Indeed it's a state, but does it meet the goal of "saving the planet"? According to most alarmists, merely stabilizing the ppm isn't enough.
And according to some the world is flat. In case you hadn't noticed what I did, I picked a common goal, not an extreme end of the tail. If you choose to define everything against extremes that's up to you. What to do about global warming is a political question, and I have yet to see, of all the legislation that has been passed, something which would appeal only to the extremists.
YOU don't take transit???8O I would hope that you at least ride a bike. Considering how deeply you believe in AGW I can't conceive of any circumstance that would have you driving!
There is no transit available to where I work. My fiance and I have one car, she's going to vet school at UPEI starting this Aug.30th. It's cheapest, and I might add the lowest footprint, if I car pool to work, and she uses transit to get around Charlottetown.
Just because I can show you measurements which make the anthropogenic cause most likely, does not mean I can make my place of work closer, or light rapid transit to spring from the ground...
Indeed. My point exactly.
So then you read the document on smart transportation policy?
The idea of wedges is to reduce emissions to the extent that CO2 ppm won't increase. This wedge cannot do that.
No single wedge can...if you think that's the goal you should go re-read Pacala and Socolow.
Sure, it would slow the rise, but that won't achieve the objective, only postpone the warming a little.
Sigh...if you add up many wedges that slow the rise, you get to a point where emissions are stabilized. The carbon going into the cycle is taken out by the natural mechanisms which to date are overwhelmed. What happens when you push down on the high side of a teeter-totter?
Let's see, they got Kyoto agreed to, they have governments all over the industrialized world implementing laws and policies that purport to tackle climate change
Let's move away from generalities and into specifics. If you're going to "shoot down" I want to see that you can actually hit a target. Which environmentalists? What laws and policies do we have in Canada that tackle climate change?
$800,000 per green job per year in Spain isn't massive? Admittedly that's the worst. Offhand, I believe the Norwegian cost is only $140,000 per job. Which still qualifies as massive to me. Maybe not to you, but them perhaps you're wealthy.
If it's $800,000 salary per job I would agree. If it is infrastructure being built, then using jobs as a metric doesn't really make sense. The goal isn't employment, that's an ancillary benefit. Or is it a green employment bill? It's hard to know what you're spinning about sometimes, a link would help.
As for corporations, they also recognize the power of the environmentalists and the need to cater to them. It could hurt the bottom line to ignore them, plus a lot of them are quite happy to get to belly up the the government trough.
Which ones in particular are happy to cozy up to the government trough, as opposed to those who would rather see some regulatory certainty so that they can get on with capital expenditures?
As I pointed out above, they ALL support action on AGW, and you know that.
I don't fault anyone for being rational.
That's not treating them as a monolithic group, it's just the way it is.
When you try to discard options by throwing out "environmentalists oppose" you are. Not all environmentalists oppose nuclear power. Try to name which ones do. Again, I'm asking you for specifics here.
I've pointed out why a number of them won't work. If you want to dismiss my analysis out of hand just because it's my analysis, well I can't help it if you willfully blind yourself to reality.
What analysis? You simply threw out generalizations. Which is why I have to ask you for specifics.
As for reality, in the real world, analysis has a very different meaning. Economics, sciences, analysis requires breaking things down into smaller parts. Your generalizations are not smaller parts
Interesting papers. I recall reading a report of much greater mortality from wind turbines. I'll see if I can find it.
That would be nice.
If you wanted to make a case for the cost of agriculture in the developed world, then one example wouldn't be absolutely representative, but it would certainly give a fair representation.
What gave you the impression that this discussion is limited to the developed world only?
When the price of gas jumped to $1.50 per litre a couple years ago people around here didn't drive any less. Sure, there was more demand for smaller cars, and some stories about people trading in their gas guzzler for a smaller car (in many cases spending upwards of $30,000 to save $2,000 a year on gas!:roll
but it's something I've seen before. People get used to the higher costs and keep driving. People will pay (albeit grudgingly) to keep their convenience.
Well, your little town must be an anomaly.
Gasoline is not an inelastic good. Several meta-analyses have shown that demand does drop when prices go up, over the short-run, and even moreso for the long-run. Samples:
http://www2.cege.ucl.ac.uk/cts/tsu/papers/transprev243.pdf
Explaining the variation in elasticity estimates of gasoline demand in the United States: a meta-analysis. | Energy & Utilities > Oil & Gas Industry from AllBusiness.com
http://zonecours.hec.ca/documents/H2008-1-1529402.gasolinedemand.pdf
Every other small business has to compete with the big guys. So yeah, fair price is the market price.
Do I need to shout in caps, IF YOU CAN GET THAT PRICE.
It's an example of a result of the typical AGW attitude in action.
No, it's a result of typical pork spending on local projects that the American Congress loves so dearly.
Sometimes I wonder if your reality has the same colour sky.....
That's still not considered real analysis. If your next reply is more of the same, it will be as far as this conversation carries.
I've noticed in many instances you try to give me examples of things that have worked,
If they didn't work, they would be high apples on the tree.
or suggest things that would likely come to pass and would work, and they're always the Lomborg solution.
I've noticed that your interpretation of what Lomborg says and advocates for is far off the mark.
Under proposals like his, you don't waste time and effort and resources trying to pick the highest apples off the tree when you don't have a ladder that will get you that high, and you don't even know how to build it...yet.
Oh, whatever! You're way off the rockers now. He advocates for geo-engineering, untested, and potentially dangerous geo-engineering.
I hope on your next attempt, you link to actual analysis. If not, I'll be leaving you to your delusions.