Is Climate Change Transforming Everest?

[Schrodinger's Dog]

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2739751.ece

A message from the melting slopes of Everest
The sons of Hillary and Tenzing speak out about climate change: "Believe us, it's a reality"
By Cahal Milmo and Sam Relph
Published: 06 July 2007

Fifty-four years after Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay became the first men to scale Everest, their sons have said the mountain is now so ravaged by climate change that they would no longer recognise it.

On the eve of the Live Earth concerts this weekend, Peter Hillary and Jamling Tenzing yesterday issued a timely warning that global warming is rapidly changing the face of the world's highest mountain and threatening the survival of billions of people who rely on its glaciers for drinking water.

Interesting article on global warming from the liberal rags, most interesting is the figures in the UK, many people still it seems aren't on board with the global warming thing, and many think there actually isn't scientific consensus? Which is confusing to me.

Anyway I thought this article in the paper would be interesting and the article fuels the GW debate, all comments welcome

Anyone willing to argue Co2 contributes nothing to global warming and it's all just hot air? Or are we all on board now?

What's your view, and have you been converted by the scientific propaganda yet?

 

[neutrino]

I stay away from any debate on Global Warming, but I just have to get this out of me.

I'm neither a "supporter" nor an anti-GW activist, but I find statements like "there is no scientific backing to GW and there is nothing to worry about" similar to "smoke like crazy till you get lung cancer."

Oh, and these so-called debates and discussions on this topic on almost every internet forum on the planet irks me.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Are you English Neutrino, because I could understand why you would be fed up of hearing about it if you are, but then there is a news story every day about it atm, so it's almost an obsession in this country lately. You can't hide from it...

 

[neutrino]

No I'm not English, but I'm probably as irritated as one. I'm not undecided about which group to join, either. I just try to keep my contribution to GW, or a "potential-GW," as little as possible.

 

[Bystander]

Delete "scientists" from your third option, and insert "middle and upper level management," and we've got a deal.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Delete "scientists" from your third option, and insert "middle and upper level management," and we've got a deal.

No one takes any notice of business on any side of the debate? i don't understand your point?

 

[Bystander]

No one takes any notice of business on any side of the debate? i don't understand your point?

Bureaus, centers, departments of "this & that," institutes, laboratories, exist primarily to continue existing, i.e., raking in the funding from whatever sources are available; it is the job of the middle and upper level managements of these "businesses" (they are operated under business models to exhibit a net 'in the black') to point scientific staffs' efforts in the directions most heavily funded.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Bureaus, centers, departments of "this & that," institutes, laboratories, exist primarily to continue existing, i.e., raking in the funding from whatever sources are available; it is the job of the middle and upper level managements of these "businesses" (they are operated under business models to exhibit a net 'in the black') to point scientific staffs' efforts in the directions most heavily funded.

Oh in that case I see I thought you meant the oil industry or something, you can vote for the scientists are just playing a money making scam on us all then .

I disagree, there's plenty of money on the con side as well, it depends though in which country you live or are prepared to work.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is not convincing for you then?

By the way if people are worried that the poll doesn't exactly reflect their opinion, the comments are superfluous really.

 

[Bystander]

The "overwhelming" managerial, political, financial, legal, media consensus is not particularly convincing.

Hit the journals --- what you'll find are remarks in introductions and conclusion/discussion sections of papers that include conditional statements regarding climate hypotheses --- "If ____________, then __________, but the work presented in this paper is not conclusive." These statements are digested for executive summaries, deleting "ifs, thens, and buts" and presented to the media and funding sources.

Has sea level risen over the 20th century? Yes. Has the CO₂ content of the atmosphere increased over the second half of the 20th century? Yes. Has the IPCC accounted for the mass of water displaced from five million square kilometers of wetland reclamation over the 20th century in their global mass balance for water? No. For the 10-30m drop in ground water levels around the world? No. For decreases in biological productivity sequestering carbon as a consequence of agriculture and commercial fishing? No. For a meteorological temperature record that was never designed nor intended as a study of the time dependence of a scalar field? No.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well It is still a theory and projections are not meant to be prophetic, no scientist cliams his projection is accurate there is a considerable diversity of opinion on just how much C02 will effect global warming, they are merely educated guesses.

I have seen discussions on this subject, in fact the last one was in Politics in PF, and there is a significant debate but a lot of the counter claims have been convincingly debunked, well at least to my mind, by no means all, but the pressure is really on science on the other side to come forth with something convincing within 50 years, then of course the media will turn on the scientists with a vengeance.

There are plenty of scientists working on the con side, but they are not well received, I seriously doubt it is just because there work is heretical, it is because rational people have found better means to explain the current trends with better evidence. That is the way science works and I'm not sure I buy the conspiracy theories, or buy the idea that somehow evidence to the contrary was suppressed or is suppressed in some underhand way, indeed up until recently in the US scientist studies on the pro side were suppressed and people lost their jobs for questioning the govt.

 

[Evo]

You might find this interesting SD, it's a recent debate on anthropogenic global warming hosted by NPR.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151

There is a lot of discussion going on about the credibilty and reliabilty of climate modeling, here is one article from Science Magazine on it. Science ; VOL. 272 ; ISSUE: 5265 ; PBD: 24 May 1996

The task of characterizing tropospheric aerosols, their spatial and temporal variability, their size-dependent chemical and physical properties, and their optical and cloud nucleating effects; of understanding the processes controlling these properties and effects; of representing these processes in models; of evaluating the performance of these models; and of representing these effects in climate models requires a research effort several fold greater than that outlined in the report. In the absence of this research knowledge of climate response to greenhouse forcing necessary for confident policy-making will be reliant entirely on climate models having little credible empirical confirmation.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/abstracts/Uncertainties.html

To me, it's not an issue of "if" there is climate change (that's the politically correct term now) of course there is, how much of it is natural and how much is caused by man, I don't agree that we know definitively what, where, and how much. Are we just talking about reducing emmisions or are we talking about interferring with nature as in the proposed "sunshield satellite"?

The need for better information so we can make more accurate climate change predictions so we know where to focus is very important, IMHO. More emphasis is now being placed on local and regional impacts of climate change.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Thanks Evo interesting discussion.

They were against the motion of no crisis before and less so after, makes sense. But a single debate to the laymen will not sway much people in the scientific community.

I think the most convincing argument for me is if the consensus is wrong about global warming and we - at least in my country - have made all these changes to be less reliant on fossil fuels, more reliant on renewables, and more sustainable in the long term, we have lost nothing, we are playing it forward. We have become more efficient not lost economically - in fact in the UK our economy is very strong - and have in fact only gained from our actions and will continue to do so anyway because the cost of fossil fuels is only going to rise.

Now if we do nothing and the consensus is proved correct, we have lost the chance to act to mitigate it, we have lost out in efficiency, and in the long term our economic viability to some extent. What would you chose, to be wrong and still gain from your error, or to be right and gain more? Or to be anti change and to be right and still gain nothing by doing so?

That for me is the most convincing argument, we can only gain from becoming more efficient we can only lose from sacrificing that, regardless of the outcome of what is a very contentious issue.

Is there a crisis no, will there be? I believe so atm, although not devoutly; either way our actions now are only beneficial if we act, and never beneficial if we do nothing. Therefore it's a simple choice for me.

 

[Smurf]

The problem is no one's talking about global dimming. That's the reason we're not actually experiencing global warming, and it allows these pro-GW people to make up nonsense about it not existing.

 

[Evo]

I think the most convincing argument for me is if the consensus is wrong about global warming and we - at least in my country - have made all these changes to be less reliant on fossil fuels, more reliant on renewables, and more sustainable in the long term, we have lost nothing, we are playing it forward. We have become more efficient not lost economically - in fact in the UK our economy is very strong - and have in fact only gained from our actions and will continue to do so anyway because the cost of fossil fuels is only going to rise.

Now if we do nothing and the consensus is proved correct, we have lost the chance to act to mitigate it, we have lost out in efficiency, and in the long term our economic viability to some extent. What would you chose, to be wrong and still gain from your error, or to be right and gain more? Or to be anti change and to be right and still gain nothing by doing so?

I've always said I'm all for reducing emmisions and pollutants and helping to restore the environment, that's a given.

What scares me are these crazy ideas that are starting to surface which are aimed at interferring with nature. We don't know what we're doing and since we have such a history of causing more problems when we try to control the environment, I'm worried that too much hype will cause people to make bad decisons. I've got to find that article on the satellite proposal.

Edit: Found it.

"Personally, as a citizen not a scientist, I don't like geo-engineering because of the high environmental risk," Caldeira told New Scientist. "It's toying with poorly understood complex systems."

http://environment.newscientist.com...ld-could-be-quick-fix-for-global-warming.html

 

[russ_watters]

Just like the most recent previous poll on the issue, this one doesn't have enough or diverse enough options. It basically gives two options: 'global warming is real' and 'I'm a crackpot'. So someone who believes that global warming may be true or probably is true doesn't have any choices in the poll.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Just like the most recent previous poll on the issue, this one doesn't have enough or diverse enough options. It basically gives two options: 'global warming is real' and 'I'm a crackpot'. So someone who believes that global warming may be true or probably is true doesn't have any choices in the poll.

Well I would suggest you add some more then , the poll isn't really ever important let's face it, it's a sound bite of a global issue from a tiny population, I didn't mean it to be taken seriously to be frank

I Did a search in Earth Sciences where this was originally posted and found nothing remotely interesting on global warming in the last few months, lots of short uninteresting threads, perhaps that should have cued me onto the fact that the media has inundated everyone's consciousness with this so much that there is an overload? BTW the poll in Earth sciences was way better than this one, but then mine was light hearted.

I've always said I'm all for reducing emmisions and pollutants and helping to restore the environment, that's a given.

What scares me are these crazy ideas that are starting to surface which are aimed at interferring with nature. We don't know what we're doing and since we have such a history of causing more problems when we try to control the environment, I'm worried that too much hype will cause people to make bad decisons. I've got to find that article on the satellite proposal.

Edit: Found it.

http://environment.newscientist.com...ld-could-be-quick-fix-for-global-warming.html

I don't put much stock in crazy ideas either I'm a pragmatic realist, I don't expect for example a country (as hard line capitalist as it is) to change over night, that's not realistic, I do expect it to change though and it is; I think as long as you ask yourself what can I do and then at least pay more than a nodding respect to your conscience, then that is enough. Doing nothing on any scale as I said is ultimately foolish.

I love New Scientist, never scared to expound even the most crazy theories: slow news week methinks.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)I think the most convincing argument for me is if the consensus is wrong about global warming and we - at least in my country - have made all these changes to be less reliant on fossil fuels, more reliant on renewables, and more sustainable in the long term, we have lost nothing, (snip)

"Lost nothing?" You're absolutely certain the increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration isn't nature's way of telling us we're overdoing the commercial fishing? Is a fishery collapse imminent? Dunno. What are the consequences of such a collapse? Sea level rise a result of overpumped aquifers? Used to irrigate the "green revolution?" That feeds 6 billion people? That isn't sustainable for more than another couple decades (depends on sources you choose)?

You're positive that every effort has to go into fighting GW rather than working on lower impact commercial fisheries, developing "dry land" agriculture, improving food storage (reduces agricultural demand)? Absolutely positive? It just can't be any other way? If Al Gore says the atmospheric carbon "tail" wags the oceanic carbon "dog," all the physical and chemical principles established over the past two centuries have to be wrong?

 

[Evo]

"Lost nothing?" You're absolutely certain the increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration isn't nature's way of telling us we're overdoing the commercial fishing? Is a fishery collapse imminent? Dunno. What are the consequences of such a collapse? Sea level rise a result of overpumped aquifers? Used to irrigate the "green revolution?" That feeds 6 billion people? That isn't sustainable for more than another couple decades (depends on sources you choose)?

You're positive that every effort has to go into fighting GW rather than working on lower impact commercial fisheries, developing "dry land" agriculture, improving food storage (reduces agricultural demand)? Absolutely positive? It just can't be any other way? If Al Gore says the atmospheric carbon "tail" wags the oceanic carbon "dog," all the physical and chemical principles established over the past two centuries have to be wrong?

You really bring up a LOT of excellent issues. Unfortunately a lot of the things that should be done aren't as politically "attractive", therefore most likely won't get addressed as long as movies show cartoons of drowning polar bears instead of what might really be causing real problems that could be addressed. People don't want to hear the dull details of reality, they want sensationalism.

 

[Mk]

For decreases in biological productivity sequestering carbon as a consequence of agriculture and commercial fishing?

"Lost nothing?" You're absolutely certain the increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration isn't nature's way of telling us we're overdoing the commercial fishing?

You're pointing to carbon desequestration (fish?) due to human needs and wants as a major player in the atmospheric CO₂

1) break the Earth into reservoirs (atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, carbonate rocks, fossil fuel deposits, marine sediments --- as much detail as you want);
2) for each of "n" reservoirs, there are n-1 fluxes between the selected reservoir and the other reservoirs, combinatorially, (n² - 2n + 1) total fluxes to measure;
3) measure those fluxes, and the chemistries (organic, inorganic, solid, liquid, gas, plus other details);
4) calculate residence times for carbon in each reservoir, residence time being defined as total C content of reservoir (assumed to be constant at some steady state) divided by the sum of rates at which C is added, or the sum of rates at which C is subtracted, to or from other reservoirs;
5) be consistent in the use of the reservoirs you define (Trenberth at NCAR is a good example of how not to do this --- atmospheric reservoir suddenly turns into all "mobile" C on the planet when calculating residence time of fossil fuel derived CO₂ in the atmosphere);
6) take up residence in the nearest padded cell when you find out that most reservoir and flux data are order of magnitude estimates.​

 

[Bystander]

You're pointing to carbon desequestration (fish?) due to human needs and wants as a major player in the atmospheric CO₂

I'll assume a question mark at the end of the sentence and say, "Not quite --- more a reduction in sequestration rate." F'rinstance, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=2FE60E72-E7F2-99DF-33CA55A97B6E42B7&ref=rss ; couldn't find my link to the 10 gigaton/a rate for the Antarctic "transition zone," but will add it if it shows up again --- people who've been looking at sequestration rate and change in rate for the last few years down thataway.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

"Lost nothing?" You're absolutely certain the increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration isn't nature's way of telling us we're overdoing the commercial fishing? Is a fishery collapse imminent? Dunno. What are the consequences of such a collapse? Sea level rise a result of overpumped aquifers? Used to irrigate the "green revolution?" That feeds 6 billion people? That isn't sustainable for more than another couple decades (depends on sources you choose)?

You're positive that every effort has to go into fighting GW rather than working on lower impact commercial fisheries, developing "dry land" agriculture, improving food storage (reduces agricultural demand)? Absolutely positive? It just can't be any other way? If Al Gore says the atmospheric carbon "tail" wags the oceanic carbon "dog," all the physical and chemical principles established over the past two centuries have to be wrong?

Aren't you making an assumption that all I want is governments to work on certain areas and ignore others, I'm pretty sure my government and the environment agency are not ignorantly choosing those issues to tackle with the most political impact, they are well informed by scientists I am sure on all of the issues, and would be looking at the best holistic approach to tackling Kyoto quotas as well as improving the environment generally, after all that is there job, if they have chosen to go with wind farms instead of x then I have faith there are reasons for this. What I'd like is increased efficiency and lower environment impact technologies, I'm not too particular about the best way of doing this. I can't speak for what other countries are doing though, but I'm happy with my government at least in terms of their environmental policies.

I'm not sure what your getting at with the marine life thing or what it is you want scientists to do about it except take it into account, I've no doubt if animal sequestering of carbon is reduced it is caused via global warming, or rising sea temperatures, if CO2 is the cause of the extra warming then tackling that should reduce temperatures in the oceans, if not then as I said before, the increased efficiency is of benefit anyway; I doubt there's anything we can do directly to tackle the seas sequestering rates anyway.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)I'm not sure what your getting at with the marine life thing or what it is you want scientists to do about it except take it into account, I've no doubt if animal sequestering of carbon is reduced it is caused via global warming, or rising sea temperatures, if CO2 is the cause of the extra warming then tackling that should reduce temperatures in the oceans, if not then as I said before, the increased efficiency is of benefit anyway; I doubt there's anything we can do directly to tackle the seas sequestering rates anyway.

We'll try it again: you've bought the CO₂ causes increased T, increases melting of icecaps, raises sea levels model, and are positive there is no other explanation for observations of increased levels of atmospheric CO₂ and sea level --- this is my inference from the quoted paragraph. You are also absolutely certain that the increase in atmospheric CO₂ is due only to fossil fuel consumption; "I've no doubt if animal sequestering of carbon is reduced it is caused via global warming, or rising sea temperatures, if CO2 is the cause of the extra warming then tackling that should reduce temperatures in the oceans" is circular reasoning, and a mis-statement or misunderstanding of the question I asked.

Let's rephrase that question: "Given that oceans contain 50-60 times the amount of carbon found in the atmosphere, that 'turnover' time for the oceans is estimated at 1000 years, that net atmospheric-oceanic exchange of CO₂ is ~ 0, that estimates of the annual oceanic photosynthetic fixation of CO₂ run from 100-300 billion tons/a, that commercial fisheries peaked in the nineties at 100 million tons/a with an equal 'bycatch' (2-3 times as much according to some sources), that fish stocks have been reduced to the point of closing some fishing grounds, and that fish in a marine environment produce ~ 10 times their own mass in fecal material/a, contributing to surface to deep water transport and long-term sequestration of carbon, are you absolutely certain fossil fuel consumption controls atmospheric CO₂ concentrations?"

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Oh well in that case it's easy to answer, do I think that the only contributor to global warming and C02 is fossil fuels, no absolutely not that would make me an idiot. Do I think that it's a major contributor to rising C02 levels, yes.

I'm not sure why you are obsessing about fisheries to be honest, or even what it is you are driving at, am I missing something here?

Do you think over fishing will have more effect on increasing CO2 levels than fossil fuels or that it's a major contributor in the same way fossil fuels are?

Anyway my only point is that, fossil fuel reduction can do nothing but benefit a country, what that has to do with fisheries I'm not sure and I think you have the wrong end of the stick; as I said I'm not suggesting there is only one thing we should be tackling in environment, it's a complicated problem, I didn't mean to suggest that there was a simple solution to the problem, I just highlighted the factors that actually have some sort of global agreement.

 

[Evo]

Anyway my only point is that, fossil fuel reduction can do nothing but benefit a country,

It depends on how the fossil fuel reduction is handled and what it is replaced by. You have to remember the greed factor.

When CFC's were banned it was assumed a more environmentally friendly product would be used, no. Instead manufacturers went with the cheapest alternative they could find which appears to be even worse.

Here is another example of how fossil fuel reduction is starting to cause even more problems, one the EU has just realized and not sure what to do.

Europe's move to biofuels threatens rainforest

Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may create other problems

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18332282/

This might be a good discussion to have. How do we control what is happening in these poor countries that now feel they are sitting on a gold mine, they just need to destroy the natural flora and replant with biofuel crops.

 

[Bystander]

Or, maybe biomass ain't the way to go --- http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa003&articleId=88D6F188-E7F2-99DF-33EF7C83A99DCD04

 

[scarfox]

I think it's a natural occurrence, albeit a dangerous one, which where the universe will either punish us, and have something started over, or recover through consciousness.

 

[wildman]

There are two questions here:

1) Is the Globe warming?

Yes. Glaciers are fine integrators and they are shrinking World wide. No question.

2) Is it caused by man?

Who knows?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

It depends on how the fossil fuel reduction is handled and what it is replaced by. You have to remember the greed factor.

Yes that's why the government has to regulate it centrally, to stop big business from throwing up all sorts of barriers. The message should be you will loose money in the short term but this is an investment and you will make money in the long run. If the government can convince them of that then it should be a much easier job.

When CFC's were banned it was assumed a more environmentally friendly product would be used, no. Instead manufacturers went with the cheapest alternative they could find which appears to be even worse.

The ozone layer is starting to recover so I think we've dealt with this in some sort of effective manner, but I don't know that for sure.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06300_Ozone.html

NASA, NOAA Data Indicate Ozone Layer is Recovering

A new study using NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data finds consistent evidence that Earth's ozone layer is on the mend.

A team led by Eun-Su Yang of the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, analyzed 25 years of independent ozone observations at different altitudes in Earth's stratosphere, which lies between six and 31 miles above the surface. The observations were gathered from balloons, ground-based instruments, NASA and NOAA satellites.

"These results confirm the Montreal Protocol and its amendments have succeeded in stopping the loss of ozone in the stratosphere," Yang said. "At the current recovery rate, the atmospheric modeling community's best estimates predict the global ozone layer could be restored to 1980 levels — the time that scientists first noticed the harmful effects human activities were having on atmospheric ozone — some time in the middle of this century."

The researchers concluded approximately one half the observed ozone change was in the region of the stratosphere above 11 miles and the rest in the lower stratosphere from six to 11 miles. The researchers attribute the ozone improvement above 11 miles almost entirely to the Montreal Protocol.

Here is another example of how fossil fuel reduction is starting to cause even more problems, one the EU has just realized and not sure what to do.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18332282/

I quite agree, from what I've seen biofuels don't sound very viable at the moment, unless they are very precisely managed they may cause more harm than good. I saw a study in the US about implications and there were some economic questions.

There are other ways of reducing fossil fuel use, such as renewables, we're investing heavily in wind farms and wave farms over here. We're aiming for 10% by 2010, 20% by 2020 and 50% by 2050.

http://environment.newscientist.com...s-demands-eating-into-us-corn-stockpiles.html

Biofuels demands eating into US corn stockpiles

The surging biofuel industry will use 27% of this year's American corn crop, challenging farmers' ability to meet food demands, the US government says.

Even with the projected, record 12.46 billion-bushel crop this year, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) says national corn stockpiles will run low going into the next crop year, when voracious ethanol demand will rise again.

Some 3.4 billion bushels of corn – enough to make 9.3 billion gallons of ethanol – will be used by distillers in the marketing year that begins on 1 September 2007, says the department, compared with 2.15 billion bushels this marketing year. About 20% of the 2006 US corn crop was used to make ethanol.

US ethanol output is on track to double to more than 12 billion gallons a year by the end of this decade.

On 24 January 2007, President George W. Bush announced in his State of the Union address that the US would cut US gasoline use by 20% over the coming decade. Three-quarters of this, he said, will be achieved by using of 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels – including ethanol and hydrogen – by 2017.

This might be a good discussion to have. How do we control what is happening in these poor countries that now feel they are sitting on a gold mine, they just need to destroy the natural flora and replant with biofuel crops.

Exploitation is not a very good solution, palming the costs off to someone elses country is just shifting the debt, "we look grand" but the CO2 levels do not ultimately drop, seems like shooting yourself in the foot if you actually want to achieve something. There would need to be tight regulation placed on any plantations, and jungle stripping would need to be forbidden, or only done if absolutely necessary. Mind you these concerns it appears are already being thrashed out in the EU.

 

[K.J.Healey]

Has the government ever considered a fuel ration? I know we ration other things all the time (like water in the summer, and if there's brownouts energy rationing is suggested but not enforced).

Say a person who has a 25mpg car average is rationed for 15,000 miles of travel each year. Thats about 600 gallons per year, 11.5 gal per week.

A car/suv that only gets 10mpg would be allocated the same 600g, but that would equate a limit of 6000 miles per year.
Im sure you could calculate from current average rates what gallon/year allocation would would be most beneficial to cutting down gas usage.
Maybe anything over the allotted mileage would be taxable, where taxes get hopefully routed into scientific reasearch for cleaner/more efficient alternative fuel methods, and i mean real government work, not pockets of gas companies for them to develop new methods. (which isn't bad, but not great either).
Wouldn't it:
Cut down gas prices
Cut down gas usage
Encourage people to buy more efficient vehicles

Problems I see are:
How do you regulate? Per vehicle or per person? Whats to stop people from selling their allotments, or buying multiple cheap vehicles just for the gas allotment.



Actually on a rambling side note that I'd rather know:
Are measured CO/CO2 emmissions and other pollutant emissions a proportional function of combustion/fuel consumed? It seems like it would be.
Say a 20mpg car dives for 400 miles spending 20 gallons, or a 10mpg car drives for 200 miles spending 20 gallons. Same output pollution?

Has there been a lot of research into alternative methods of exshaust reduction? Better Catalytic convertors? Other pollutant-solidifying methods that would decrease pollution without decreasing usage or the fuel itself?

 

[I don't know]

From the new scientist article:

Solar shields are not a new idea - such "geoengineering" schemes to artificially cool the Earth's climate are receiving growing interest, and include proposals to inject reflective aerosols into the stratosphere, deploying space-based solar reflectors and large-scale cloud seeding.

Just checking, wouldn't these measures make the Earth a darker place?

 

[Gokul43201]

Just checking, wouldn't these measures make the Earth a darker place?

Darker for the human eye? Not necessarily. A reflector could be tuned to reflect strongly in the IR range, for instance, with hardly any effect on the visible part of the insolation.

 

[I don't know]

Well, I was thinking with relation to mental and physical health - winter depressions, vitamin D deficiency and so on. I guess they could make adjustments for these things as well, then.