Time to get it right

It would appear that over the past year the arguments of skeptics have gathered force. More scientists have expressed skepticism, to the point where exchanges of lists on both sides seem to have equal weight. But I think it is time we skeptics argue for a positive policy outcome.

I believe that we should make the case that at the very least, we have time to do the science right. Temperatures have plateaued over the past decade, and the impacts of sunspots and volcanic activity are likely to dampen any tendency for temperatures to rise for a few years. This offers us enough time to get the science right and to prepare a course of action that makes sense for us regardless of who's right on this subject.

Here are my thoughts:

1. Let's measure temperatures correctly. Let's site stations according to specifications, make sure there are enough stations, cover land, sea and the troposphere, and make sure we can trust satellite data. Let's find good proxies and work on understanding what they tell us about past climatic conditions.

2. Let's make prudent investment in research and development regarding alternative means of generating power. We need to abandon the nightmare that is biofuels, and push towards scaleable technologies, ranging from nuclear to OTEC to Space Based Power Satellites. Let's do the engineering work, pilot projects and get the grid ready for this century's changes.

3. There are other ways that humans affect the climate, through deforestation, land-use policies and interruptions of the hydrologic cycle. We can start with mitigation efforts on these pernicious practices--and some of them will actually reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.

4. Let's put a price on carbon. The mechanism is open to discussion, and the price as well. But let's establish the fact that pollution, consumption of fossil fuels, and emission of greenhouse gases incurs a real or potential cost to society.

5. Let's reward efficiency where we find it, and encourage it with pricing mechanisms. From weatherising houses to solar collectors on office buildings, let's make this easy to do and reward it with tax incentives or even subsidies.

Oh, wait--isn't that Obama's energy plan? And here I thought I was being a genius...

Update: I forgot one other important point--let's make public transportation better, easier and a better choice for more people.

Comments

[Walter Cronanty]

Sorry, but I don't think 1 & 2 are in Obama's plans - certainly no "nukes" [check what he does, not what he says]. No "stimulas money" to update temperature stations in US - if we did that, AGW + its resultant taxes would take a hit.
3 Deforestation is largely taking place in other countries. Good luck with that.
4 I'm still not sold on CO2 being a "dangerous pollutant" - I really don't think the plants would agree. Check your post below on "Predictions vs. observations." This is nothing but a tax on business, and since businesses don't pay taxes, people do, it's a tax on us [actually, since humans emit CO2, I'm pushing for a subsidy for big screen TVs - being a sedentary coach potato will mean less CO2 emissions]. TAX ALL GYMS!
5 I actually agree with you on this, although I'm sure to a lesser degree.
And have we given up on all drilling for more oil/natural gas, or is that just a given? Sort of like the "consensus?"

[Tom Fuller]

Hi Walter--how are you?

Starting from the bottom, we are the third-highest oil producing nation in the world. That gets forgotten because we are the largest importer. We are not turning off the spigot--we're just trying to develop alternatives.

I don't think CO2 is a pollutant in any way, shape or form. I think the most charitable explanation of yesterday's declaration is that Obama wants to use it as a stick to threaten Congress in case they don't vote for his energy plan. But it was a stupid move.

We have spent a lot of money helping other countries--some of that money could be spent mitigating or preventing deforestation.

As for your first point, let's wait and see... we should know by the middle of next year, right?

[Walter Cronanty]

Hi Tom - Here is why I don't like incentives. Say what you want, but when it comes to money, people will find the angles.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=abDjfGgdumh4&refer=home

Black Liquor Tax Boondoggle May Net Billions for Papermakers
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Bob Ivry and Christopher Donville

April 17 (Bloomberg) -- Paper companies may claim about $6.6 billion from a U.S. tax break meant to discourage use of fossil fuels, and they’ll burn more diesel to get it.

The tax credit is an incentive to mix an alternative energy source with carbon-based fuel. Papermakers already generate electricity by burning a wood byproduct from pulp-making called “black liquor.” To qualify for the windfall they are adding diesel fuel to the black liquor, following the letter of the law while violating its spirit, said Verle Sutton, editor of the Reel Time Report, a unit of Los Angeles-based Forestweb Inc., a provider of data on the paper industry.

“It’s an absolute government boondoggle,” Sutton said. “These companies were not using fossil fuels. They only started because they needed it for the tax credit to work. So there’s a negative to the environment, not a positive.
What a country!

[Tom Fuller]

Hi Walter

Yes, I saw that--kind of sad, but biofuels in general are a disaster. The only thing we could have done that would have been right would have been to buy direct from Brazil. Archer Daniels Midland--my vote for the next Enron...