Close Topic Options

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? - Page 12

I have been pointing out that its not "too expensive" to work for our environment like people think. Thats a complete fraud of an idea that has no basis is actual numbers.

The majority of all scientists agree that global warming is both happening and is unnaturally caused by or at least made significantly worse by humans. The small minority of scientists who disagree are primarily from the US. The US is the primary dissident in the world scientific field regarding global warming. Most scientists consider it ludicrous to believe other wise. We are talking in the 85 to 90% range. Thats more than a majority of people in the know.

Unfortunately, this disagreement within the US strikes a dangerous cord as nearly 55% of our country believes in premillennial dispensationalism, which means jesus will come get people in the rapture. I think my father sums up the meaning of this in just sentence.

Many people believe this and thus use this belief to allow themselves to be deceived that an environmental catastrophe either won't happen or is part of a prophecy. I don't want to start a religious debate in this section, but merely point out a very real reason for ignoring obvious environmental signals.

Man-made Natural Warming Global

A large part of my job revolves around gas emissions from the factories that I work at around the world. I have been in charge of and worked on many projects to improve the emissions of a factory. What I can say is that there will be collateral damage from rapid (next 3-5 years) migration to lower emission levels. This is not to say that it shouldn't be done, but the idea that it is not going to be a painful and costly effort is extremely misleading. The economist and environmentalist make it sound as easy as slicing off a chunk of the GNP. However, we should remember that there are groups out there that want 7% of that pie as well. There will be sacrifice and I have seen it already a few times.

I have worked in 2 factories in the US where NOx emissions were a problem. One factory was in a state that was thinking about passing a law that would require them to decrease their emissions by 50% within the next year. We did a massive search of technology (worldwide) and process changes that might help us. Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the process (would have been much easier if the factory was built initially with this in mind) as it is, that the only solution would require the plant to go into the red for the next 14months just in capital expenditures alone. This didn't even include the maintenance (which can be quite costly with many of the cleanup systems), depreciation and waste removal. The law was passed and 550 people lost their jobs...plant closed. The other factory in the US was wanting to reduce heavy metal emissions due to new regulations that would allow for a expansion and 300 more employees. Money was not too bad on this problem...only a few million and required more employees for no more glass. The productivity became a problem when compared with a sister plant in the Dominican Republic. The expansion went to the Dominican and there were lost jobs in the US.

These are only a few examples, but I do have several more. I even have a few where working on a environmental problem I saved money, burned less fuel and lowered emissions. They all aren't like the above, but some are and people do lose their jobs, so there really will be pain with a cleanup effort. It is probably is worth it, but there will be some casualties along the way.

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? History & Civil Business Politics

Oh no! That EVIL corporation, that shipped jobs out to a foreign country! All in the name of saving some money.

That has always been my point. Lots of people make all sorts of claims about the environment, and how easy it would be to change things to reduce CO2 emissions, etc. But most of the people making the claims don't know what is really involved.

For example, in order to make a true electric car, that works, we need another 5 to 10 years of intense engineering development, along with a real breakthrough in battery technology. The ones that have been developed so far can only reach speeds of about 35 MPH, and have less than 150 miles range. Hybrid cars are actually a huge cost to society, rather than adding to society.

It is all very well for konquererz and arvhic to tell us that we can afford to make the changes. Internationally renowned economists can also make those claims. But when it gets down to the engineers making the changes that the "greenies" want, the costs are completely overwhelming to many of the companies involved. Even the big ones, like GM, are hit extremely hard by some of these demands.

Page 12 Man-made Natural Warming Global

Yes, it would have been a lot easier had the factory been built with emission restrictions in mind. But they weren't and they should clean up their act.

I can totally understand how difficult it is to lose a job. But, a lot of companies who shed staff do so purely for reasons of maximising profit. Qantas, the Australian airline, made drastic staff cuts post-September 11, using that as an excuse. That same year they recorded record profits. What a load of rubbish. Look at all the work that is being shipped overseas because of cheaper employment costs.

Large corporations have to stop making excuses and start accepting their responsibility. People run organisations, therefore people can make decisions to change them.

It is only greed that stops people from doing this.

No economist is suggesting we have to change emissions levels tomorrow. Obviously that process will take time. What we can't afford to do is have meaningless debate and makes excuses to postpone becoming a non-carbon economy. Because that is all this opposition is. Business knows we have to become less reliant on fossil fuels, this isn't opinion, it is fact. All this noise from the US, who is the only resistance to climate change, is motivated by greed and not science or sense.

Furthermore, what economists say is that it will be FAR more costly to fix the damage for not changing. Economists are EXPERTS in cost modeling, not CEOs of large energy companies. When I want comment on the state of the economy I phone an economist, not the CFO of Halliburton.

Nighthawk I totally agree with you on the point of battery powered cars. They are clearly less efficient and in effect contribute slightly less pollution than normal cars when you consider the amount of electricity generation they need for power.

But if nothing else, it is an attempt to make change for the better. Engineers can make a massive difference to the environment. They should be encouraged and funded to try. People are going to take a hit for the environment, but so they should. We waste so much bloody energy every day. Such simple things like turning the lights or heater off make a difference. It's about living slightly less comfortable and a whole lot smarter. If this sounds like too much of an effort, try living in a village in India and then complain.

We don't make changes to keep green groups happy. We make changes to benefit society. Who cares about what green groups say in the end, they are just lobbyists with an agenda.

My father, who was one of the best electrical engineers in Australia during his working life, sums up the whole energy debate quite well. He says: "It is plain lunacy that we don't build nuclear power stations because of one accident in Russia (like that is a surprise) and because a few rich and powerful countries are so damned paranoid about losing their authority as nuclear-armed bullies."

Man-made Natural Warming Global

I guess it does sound like a greed issue on the surface, but there are many companies around the world and in the US that just wont make it. Again, not that they shouldn't try, but when you are only making a 5% ROI it is nearly impossible to absorb those kind of cost and factories will shut down. Sure, there are companies that have lots of profit and could absorb the cost (and some actually do) of environmental cleanup. It is a far bigger economic problem than the economists or you are stating and that is my point. Don't worry, if those factories shut down, India will soon be supplying whatever was made there and their emissions will be just as bad. I know, because the company I work for and several other manufacturing bases are looking to expand our operations to that country as well. Guess where else those manufacturing companies are looking to set up shop. You got it. China, the 2nd largest producer of greenhouse gases. Why not, they really don't have any environmental issues, because they have few regulations. Sign the Kyoto agreement and ratify it, yet have no expectations. That is a good deal and looks good when you can tell everyone we signed it.

What will you tell the skilled laborer that now doesn't have a job? Sorry, 'bout your bad luck, but isn't the air lovely? You didn't need that truck anyway, the economist told me you were living beyond your means, so this is acceptable. It is pretty cavalier to be willing to throw so many out of work without a plan. Conversely, it is a cavalier attitude to sit there and do nothing about a problem.

Peter Mandelson (EU Trade Chief), accepts "there will be some pain in the short-term for industry but this could be offset by services growth selling European environmental know-how". Will the fork truck driver and line operator suffice as "know-how" services? Probably not, I expect the developing and underdeveloped countries have a good supply of that talent pool. What they are mostly talking about is engineers and project managers. The best part of this is that for most countries (except the US) that means those engineers and project managers don't pay tax in their home country. You just exported jobs and good paying ones at that! Congratulations...

I get paid to manufacture glass. I am quite good at what I do and I do work on a lot of environmental projects. The one thing that always makes the "money men" choke is the cost of making it "green". We actually just developed a glass that didn't use arsenic and we commercialized it that way - "Green Friendly". Sure it cost a lot more to make than if we had used arsenic, but we were told that that is what customers want. One problem, they don't want to pay for it. This is not just the US because we sell most of our products outside of the US (which is why I am in Taiwan).

As a engineer, a huge environmental movement will ensure that I am employed until my retirement, so I am not stating this because I am concerned about my job. Pacts like Kyoto guarantee my employment. It just really bothers me how we can be so cavalier about others jobs and livelihoods without a better plan than "the economists say we can do it". The GNP absolutely does not give a good picture of the finiancial standings of businesses as a whole. For GNP, profit is profit. It doesn't matter if you are only 1% or 40% ROI and there are a whole lot of companies that are more towards that 1% than the 40%. It is impossible and irresponsible to just think we can swipe off 3, 5 or 7% of the GNP and solve the problem. There are so many companies that this means taking ALL the profits or going Negative to get the job done. To just enforce plans such as Kyoto with no plan on how to do it, will mean a significant burden on the government assistance programs that are supported mostly by middle income tax dollars. But wait, we just threw a bunch of them out of work so there aren't as many taxpayers now, so there is less money.

Wikipedia says:

But in the very next paragraph wikipedia says:

Ahhh....to precautionary principle or not...that is the question! To me, it sounds like they really just don't know what the impact will be and are pretty much covering all the bases. But again, it is pollution and we should work to clean up the environment. The answer is more complex than just putting targets on paper and selling and buying CO2 credits.

The full energy cycle of nuclear energy is still debated. The emissions from the amount of electricity required to make the fuel for a nuclear reaction is said to be anywhere from 20 to 120% of the amount of emissions from a standard power plant for the same amount of electricity. It depends greatly on the purity of the ore that is being processed. Of course, this argument falls by the wayside should the fuel be processed with nuclear power. However, this doesn't even mention the issue about waste disposal. Not so much the waste from the spent fuel rods, but of decommissioned reactors.

You want to put America and Australia (as they have not signed Kyoto on the same basis as the US) on the hook, then simply do what was asked of the last two US administrations (Clinton and Bush). Hold China and India accountable and the US would have to agree to the Kyoto agreement. They really would have NO choice. The US will still complain that China is benchmarking their currency to the USD and that is causing problems with the economy, but they will have little footing if China and India have requirements to stay active in the agreement.

As I stated, the factory that I worked on was very old (75yrs) and the cost were too high to upgrade. China and India are on the ground floor of building their industrial base. Isn't now the time to get them in? As a engineer, I would say you better do it now or it will be too difficult for them to do later (costly). Heck, the reason why manufacturing bases are moving there are the cheap labor and the environmental regulations or lack thereof.

Wikipedia says:

China is expected to become the largest greenhouse gas producer by 2030. This is a expectation and they are exempt until 2012 from doing anything about this issue. Nice!

I do hope that none of you are ever forced with telling someone that they are fired and their job is being shipped out overseas. I used to be pretty cavalier about jobs because I knew that I would be fine, but tell a 50yr old (major money maker of the family) that their job is gone. "We know there isn't much chance you will find work in the area, but here is a "out placement" class. Good luck!" I sat in on a "out-placement" class and you should have seen the looks on these peoples faces...50yr old men trying to write a resume and learn how to interview because it had been about 30yrs ago that they last did it. It is really easy to call this the "pain" of what it takes, but "pain" is simply a synonym for unemployed and lost businesses (lower GNP for those economist).

Again, this is a just and right cause, but to enact a preemptive strike against global warming without figuring out how to deal with the casualties and those affected by the "war on global warming" is plain irresponsible. Sitting here doing nothing about it is irresponsible as well. There needs to be plans on what to do with the unemployed work force that WILL occur should we do what we have to do to clean up the environment. These plans need to be in place before you throw them out of work and not just kind of dealt with as we go. It is interesting to me how easily we can throw out the right a person has to employment, but talk about removing some of their "other" rights and there are screams of wrong doing!

Edited: Vincenzo on 19th Dec, 2006 - 11:10am

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

Vincenzo, I agree with you on many points. Especially in your insistence there needs to be a plan. Of course there needs to be a plan, not just for the people in rich western countries who might be forced out of work but also the people in poor countries who must come to the party.

My only problem with what you say is that the "unemployment and hurt to the economy" rant is a tired excuse. It's been categorically disproved by all the major economists. They, and not business leaders, are the experts on economic cost.

Today the world is much wealthier than it has ever been in its history. The world economy ALWAYS grows and the US has been leading the way for decades. You are worried about factory workers losing their jobs, which is fair enough. But the reality is they only lose their jobs if rich people decide they aren't making enough profit and sack them. Why don't you blame the people who sack others due to their own greed instead of using the unemployment argument to counter climate change? That is why a lot of your manufacturing jobs are probably heading to places like India, right?

Whether you like to believe it or not, if we do NOT plan for climate change it will cost us a hell of a lot more than it does today. It will cost Americans, but the people who will be affected most are the poor. Maybe rich countries don't really care about how their actions affect the poor. But if they ignore climate change it will also affect them too.

I urge you to read the Stern report because you dismiss its recommendations as unrealistic. Let me tell you, Stern is the chief economist of the British Government. He was the head economist at the World Bank. He is no enemy to business, quite the opposite. He is one of the foremost experts on predicting the economy and how it is affected by disasters. All the major accounting firms in the world are also spending a lot of money gearing up their business advisory services for climate change.

All these people are experts in what they do and know a hell of a lot more then people like George Bush, who only oppose climate change to appease their crony mates who run massive oil companies.

As for China, India and other developing nations? I have been saying for ages that they must also be held to account and the leading economists agree with this. Part of their commitment to the Kyoto protocol is to install greener technology as they develop. The market for this exchange in technology, mostly from European countries, is increasing a lot. China and India still have a commitment, but they meet this by building cleaner power stations and use carbon capture technology etc. I personally think they should be urged to do more and hope that a global carbon emissions trading scheme will eventually launch, binding them to reduce emissions as well. However, it is much more difficult and unfair to force a developing country, which doesn't have the infrastructure or wealth distribution of developed nations, to commit to the same Kyoto measures as the world's leading economies.

Really, the US should be embarrassed its not leading the climate change debate. It has the ability to lead on so many fronts, but hides behind a curtain of greed and self-interest at political level. There are states which defiantly buck this trend and should be applauded. But at national level your environmental policy is very poor, well behind Europe.

It doesn't have to be this way. The US is smart enough to come up with intricate plans, which will probably involve a level of government support to the hardest hit industries, to reduce emissions. But it is your politicians who need a wake up call. And, can I just add the sky hasn't fallen on anyone's head in Europe after nearly two years of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

Global Warming Natural Man-made - Page 12

The planet's still recovering from the last ice age, so the *global warming* effect shouldn't be blamed on humanity. The industrial revolution had some effect, but very little. In 1883 Krakatoa erupted, releasing enough ash and CO2 into the atmosphere that the world had a year without a summer. It was effectively a nuclear winter well before we split the atom. In this one eruption more CO2 was released than humanity has ever contributed, taking into account every breath exhaled, the industrial revolution, modern factories, and cars.
As I said the planet's still recovering from an ice age. Earth is far cooler than the average temperature throughout time. To put this into perspective, plant fossils found in Antarctica support that the continent used to be a tropical marsh/jungle roughly 70 million years ago.

Global Warming Natural Man-made Politics Business Civil & History - Page 12

This statement above has really bothered me. It indicates that "the economists" are some major monolithic group, who all believe and teach the same things.

That isn't so.

There is an old joke in manufacturing, that if you put 4 metallurgists in the same room, you will get 5 different opinions. The same joke applies to economists. Only worse. Put 4 economists in the same room, and you get 16 different opinions. Put 5 in the same room, and it becomes 25. It is exponential.

For example, I decided to see what the Austrian School economists had to say about this. Hmmm. They aren't very "down" with the ideas that keep getting thrown out here. Of course, as with anything that hints of conservatism, I am sure that we will have plenty of people here claim that Austrian School aren't "real" economists.

As for the idea that economists are the experts, that is typical "ivory tower" thinking. Business leaders know from experience. Economists "know" (think they know) from theories. Remember, theories are, by nature, unprovable. Business leaders deal with the very concrete facts of employment, regulation, unemployment insurance, regulation, profit margins, regulations, material costs, regulations, etc., regulations, etc.

What the "economists" and "environmentalists" propose is more regulation, more economic hardship, more unemployment, more economic disaster, in order to support their unprovable theories. They are perfectly willing to destroy the world, in order to save it.

Here is just one, simple example:
https://www.mises.org/story/2372

Enjoy.