From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: CO2 (was Re: ages Environmental Show Trials)
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:45:58 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
NNTP-Posting-Host: de5.ctd.ornl.gov

Well, *now* we're talking.

The Players:
    Mike -- Mike McCants (mike@execu.execu.com)
    Dave -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)

Dave:
>Only if one *knows* it's inadequate, and in this case we don't...

Mike:
>I thought we already agreed that we do!

I don't think so.

Dave:
>As I've shown above, [reasonable measures] *would* be a constructive use of
>resources.

Mike:
>I did not see a convincing cost/benefit analysis.

I don't have one, but I agree that one would have to be done before the
decision was made.  At this point, though, we have to agree that *if* we can
identify low-cost, low-impact ways to reduce emissions, that we'll take them
even if they aren't likely to solve the entire CO2 problem.  Is that not
worth pursuing?

>What is proposed?  What would it cost?

I can't answer those questions, I'm just a concerned citizen.  I'll leave it
to experts in the field to exhaustively enumerate the possibilities and their
associated costs.  Obvious measures include conservation, nuclear/solar/wind
energy, a higher gas tax and/or CAFE, mass transit, and telecommuting.

>Are there really likely to be any benefits?

Sure.  Money will be spent on R&D and consumers will buy new products. 
Conservation is a Good Thing outside of reducing just CO2 emissions--all
power production related problems are likewise reduced.

>Other than learning that a 2% reduction can hardly be measured, much less be
>considered to have any significant short term or long term impact.

We'll also learn exactly how hard it is to reduce emissions, which may be
handy information if we get clear evidence that further reductions are
necessary.

>How much will we pay to learn that it didn't make any difference?

But even if we don't measurably reduce atmospheric CO2, there will be other
benefits, as I've already mentioned.

>How much will we pay so that a CO2 level of 3.195% will be reached
>in July, 2022 instead of June, 2022?
>
>Who has that signature with a statement about numbers?

These numbers are available, it's just outside of my area of expertise.  I'm
confident that there are *some* measures we can easily afford.  That they
won't solve the whole problem doesn't mean we shouldn't enact them.  That
right there is my entire point in this thread.  John Moore started by saying
we have two choices: do nothing, or take drastic measures.  Although I
personally support drastic measures, I realize they won't happen until
there's irrefutable evidence of the dangers of CO2 emissions, so I propose
taking the middle ground.  You argue that the middle ground won't solve the
problem, so why bother?  I argue that half a dose is better than no dose.  If
you disagree, then what more can I say?

Dave:
>If we take reasonable measures and they have no impact, we're no worse off
>than if we take no actions.

Mike:
>Only if the "reasonable measures" have zero cost.

Only if they have no other positive effects, which they certainly will.

Mike:
>How much do "reasonable measures" cost?

They're affordable, by definition of "reasonable".  If we can't agree that
the cost/benefit analysis is favorable, we won't do it.

Dave:
>Remember Pareto's Rule--the first 90% of excess greenhouse gas emmisions
>will likely be cheaper to cut than the final 10%.  Let's at least go after
>the cheap/easy ones.

Mike:
>Do you really think that a 90/10 "rule" has any significance in this context?

I don't know if the numbers 90 and 10 will hold, but the fact is that the
first X% will be easier than the next X%.  We *will* solve the cheap/easy
problems first.

>Are there any cheap/easy [way to reduce CO2 emissions]?

Yes, relatively speaking.  Conservation and CAFE/gas tax will certainly be
cheaper than, say, replacing all fossil-fuel steam plants with nukes.

>How 'bout fleet MPG to 40?  Is that cheap/easy?
>Isn't that what Clinton proposes?  Or was it 45MPG?

Yes, I think a CAFE increase *is* relatively cheap and easy.  No, I don't
know the dollar cost of raising the CAFE by N%, but, yes, I would want to see
some numbers before "I" signed it into law.

>Why not just raise gasoline prices to $4/gal over a period of time
>and let the market take its course?  Seems "easy", is it "cheap"?

Don't know, but that's a good question... better than "why do anything if we
can't do everthing?"

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA