I have a high degree of respect for America, but I’m definately an Aussie.

That said, in Korea, they almost always think I am American!

Andrews last blog post..America and climate change – messy action beats no action

I remember in the early 1990s when I was a student accepting without question the messages within the mainstream media about global warming. That is, at least, until my year 11 chemistry teacher gave his take on the whole thing, mentioning some scientific data which appeared to contradict the popular messages of the mainstream media. Conveniently, this was data which had been almost completely ignored by the majority of media outlets to which I personally had been exposed.

There are many aspects of climate change which, as you rightly point out, are subject to a considerable degree of debate within the scientific community, and it is important when we look at the bigger picture of dealing with global warming to bear in mind that climate change is a complicated issue and that we need to avoid making overly simplistic judgments with respect to the science associated with it.

Andrews last blog post..America and climate change – messy action beats no action

I think there is a lot more dispute in the scientific community than people realize if they just listen to the mainstream media. Because much of the media believe that global warming exists, that it is harmful, and that man causes it and can do something about it, that is the message that is being spread. However, there is a significant amount of debate of the various elements.

Some scientists believe global warming is happening; others recognize patterns of climate change throughout history and say what is happening now is simply part of the normal cycle. Even among scientists who believe it is different or more serious than what has happened in the past, not all agree that it is a bad thing. And whether they believe it is a bad thing or not, many scientists do not believe man contributes that much to it and does not believe that changing such things as carbon emissions will have any beneficial effect.

So I think the responsible thing before devising a plan to do something about it is to determine whether or not climate change is happening in a new or different way than historical cycles; if so, whether that is a bad thing or not; and if it is happening and is a bad thing, what can we do about it.

Too often I think well-intentioned people want to solve a problem before the problem is fully understood. Jumping in and doing the wrong thing can be dangerous.

I’m not advocating ignoring the situation; I’m suggesting that more unbiased research by scientists without a political axe to grind is needed. Unfortunately this whole topic has become so politicized that it’s hard to find neutral, unbiased information.

Lillie Ammanns last blog post..Happy 3rd Birthday to A Writer’s Words, An Editor’s Eye

As I understand it, the intention is to cease the granting of free credits in 2030.

Your point about the cost is a fair one. Not only would polluting industries howl and scream at the idea of having to pay for the permits now, but I would imagine that the cost of these permits would have flowed through into production costs and therefore consumer prices, meaning that such an approach would have had an economic impact as well.

That said, I still stand by the points with regards to an auction system being the best way to go from a viewpoint of fairness and transparency. It is unfair that industries with political power get free handouts whilst those with less political clout do not.

Andrews last blog post..America and climate change – messy action beats no action

Absolutely right – all nations have to do their bit. This includes America, but by no means should the responsibility be shouldered by America (and Europe) alone.

Andrews last blog post..America and climate change – messy action beats no action

Your point about the need for energy policy to accomodate security and economic concerns, along with environmental concerns is absolutely spot on. Energy policy must be devised in such a way as to ecnompass a broad range of policy objectives. The environment should be an important consideration, but certainly not the only consideration.

In addition, you do hit on an important point with regard to the scientific issues relating to global warming. Unfortunately, my knowledge and understanding with respect to the science involved is not sufficient for me to provide any form of informed comment on this regard. As far as I understand it, the vast majority of credible scientists believe that global warming does represent a real danger, although the process of predicting the exact nature and magnitude of the effect does seem, from what I understand, to be somewhat problematic.

Even then, according to my understanding, the exact causes of the problem seem to be the subject of some degree of debate. That said, there does seem to be a general concensus that increases in the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere does represent a contributing factor, and therefore feel that action to curb emissions would help in terms of mitigating the impact to some degree.

For the purpose of the above discussion, I have simply assumed that action to curb carbon emissions is warranted. But you do raise a legitimate point, and I personally tend to cringe whenever I hear proponents of aggressive action dismissing all too quickly any legitmate points of dispute with respect to the scientific issues surrounding the debate.

Andrews last blog post..America and climate change – messy action beats no action

Fred H Schlegels last blog post..Texting Innovation For Rural Medicine

Marks last blog post..Inconsistency In Thought – Consistency in Growth

If anyone expects otherwise, they are looking for an unprecedented outcome.

Another concern I have is that proponents of these aggressive policies take it for granted that a) global warming is an indisputable fact, and b) our energy policies have a direct and measurable impact on it. I am no expert, but I do know that these facts are in dispute.

Even assuming this is all true, and economic arguments aside, there is still a security aspect of energy policy that must be considered. For the U.S., it is an extremely important to maintain energy independence. I do not think that any of these considerations – economic, environmental – security – should be swept away, dismissed out of hand.

I’m not suggesting you are doing this, but it is an attitude I hear day in and day out on the news programs, and is especially worrisome when I hear it coming from politicians and so-called experts who are clearly operating from their own agenda.

Brad Shorrs last blog post..Different Audience Temperaments Require Different Presentation Styles