News One Reason I Can't Take All the Science on Global Warming Seriously

[Economist]

One Reason I Can't Take All the "Science" on Global Warming Seriously

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/everything_is_caused_by_global.html

 

[seycyrus]

My largest problem with the topic is the idea of there being an overwhelming consensus on the entirety of the issue.

One only has to attend the environmental talks at the March APS to realize that it isn't so.

 

[Gokul43201]

The largest problem, I think, is what happens between the publication stage and the filtering-down-to-the-populace stage.

I've never been to a climate science session at a March Meeting. I should try one at New Orleans - hopefully there's no conflicts.

 

[seycyrus]

The largest problem, I think, is what happens between the publication stage and the filtering-down-to-the-populace stage.

I've never been to a climate science session at a March Meeting. I should try one at New Orleans - hopefully there's no conflicts.

Oh, you should definitely go to the science policy/popular science type talks if you can swing em. Very interesting and informative about what is being done by whom and where. the discussions during the Q/A part are the best.

 

[ShawnD]

Does it make me a bad person if I was willing to bandwagon with the global warming alarmists if they promised to all get jobs for at least a few months?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I always go to engineering professors for my meteorological concerns.

I wonder how much money is made by telling people what they want to hear: It's all just a liberal conspiracy!

How about this concept: If you want good answers, go to the experts.

 

[slugcountry]

if we're talking about GLOBAL climate change, wouldn't it make sense to be seeing wide-reaching results??

 

[Economist]

I wonder how much money is made by telling people what they want to hear: It's all just a liberal conspiracy!

I've often asked myself the reverse question. I wonder how much money is made by telling people what they want to hear: The debate is over, global warming is real, we are definitely without a doubt causing it, and if we don't act now there will be very serious hell to pay.

How about this concept: If you want good answers, go to the experts.

To be fair, many people have criticized the IPCC for this as well. Members of the IPCC are selected by governments, and many of the members are not scientists. In fact, there are many politicians and beuracrats that reside on the IPCC. Furthermore, not all of the actual scientist members of the IPCC agree with the stuff the IPCC publishes. As you may recall, some scientists were really pissed off because the IPCC was using their names (essentially saying they agreed with the documents) and the scientists asked their names to be removed. The IPCC denied removing their names until they treatened suing.

By the way, here are some "experts" on climate change in a documentary that do not believe the current "concensus" on global warming. These are bright guys also (professors at MIT and Harvard). How come these guys rarely get brought in for debates in the mainstream media? If this was really about science (and not politics) then I think we'd see more discussions and debates, because that's what really happens in science when people are trying to understand real world phenomena and advance the body of knowledge.

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

 

[mheslep]

Before this political forum thread descends into who's-got-the-best-science debate allow me to refer to these PF threads on the Earth forum which showed PF at is best (mostly) on both sides IMO.


The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=148461"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=131075"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=152617"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=163931"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=180313"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162192"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=95931"

And there's much, much more over there.

 

[ShawnD]

That bunch of links from the OP's article (this page) is interesting. Some of them are good, some are bad, some just ridiculous. I thought this one was pretty funny:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20574527-29277,00.html

Dr Colin Butler of Deakin University painted a grim picture of the catastrophic consequence of global warming as communities worldwide competed for scarce resources.

Dr Butler, a senior research fellow in global health, said inequality over access to resources, such
as water and food, bred desperation and resentment, potentially sparking terrorism and war.

Instead of trading, like we do now, we'll suddenly decide war is a better way to distribute resources. This idea makes lots of sense.


http://www.sentienttimes.com/01/dec_jan01/global_warming.html

Overall, US crop productivity is likely to increase over the next few decades, but the gains will not be uniform across the nation. Falling prices and competition are likely to stress some farmers. Pests, droughts and floods could reduce some of the benefits from higher temperatures, precipitation and carbon dioxide, the report predicts.

So increased food production in America is bad because it causes prices to drop. Why can't some of it be sold to those starving people from the terrorism link?

from the same link

Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki, director of general insurance development at CGNU, a top five European life insurer and the United Kingdom's largest insurance group, told delegates attending the international climate change summit in The Hague that the rate of damage caused by changing weather will exceed the world's wealth.

So rather than build stuff to a higher standard, like the japanese do against earthquakes, engineers will just give up and let humanity fail. Sounds about right.


Then there's a http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99627,00.html comedy article. Right at the top it says this

No one knows for sure whether the Earth’s climate is changing appreciably or whether any such change is due to humans. One thing that certainly is heating up, though, is the global warming litigation environment.

To make Fox look even more retarded, the heading is Junk Science. Thank god Fox is there to keep us up to do date with its fair and balanced news.

 

[t-money]

In the 70's there was a concern of a new Ice age coming.

 

[seycyrus]

That bunch of links from the OP's article (this page) is interesting. Some of them are good, some are bad, some just ridiculous. I thought this one was pretty funny:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20574527-29277,00.html

Instead of trading, like we do now, we'll suddenly decide war is a better way to distribute resources. This idea makes lots of sense.

I'm not sure about your reasoning behind this post. Did you just see that it was from Fox and then decide to create a sensation?

Where does the author claim that war is a better alternative?

All your replies to the links you posted follow a similar (il)logic. there is a large disparity with what you imply the authors are stating and what they actually do.

 

[ShawnD]

The article claimed that global warming would create a shortage of resources (possible) then it claimed this would cause countries to fight with each other over resources. I think that is a silly claim because it has always been true that one country will have things that other countries don't have. The US has more trees than Japan, so will Japan attack the US? Will China attack the USSR to get uranium? Come on, you know that won't happen.
As for the terrorism bit, Ron Paul already threw that out on stage as to why that happened/happens. It was even included in the official 9/11 report, and it had almost nothing to do with scarcity of resources. The author is trying to use the following logic:
terrorism has a lot to do with US involvement in the middle east, the US is in the middle east due to oil which is a scarce resource, global warming causes scarity, therefore global warming causes terrorism.

 

[seycyrus]

The article claimed that global warming would create a shortage of resources (possible) then it claimed this would cause countries to fight with each other over resources. I think that is a silly claim because it has always been true that one country will have things that other countries don't have. The US has more trees than Japan, so will Japan attack the US? Will China attack the USSR to get uranium? Come on, you know that won't happen.
/QUOTE]

Wars have always been fought over resources. From watering rights, to pasture, to arable land, all the way to metals and oil.

All the quotes you threw down are correct in their claims.

You then try to assign a strawman argument to each, without even countering the arguments presented, instead appealing to the fallacy of emotion.

And by the way... Ron Paul, Ron Schmaul.

 

[seycyrus]

The author is trying to use the following logic:
terrorism has a lot to do with US involvement in the middle east, the US is in the middle east due to oil which is a scarce resource, global warming causes scarity, therefore global warming causes terrorism.

Show me where the author draws that conclusion.

 

[ShawnD]

Wars have always been fought over resources. From watering rights, to pasture, to arable land, all the way to metals and oil.

All the quotes you threw down are correct in their claims.

You then try to assign a strawman argument to each, without even countering the arguments presented, instead appealing to the fallacy of emotion.

And by the way... Ron Paul, Ron Schmaul.

That article completely ignores the fact that diplomacy plays a major role in world affairs. Wars were faught over resources, then things started to change towards trade and diplomacy, and now global warming will come in and take us back to rampant imperialism and world conflict? wtf?
Less than 200 years ago, the US invaded Canada in the name of imperialism. Today, scarcity in the US is probably worse than it was 200 years ago, the chance of winning such a war is much higher, and yet an invasion of Canada is less likely. Why do you suppose that is? You can't just say scarcity alone is what drives imperialism.

And feel free to show how Ron Paul was wrong. He said terrorism is a result of interfering in other peoples affairs, which is contrary to the Bush theory of them hating freedom. Yep, other free countries like Australia and Switzerland are both victims of relentless terrorist attacks. Their citizens are in constant fear, and it has gotten so bad that there is a colored alarm system to let everybody know that things are ok. Oh, they're not? Maybe they're just not free enough to attract terrorism.

 

[ShawnD]

Show me where the author draws that conclusion.

Exact quotes:

"But, in the event of a massive drought, where food and water became scarce, desperation could breed resentment."

"I know it does sound a bit alarmist but ... I think that you can analyse global terrorism, in part, as a reaction to global inequality.''

"Dr Butler, a senior research fellow in global health, said inequality over access to resources, such
as water and food, bred desperation and resentment, potentially sparking terrorism and war."

Global warming causes inequality --> inequality causes terrorism --> global warming causes terrorism

 

[seycyrus]

That article completely ignores the fact that diplomacy plays a major role in world affairs.

No it does not. The article does not pretend to be an exhaustive treatise on global politics.

Wars were faught over resources, then things started to change towards trade and diplomacy, and now global warming will come in and take us back to rampant imperialism and world conflict? wtf?

Your words, not mine. I wasn't aware that such blatant strawman making was the norm on this forum.

And feel free to show how Ron Paul was wrong. He said terrorism is a result of interfering in other peoples affairs, which is contrary to the Bush theory of them hating freedom. Yep, other free countries like Australia and Switzerland are both victims of relentless terrorist attacks. Their citizens are in constant fear, and it has gotten so bad that there is a colored alarm system to let everybody know that things are ok. Oh, they're not? Maybe they're just not free enough to attract terrorism.

Your blithering creation of one strawman after another is noted.

My mention of Ron Paul was simply to draw attention to the fact that you are a Ron Paul goonie.

 

[seycyrus]

Exact quotes:

"But, in the event of a massive drought, where food and water became scarce, desperation could breed resentment."

"I know it does sound a bit alarmist but ... I think that you can analyse global terrorism, in part, as a reaction to global inequality.''

"Dr Butler, a senior research fellow in global health, said inequality over access to resources, such
as water and food, bred desperation and resentment, potentially sparking terrorism and war."

Global warming causes inequality --> inequality causes terrorism --> global warming causes terrorism

Note the phrases "Could", "In part", and "potentially". I have noted the fact that you ignored them, I wonder why?

Which of the following statements do you disagree with?

A) Global warming COULD cause a scarcity of SOME resources.

B) Scarcity of resources CAN cause inequality.

C) Inequality of resources CAN lead to a breeding ground for terrorism.

If you agree with the above, then by your own logic, you are guilty of the doomsday scenario you accused (incorrectly) your source of taking.

 

[seycyrus]

Yep, other free countries like Australia and Switzerland are both victims of relentless terrorist attacks. Their citizens are in constant fear, and it has gotten so bad that there is a colored alarm system to let everybody know that things are ok. Oh, they're not? Maybe they're just not free enough to attract terrorism.

You might want to look into the just exactly how terror free those countries you mentioned have been in the past few years, by the way...

 

[ShawnD]

Your words, not mine. I wasn't aware that such blatant strawman making was the norm on this forum.

How is that a strawman? The article directly states that scarcity alone, caused by global warming, will lead people to fighting full blown wars over the issue of resources. We already have resource inequality, and yet there are no major wars going on at this time. Let's paint a picture of this
Before global warming (now): we have resource inequality, no major wars, no upcoming wars from the looks of it
After global warming: same resource inequality that was always there, wars, maybe even more wars

What exactly changed between the "before" and "after" scenarios? Both have resource inequality, while one has wars and the other does not. Did the extra temperature make everybody crazy?

My mention of Ron Paul was simply to draw attention to the fact that you are a Ron Paul goonie.

Anything Ron Paul says is immediately wrong because Ron Paul said it.

 

[Gokul43201]

By the way, here are some "experts" on climate change in a documentary that do not believe the current "concensus" on global warming. These are bright guys also (professors at MIT and Harvard). How come these guys rarely get brought in for debates in the mainstream media? If this was really about science (and not politics) then I think we'd see more discussions and debates, because that's what really happens in science when people are trying to understand real world phenomena and advance the body of knowledge.

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

That documentary is full of distortions and misrepresentations. The producers had to redo the documentary at least twice. Once to cut out several blatant errors, and the second time round, to cut out the entire section involving MIT Prof. Carl Wunch, after he publicly stated that he was completely misrepresented.

http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_new.pdf

 

[ShawnD]

Note the phrases "Could", "In part", and "potentially". I have noted the fact that you ignored them, I wonder why?

Which of the following statements do you disagree with?

A) Global warming COULD cause a scarcity of SOME resources.

B) Scarcity of resources CAN cause inequality.

C) Inequality of resources CAN lead to a breeding ground for terrorism.

If you agree with the above, then by your own logic, you are guilty of the doomsday scenario you accused (incorrectly) your source of taking.

Only hard core republicans think terrorism is even loosely tied to inequality of resources, or inequality of freedom as Bush calls it. The other half of America thinks it's something else, and the rest of the world outside of America thinks that something is called "blowback"

edit: Oh and Arabs have more exportable resources per capita than Americans. By your logic, Americans should be crashing planes into Arab buildings.

 

[seycyrus]

How is that a strawman?

A strawman is a blatant misrepresentation of an opponents position in order to shred it to bits, proclaiming a victory.

The article directly states that scarcity alone, caused by global warming, will lead people to fighting full blown wars over the issue of resources.

Oh does it?

It's amazing that in all your quotes, you didn't inlcude the one that had the words "...scarcity alone..."

In fact, your quotes are peppered with phrases such as, "could", "might", "potentially' and so on.

You're applying a very creative transformation algorithm to change those words and phrases. Time for sit and spin?

We already have resource inequality, and yet there are no major wars going on at this time.?

Oh man, go read a book or two.

Let's paint a picture of this
Before global warming (now): we have resource inequality, no major wars, no upcoming wars from the looks of it

I begin to understand our problem. You must be speaking about the current conditions on some other planet. I am referring to planet Earth, third planet from the sun.

Anything Ron Paul says is immediately wrong because Ron Paul said it

I have nothing against the distinguished gentleman. You are the one who raised his name. I simply raised the fact that you are a Ron Paul goon.

 

[seycyrus]

Only hard core republicans think terrorism is even loosely tied to inequality of resources, or inequality of freedom as Bush calls it.

Buddy get a grip. Time for you to spend some time in the real world. Stop with the strawmen.

You think that there is not even a loose connection of terrorism to inequality of resources?

You don't even know what you're saying, or implying.

edit: Oh and Arabs have more exportable resources per capita than Americans. By your logic, Americans should be crashing planes into Arab buildings.

How many times do I have to distance myself from statements that YOU claim that I am making?

 

[ShawnD]

It's amazing that in all your quotes, you didn't inlcude the one that had the words "...scarcity alone..."

In fact, your quotes are peppered with phrases such as, "could", "might", "potentially' and so on.

So your defense, roughly paraphrased, is that I'm wrong because the article makes no solid claims in the first place? Having wishy washy terms like could, maybe, might, potentially should lower the validity of the article, if anything. There's a slight chance something might almost maybe happen at some time but we're not sure just yet ^_^

Feel free to tell us about these major wars that are going on right now due to nations fighting over scarcity. The only wars I can find going on right now are dinky little wars that nobdy cares about, here.
The Iraq war is probably the only current example of a large war over scarcity, and even that would be disputed by some people. I don't expect a response to the issue of Iraq since that won't end well no matter what, but I am interesting in hearing about other big wars over resources.

You think that there is not even a loose connection of terrorism to inequality of resources?

Most terrorism exists as a struggle for better government.
Why does the IRA exist? Are Brits so incredibly wealthy that some Irish feel the need to form a terrorist organization and take those resources? Or does it have more to do with those people not liking the way they are controlled by some far away government? French Canada had a group called FLQ that wanted to create a nation that was separate from Canada. PLO in the middle east wants a free Palestinian state. Hamas is a group that wishes to destroy Israel. Al-Qaeda, like Hamas, is also an extremist religious group.
Not everything is about resources.

 

[seycyrus]

So your defense, roughly paraphrased, is that I'm wrong because the article makes no solid claims in the first place? Having wishy washy terms like could, maybe, might, potentially should lower the validity of the article, if anything. There's a slight chance something might almost maybe happen at some time but we're not sure just yet ^_^.

Again, the article is not meant to be an exhaustive treatise on geopoliitics. Rather, it is fairly obvious that it is meant as a commentary on what consequences global warming might bring.

I believe that it is fair to say that you agree with my 3 arguments that I gave previously. Therefore by your own logic, YOU are the one who believes that global warming causes terrorism. Why do YOU believe such malarky? It is obvious that you Do in fact believe it, cause I say you do.

That is sarcasm, btw.

Feel free to tell us about these major wars that are going on right now due to nations fighting over scarcity.

"Right now" ?? This second, or this minute?

Funny how your statement earlier was "before now".

The only wars I can find going on right now are dinky little wars that nobdy cares about, here.

I can't be held accountable for your apathy.

Most terrorism exists as a struggle for better government.

You can't honestly believe this...

Not everything is about resources.

Governments and political systems were formed as a way to control resources.

I'm done here. Thanks for playing. I might have been tempted to continue for another round, but you have exceeded your strawman limit and show no signs of stopping.

 

[edward]

The entire premise of the OP and the link it contains is not scientific in any way. Ironically many of the sub links tend to support GW.

Grass Grows in Warming Antarctica
Grass flourishes in warmer Antarctic

The Times of London, Dec. 26, 2004

Grass has become established in Antarctica for the first time, showing the continent is warming to temperatures unseen for 10,000 years.

As for the reported scare tactics, if the threat is real is it really a scare tactic? Is the fact that grass is now growing in the Antarctic a scare tactic? Are satellite pictures of the global melting of mountain glaciers a scare tactic?

 

[ShawnD]

As for the reported scare tactics, if the threat is real is it really a scare tactic? Is the fact that grass is now growing in the Antarctic a scare tactic? Are satellite pictures of the global melting of mountain glaciers a scare tactic?

The problem is that a lot of these scare stories are not real because they assume nothing ever changes, so the slighest change to any system causes immediate catastrophic failure. Let's take the example of stronger storms. Assuming this is true, what will we do about it? A scare story will say something like "current building designs not capable of withstanding storms that will arise in the next 40 years". That part may be true, but the scare comes from the assumption that building standards never change. If storms get stronger, why not just build stronger buildings? We already do that for earthquakes, so why not wind storms, hail, acid rain, lightning, etc? It's nothing more than fear mongering.

Stating a scientifically supported prediction, such as stronger storms, is good journalism. Taking that prediction then making stupid baseless predictions is not what journalism is about.

 

[edward]

Stating a scientifically supported prediction, such as stronger storms, is good journalism. Taking that prediction then making stupid baseless predictions is not what journalism is about.

I agree with that. A lot of journalism has evolved into "gotcha" headlines with little substance.

Regardless, the glaciers are still melting.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

I can make anything sound silly to if I refuse to distinguish between the cranks and the serious scholars.

Does brushing teeth your teeth prevent cavities or make your teeth visible by spy satellite?

 

[Economist]

That documentary is full of distortions and misrepresentations. The producers had to redo the documentary at least twice. Once to cut out several blatant errors, and the second time round, to cut out the entire section involving MIT Prof. Carl Wunch, after he publicly stated that he was completely misrepresented.

http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_new.pdf

I'm just saying that there seems to be bright scientists who disagree with all the hype about global warming. And since I am ignorant in the study of environmental science I have choosen not to read to much into the doomsday reports I've heard. It's not that I don't trust scientists in fields I'm ignorant about. But given the current politicized nature of global warming I am skeptical about some things. Specifically, it sounds to me like there's a lot of consensus that the globe is in fact warming (and that humans are for the most part the reason). But the degree to which it is warming and what can realistically be done about it don't seem as agreed upon (particularly the latter). Furthermore, there is a host of trade offs that people fail to mention in the discussion. Such as, what are the costs and benefits of doing something about it? And what are the costs and benefits of doing nothing about it? Also, is the money, time, and effort better spent on other causes?

Essentially, I tend to agree with Don Boudreaux here: http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/02/lets_have_less_.html

Especially when he says, "The truth remains that these scientists have no expertise to judge whether government can be trusted with the power and resources to "combat" global warming. Nor can these scientists tell us how a free market likely would deal with global warming's consequences. Contrary to widespread belief, environmental scientists can legitimately say nothing about whether, or how, to respond to global warming."

 

[Mororvia]

I think its a joke that global warming has become a politcal issue.

Lets say that it is emissions from our cars, power plants, etc. that is a major contributor to global warming. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research.

Lets say global warming isn't all that it has been made out to be. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research. Remove our foreign oil dependence and reduce pollution.

Its a win/win either way... except for those selling oil of course. But in the end, it will be good for them too.

 

[opus]

I think its a joke that global warming has become a politcal issue.

Yeah because international order, social stability, resource security and economic sustainability are not a concern of governments right?

Lets say that it is emissions from our cars, power plants, etc. that is a major contributor to global warming. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research.

Where is this money going to come from?

Lets say global warming isn't all that it has been made out to be. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research. Remove our foreign oil dependence and reduce pollution.

While it is noble of you to believe in alternative energy research and "patriotic" of you to believe in "independence", it's an issue of economics here.

Its a win/win either way... except for those selling oil of course. But in the end, it will be good for them too.

As far as I know, multinational (American) corporations are making huge amounts of money from the surge in oil prices as well. Exxon CEO got a 20 million bonus this year. Getting the government to invest in something that loses money will be difficult when corporations have lobbyists and influence. In fact, most people have given up on the government - it's been easier to persuade corporations to "go green" than asking the government to. Though the "green" campaigns should be taken skeptically as products of PR and profits rather than altruism.

 

[Moridin]

To me, it seems, if I may be a bit tongue-in-check, like the same MO as creationists:

"There is no evidence"
"There is a legitimate scientific controversy"
"It is a political / economical conspiracy"

(I'm not trying to be intentionally provacative).

 

[Skyhunter]

I think its a joke that global warming has become a politcal issue.

Lets say that it is emissions from our cars, power plants, etc. that is a major contributor to global warming. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research.

Lets say global warming isn't all that it has been made out to be. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research. Remove our foreign oil dependence and reduce pollution.

Its a win/win either way... except for those selling oil of course. But in the end, it will be good for them too.

The US House of Representatives just passed an energy bill that takes the 40+ billion in corporate welfare from oil and gas exploration and diverts it to renewable technology. The Senate Republicans are trying to strip that provision, and Bush has threatened a veto.

We should know by Christmas if the US is going to continue being an obstructionist to mitigating AGW until the next election, or if the last election provided us with enough seats in the House and Senate to address the biggest challenge that world faces this coming century.

 

[turbo]

We should know by Christmas if the US is going to continue being an obstructionist to mitigating AGW until the next election, or if the last election provided us with enough seats in the House and Senate to address the biggest challenge that world faces this coming century.

Don't hold your breath. Not only has the auto industry managed to kill every effort at tightening fuel efficiency, they have managed to subvert what weak standards there are. Case in point: PT Cruiser. They got that flimsy little wagon on a Neon frame classified as a "truck" so they could average the PTC's gas mileage in with that of the real trucks, so they could sell a lot more of the larger-displacement engines. Slime!

 

[Mororvia]

Yeah because international order, social stability, resource security and economic sustainability are not a concern of governments right?

... and other good points

For the most part I agree with you, though I assure you my reasons are not for patriotism.

On the quoted part above, I agree. What I think is a joke is that the science is being debated by politicians who for the most part are no where near qualified to debate it (and create policy about it). I just feel that there is no need to debate whether or not it is real when potential solutions can be found in energy research funding and it would benefit everyone regardless if global warming is real or not.

Money is an issue. They can debate that.

 

[Economist]

Not only has the auto industry managed to kill every effort at tightening fuel efficiency, they have managed to subvert what weak standards there are.

In one of my classes the professor (an environmental economist) said that there's empirical papers showing that fuel efficiency standards do not help the environment. Essentially, increasing the amount of miles per gallon a car gets makes someone able to drive the same amount of miles for a cheaper price, so instead of using less gas they use the same, and in some cases people drive more.

 

[turbo]

In one of my classes the professor (an environmental economist) said that there's empirical papers showing that fuel efficiency standards do not help the environment. Essentially, increasing the amount of miles per gallon a car gets makes someone able to drive the same amount of miles for a cheaper price, so instead of using less gas they use the same, and in some cases people drive more.

Apparently, he hasn't spent much time in Maine. Here, most jobs are in centralized locations and the population is diffuse. Many of the people working in the New Balance factory where my wife works drive 50-75 miles every day to commute to the only well-paying job in their reach. Increasing fuel efficiency would allow them to save more money and spend it on their families, save for retirement, etc. Like in much of this country, there is no public transportation available. To suggest that some worker who commutes 250-300 miles a week to earn a living would double their driven miles if fuel economy is doubled is myopic in the extreme. It sounds like something that might come out of the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation - neocon blather, not real life. Expenses in commuting are not entirely driven by gas prices. There is the cost of oil, tires, filters, and other consumables, as well as the depreciation that comes with driving a vehicle to death. Your professor needs to try living on a working wage in a rural area for a week or two to see how life really works for most Americans.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

I was going to hop in swinging, but I'm starting to think Economist is a troll. So instead here's a semi-relevent motivational poster.

 

[opus]

I was going to hop in swinging, but I'm starting to think Economist is a troll. So instead here's a semi-relevent motivational poster.

He's not a troll, I think Economist is honest. His points are relevant and meaningful, and it should be taken as legitimate dissent. It is often indicative of the real-world opposition, too. Not everyone in the world is "for" combating against global warming. We should recognize that, or this would be a one-sided thread. His statements aren't outlandish, and are often typical of the opposing side anyways.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

To be honest I was just looking for a fight. Probably shouldn't though, I do have some projects I should be working on.

 

[opus]

Just read up on critiques of neoclassical economics and you're all set.

 

[mheslep]

To suggest that some worker who commutes 250-300 miles a week to earn a living would double their driven miles if fuel economy is doubled is myopic in the extreme.

Economist's post was clearly about the general economics of fuel efficiency; to suggest it is all about your specific case is myopic in the extreme.

 

[Skyhunter]

In one of my classes the professor (an environmental economist) said that there's empirical papers showing that fuel efficiency standards do not help the environment. Essentially, increasing the amount of miles per gallon a car gets makes someone able to drive the same amount of miles for a cheaper price, so instead of using less gas they use the same, and in some cases people drive more.

What are the empirical papers? (citation?)

I think your characterization of your prof's lecture is over simplified.

I would like to see the evidence that supports that assertion.

 

[turbo]

Economist's post was clearly about the general economics of fuel efficiency; to suggest it is all about your specific case is myopic in the extreme.

The point is (and I shouldn't have to explain it) that a very large percentage of people in this country commute to centralized locations to work. Increasing the efficiencies of their vehicles would positively benefit our environment and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. The argument that this is a zero-sum game (commuters would therefore drive more and waste more fuel, negating the benefits of improved efficiency) is disingenuous and unsubstantiated. The appeal to authority (my professor says so) is not real persuasive to those of us who have been around for more than a half-century watching this stuff play out.

 

[Skyhunter]

The point is (and I shouldn't have to explain it) that a very large percentage of people in this country commute to centralized locations to work. Increasing the efficiencies of their vehicles would positively benefit our environment and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

I agree, and consider the argument as presented (without evidence) to be at best an example of weak inductive logic.

People have regular daily routines that many times involve hours of driving. While some may, if their vehicle is more efficient, opt to take longer recreational trips, or drive before considering other options, for the most part, people don't let their MPG and the price of fuel influence their behavior much.

For example fuel prices have doubled yet fuel consumption has remained constant or increased.

Who can afford not to drive?

That is the problem. It is not so much that people will drive more. The problem is they will not drive less.

Only by changing behavior will we reduce our energy use. Technology will help through energy efficiency, but in the end people will need to change their behavior. That means that the way urban transportation infrastructure is developed and employed must change.

In transportation planning, moving people and products from here to there efficiently is the primary goal. A comprehensive approach would be to:

1. Increase vehicle efficiency.
2. Improve traffic flow patterns.
3. and finally and IMO the most important is to put all the essential heres and theres together, eliminating the need for an automobile, except for special occasions.

The best way to increase vehicle efficiency is to alter the ratio of vehicle to cargo weight. SOV's (single occupancy vehicles) are the least efficient and should therefore be discouraged. Public transportation is the most efficient and can be even more efficient and useful by doubling or tripling investment in public transit infrastructure instead of private transportation infrastructure.

Once you eliminate the need for everyone to have an automobile, you can begin to unpave cities, and make them more enjoyable to live in. If automobile capacity in cities is limited by design, and compensated for by having 90% of goods and services available within walking and biking distance, then all the residents of a city, including the elderly, frail, and handicapped can live independent of an automobile.

We do not need these smelly dangerous private vehicles in our cities. They are a menace to life and health, and the portion of infrastructure that goes into supporting them is considerable. A cities commons should be available for use by all it's citizens, not just the ones who own cars.

 

[mheslep]

...Increasing the efficiencies of their vehicles would positively benefit our environment and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

So you say.

The argument that this is a zero-sum game (commuters would therefore drive more and waste more fuel, negating the benefits of improved efficiency) is disingenuous and unsubstantiated.

Your assertion vs his.

The appeal to authority (my professor says so) is not real persuasive to those of us who have been around for more than a half-century watching this stuff play out.

Ok got it now; its offensive that Eco. used his authority vs. a 'been around for a half-century' authority. Sorry I find the later less 'persuasive'.

 

[mheslep]

I agree, and consider the argument as presented (without evidence) ...

Skyhunter, you may be correct in all points of you argument, I don't know. However you scold Eco. for asserting a point without evidence and then you assert a detailed behavior of a society and present no evidence at all?