Lord Vader

It wasn't my point Ally Cat, it was Carlin's point.

Alan2005

Er, you missed off legislation and taxation. Free markets work perfectly well when there is moral hazard and a legislative framework to operate in. I'll grant you that it does require honest regulators that enforce laws rather than bought and paid for industry shills. Still, I think getting an honest regulator is more achievable than simply reverting to communism.

Fair enough.

Jingsamichty

Atmospheric chemistry, you say... hmmm. Perhaps he can provide the answer to a question that has long puzzled me: Why do farts smell so much richer in the shower?

It's not just the enclosed space, because when the shower is on the effect is noticeably more pronounced. I've spent countless hours on (personal) empirical data-collection, you know, comparing the enhanced odiferousness and intensity compared to a control fart laid mere moments before outside the shower.

Fascinating stuff, this science, you know. I'm not surprised someone would want to take it up as a career.

iaink

How is wealthy western nations that have the most to lose contributing to helping developing nations bridge the green technology gap "communism" any more that say the IMF, or existing government aid spending on third world crisis relief? Its just taxation, thats all, the wealthy nations have to give something, money or technology, to the poorer ones. If the end result is arresting climate change then its money well spent.

Im not suggesting everyone has to be at the same economic level (like communism ever achieved that anyway), Im just suggesting that its unreasonable to expect developing nations not to take the cheapest, dirtiest route to try to achieve increased per capita incomes for their people, and that will be detrimental to everyone.

If you can tax the wealthy in order to improve the welfare and living conditions of the poorest people in society and its not considered communism, why would you consider that taking some % of the wealthy nations enormous economic output and diverting it to fund the necessary "environmentally friendly" infrastructure alternatives in developing nations to be communist?

Alan2005

Give? No, I disagree. Prosperity comes from trade not charity.

iaink

Wont work, the developing nations simply dont have the money for the technology, so they will go for the cheapest way to build their economies instead, and that will be the dirtiest way, as it was when the west built up its economies.

At the very least the developed nations will have to heavily subsidise the technology if they wish to benefit from the reduced emmisions. There simply isnt time anymore to wait for these economies to be able to afford to do "the right thing".

Besides, this isnt about prosperity, its about halting man made greenhouse emmisions.

Almost Canadian

Are there any technologies out there that can significantly replace fossil fuels for our energy requirements? While I accept it is a bit like the old lady that wazzed in the sea (every little helps) unless we are all prepared to go back to pre-industrialization living , isn't it all just a bit King Canute?

iaink

Nuclear and Hydroelectric would be the obvious existing choices in the short term until Solar,Wind, Geothermal etc and the like can fill the void. Increased efficiencies have to play a part too if reduced consumption cant be sold. Clearly internal combustion engines present a problem, but there are electric vehicles emerging, plus other more fuel efficent options that just dont sell in North America.

None of this is rocket science, but it will need rocket science budgets.

Clearly there are down sides to Hydro and Nuclear, but the technology is established, and the downside compared to a snowballing global CO2 level is not that bad.

Alan2005

Well, if you think hand outs are the only solution - start collecting. But you won't get any money from me

Besides, which developing nations are you talking about here? If you mean China, then no, that country can afford to be clean - it just chooses not to to gain competitive advantage over production in the west. Taxing chinese goods would sort this out instantly. Same for any other country for that matter - you want to sell to us, then don't pollute or you'll get additional tarifs. You need manufacturing infrastructure? Then allow our companies to invest without having to deal with corruption. All the solutions are easy - it's just that nobody wants to do them because we all want our $20 region free dvd players from wal-mart.

iaink

Exactly, there is no collective financial will to actually address the issues, either at a personal level, or more importantly at a governmental level. Whether that's a 5.8L Vortec V8, or a $20 DVD player, a $2 pineapple, or a $10bn carbon offset plan . Something has to give, or else it looks grim for the Polar Bears.

Earlier you were saying that free market economics would fix the issue, now you have confused me... To me the globalisation of the economy is half the problem, encouraging rampant consumerism of goods shipped unnecessarily half way around the world, made at the cheapest price in nations that dont need to meet the environmental standards that our society has deemed appropriate for itself, out of sight and out of mind.

Alan2005

No. I said that legislation, taxation and the free market would fix the issue. You just focused on the free market bit and forgot the taxes and laws.

Alan2005

Yes, we've exported all our pollution to China. It's not good.

iaink

We already have taxes and laws. The problem as ever is going to be to get all these countries to agree to common taxes and laws, or at least ones with a common purpose. Right now they cant even agree to common envoronmental targets. Its unrealistic to expect them all to agree without thinking that either one nation or another is going to have an economic edge, or else cheat or find loopholes. Corporations now ride roughshot through the intent of the taxation laws by finding loopholes. Different laws wont change that.

Whats needed is urgent action to change the way things are done, and direct funding is going to be a lot faster than economic nudges and tax treaties.

Fun as this discussion is, its all academic anyway because there is no will to do any of it anyway, and if its not already too late to effect the necessary changes, its damn close to it, and there is still no agreement despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that people are the problem anyway!

Im off home to my soon to be waterfront property...

Alan2005

Does this mean we can't have new ones or amend the ones we have.

Yes, it's impossible to get all countries to agree and there is no point even trying. Countries can only really act unilaterally. Will they? Of course not while the populace wants $20 dvd players - but that's the only possible way of achieving anything short of some kind of totalitarian world government.

Lord Vader

I reckon is has to do with the dissipation limitations caused by the denser air produced by the water vapour. The fart molecules stay closer together for a longer period of time in a moist environment as opposed to the dry air of a hallway or living room. The air from the fart becomes "trapped" in the same way it does beneath the bed sheets.