poor guidance — unless their goal is for it to simply be an academic exercise, rather than a policy one.

I don’t think this is a matter of “not enough people know enough science today”, as many are quick to say, but more a case of very specialized knowledge being needed to make sense of a lot of the stuff we read and discuss online.

I have no idea how to fix this, as many of the attempts to avoid the weird units–”X will reduce CO2 emissions by the same amount as taking 10,000 cars off the road!”–are often highly misleading.

I admire Jon Stewart, a lot, and he (and his show) are vital elements in the way that BS is ultimately illuminated and good sense ultimately is conveyed, on some key issues.

He and his show are WAY too important to “let be” in terms of confusion. I don’t know him, but certainly my impression is that he wants sense and good thinking and “the genuine interests of humankind” to be advanced. In other words, as far as I can tell, his heart is in the right place. And, of course, he has done some of the best, and most necessary, debunking of stuff in the last ten years.

His understanding and “voice” are key!

If he’s confused on some of these climate and energy matters — as it seems he is — it should be “job one” to try to help him gain his footing, even if that takes private lessons, even if that takes a beer or two, and even if it means getting on a train and going to New York, or whatever.

And another thing: If it turns out that Jon Stewart doesn’t understand these issues, and if it also turns out that Rachel Maddow doesn’t, then I’ll have no TV show that I can watch any more.

Be Well,

Jeff

Mika Nystrom MIT ‘94 (VIII/VI-1)