California To Sue Car Companies For Causing Global Warming

[king mob]

This is quite amazing.

America's most populous state, California, opened a new front in its struggle with climate change yesterday when it announced that it was suing the six largest carmakers in the US for allegedly contributing to global warming.
In the unprecedented lawsuit, the state accused Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Chrysler and Nissan of creating a "public nuisance" and costing it millions of dollars. Environmental campaigners hailed the lawsuit as a landmark event in the effort to deal with global warming.

The suit, filed in a US district court in northern California, alleges that vehicle emissions have contributed significantly to global warming, and argues that the car manufacturers should be held responsible for the past and future cost of combating this crisis.
"Global warming is causing significant harm to California's environment, economy, agriculture and public health," said the state's Democratic attorney general, Bill Lockyer, who filed the complaint. "The impacts are costing millions of dollars and the price tag is increasing ... It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis."

California is the largest car market in the US, with more than 2m new vehicles registered every year, compared with about 2.5m for the entire UK. Car sales in the state totalled $83bn (£44bn) in 2005 according to the Automobile Alliance, an industry group representing carmakers. The 29m registered vehicles in the state drive a total of 320bn miles in the year.

The complaint further argues that monitoring and addressing the effects of global warming has cost the state millions of dollars. "Global warming has already injured California, its environment, its economy, and the health and well-being of its citizens," the complaint states, adding that dealing with global warming's harmful effects in the future, "will almost certainly cost millions more".

Roda Verheyen, co-director of Friends of the Earth's Climate Justice Programme, welcomed the development, saying: "This was a case waiting to happen. It is the most significant piece of climate change litigation that has ever been brought."

Daniel Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming programme, said the lawsuit built on initiatives taken by California and other states: "While the Bush administration continues to burrow its head in the sand, California has taken out a whole arsenal to combat emissions."

He said California's boldness stemmed in part from the attitude of its governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has been outspoken in his determination to combat global warming.

The Automobile Alliance in a statement said car manufacturers were already working to produce more fuel-efficient cars. Arguing that it needed more time to study the complaint, it noted that a similar suit, which saw energy companies sued on public nuisance grounds, had failed. "Using nuisance suits to address global warming would involve the courts in deciding political questions beyond their jurisdiction," the alliance said. "This opens the door to lawsuits targeting any activity that uses fossil fuel for energy."

The lawsuit comes as California aggressively pursues a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. A law passed in 2004 will force carmakers to reduce carbon dioxide exhaust emissions by 30%. That measure is currently being challenged by car manufacturers.

Last month the California state legislature approved a measure to force utilities to cut emissions, and the state has sued the federal government for failing to address the effects of global warming.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1877421,00.html

I'm glad they've done this, even if they fail in their lawsuit, it should make a lot more people aware of the issue of global warming and they might even educate people about the vast amount of mis-information pumped into the media by the oil and car lobby about global warming.

[Noah Johnson]

On the surface, it seems like a silly idea. Then I think about how pollution is one of the major ways, though not the most insidious, that corporations use to socialize the costs of their policies while privatizing the profits.

If this takes a step towards getting them to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, then it's worth doing.

[Winslow]

I sorta agree with your sentiment Noah . . .

BUT, who oversaw the planning and development of California into a car-dependent freeway zone? The government.

If California had emphasized mass transit, town-center based development, and maintained a sane level of green space - they wouldn't have the problems they have.

They made their own bed.

[Iangould]

I sorta agree with your sentiment Noah . . .

BUT, who oversaw the planning and development of California into a car-dependent freeway zone? The government.

If California had emphasized mass transit, town-center based development, and maintained a sane level of green space - they wouldn't have the problems they have.

They made their own bed.

Umm have you read about the pots-war campaign by GM andDunlop buy up the private bus and trolley-car companies in California, sell off their assets and rip up their track so people would be forced to use cars?

[Winslow]

Umm have you read about the pots-war campaign by GM andDunlop buy up the private bus and trolley-car companies in California, sell off their assets and rip up their track so people would be forced to use cars?

What does this have to do with the STATE government's decisions regarding development?

The State of California is suing GM.

[Avalanche]

I know there really hasn't been a restriction on greenhouse emissions set up in California, but is this really any reason to sue? Isn't it kind of like pointing the finger finding someone to blame because no one took the initiative? So above all the saving our planet crap there's money to be made and votes to be won as a result of doing this.

[Samurai]

Freakin' stupid. I hope it's laughed outta court, but in CA, I doubt it. I really hope Arnold doesn't support this.

[Ray R.]

Freakin' stupid. I hope it's laughed outta court, but in CA, I doubt it. I really hope Arnold doesn't support this.

Suprise, surprise. We agree on something.

I think the first hurdle in this type of case is proximate cause or, at best cause-in-fact, which I think is just too big of an unknown to overcome when you're trying to pin liability on car manufacturers.

When you determine whether there is causation, i.e., the negligence of car manufacturers specifically equals localized global warming, then, at least from my perspective, you're taking a natural result and assuming that the car companies had specific knowledge or scienter that their action or inaction would directly lead to localized effects of global warning on the state of California. The results were not immediately foreseeable, which means that when testing for proximate cause, the car manufacturers have a legitimate excuse that there was no possible way to know that their inaction would create the foreseeability of specific natural reactions and subsequent property damages.

There is a reason tobacco, gun, pharmaceutical manufacturers, among others, have such a good track record in the courts. Even in areas that have high cancer clusters, pinning down proximate cause is often difficult, if not prohibitively high-risk strategically compared to expenses. This case is even more flimsy, and imputing damages here could lead to flights of fancy -- e.g., more rain = mudslides or less rain = drought OR both, which would lead to astronomical damages assessments, ASSUMING agreement that each event causing damages was caused by global warning, so it probably never hold up on appeal anyway, if there was a favorable verdict for the State.

It's a protest complaint, nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint.

[Nick Soapdish]

I also agree.

Maybe it's not completely without merit, but it's close and shouldn't have a chance in hell of going anywhere. 'Sides, most of the issues with global warming are for future problems, not what we've been hit with so far.

I think it's just posturing.

The idea to regulate higher fuel efficiency standards in cars sold in California was a much better idea although it had its own share of problems. How did that one crash and burn?

[Sean Walsh]

So how long will it be before my neighbors, town and state sue me for lighting up my flamethrower and shooting it in the air every Wednesday morning? ;) :p




And you think I'm kidding....

[Iangould]

What does this have to do with the STATE government's decisions regarding development?

The State of California is suing GM.

My point is that the freeway-based development for which you blame the California state government didn't "just happen" nor was it solely the result of government action, it came about in large part because corporations wanted it to happen.

[Iangould]

There is a reason tobacco, gun, pharmaceutical manufacturers, among others, have such a good track record in the courts. Even in areas that have high cancer clusters, pinning down proximate cause is often difficult, if not prohibitively high-risk strategically compared to expenses. This case is even more flimsy, and imputing damages here could lead to flights of fancy -- e.g., more rain = mudslides or less rain = drought OR both, which would lead to astronomical damages assessments, ASSUMING agreement that each event causing damages was caused by global warning, so it probably never hold up on appeal anyway, if there was a favorable verdict for the State.

I should no better than to argue law with a lawyer but I think the relevant precedent here is the tobacco settlement where the states sued to recover their health spending on tobacco-related illnesses - California doesn't necessarily need to quantify the total economic cost of global warming just the mitigation expenses they've been forced to pay via alternative energy schemes and the like.

[Tages]

While they're at it, perhaps the State of California can sue its citizens for buying the corporations' products. Hey, they're no less culpable, right?

[Iangould]

While they're at it, perhaps the State of California can sue its citizens for buying the corporations' products. Hey, they're no less culpable, right?

If they and the carmarkers are equally capable then if you apply my argument about mitigation costs, California taxpayers are currently 50% culpable and paying 100% of the costs.

[Grazzt]

While they're at it, perhaps the State of California can sue its citizens for buying the corporations' products. Hey, they're no less culpable, right?

Isn't Iangould saying that the corporations themselves removed alternative forms of transportation? If the corporations put the consumer in a position where its products had to be bought (I think transportation can be thought of as a necessity), then the consumer shouldn't really carry any of the blame.

But that's what I feel morally, and probably not how the law works.

[Tages]

Isn't Iangould saying that the corporations themselves removed alternative forms of transportation? If the corporations put the consumer in a position where its products had to be bought (I think transportation can be thought of as a necessity), then the consumer shouldn't really carry any of the blame.

But that's what I feel morally, and probably not how the law works.
I know, the corporations removed choice from the consumers, and the consumers had absolutely no choice or recourse in the matter. There's nothing at all they could have done to remedy the situation. It's too bad they were helplessly forced, practically at gunpoint, to indulge the auto industry's malevolent designs.

[Ray R.]

I should no better than to argue law with a lawyer but I think the relevant precedent here is the tobacco settlement where the states sued to recover their health spending on tobacco-related illnesses - California doesn't necessarily need to quantify the total economic cost of global warming just the mitigation expenses they've been forced to pay via alternative energy schemes and the like.

Your point has validity. Still too many x-factors, though.

Define mitigation expenses. I'm not so sure those are quantifiable as they relate to global warming, and then that still leaves the causation question if they do.

And at best it's a stretch to assume willful negligence on behalf of carmakers in Michigan, Tennessee and other states for the act of INACTION that required the State of California to engage in alternative energy schemes as a response to global warming.

Emphysema and lung cancer and other respiratory ailments have been linked to cancer, and internal tobacco company documents showed that their own tests concluded linkage between long-term usage and ill health. They showed they had scienter, or reasonable knowledge of the liability they could face if an injured party could prove negligence, fraud, etc.

With global warming, or even the mitigation of the effects of global warning, you're asking a District Court Judge to assume, for the sake of argument, that car manufacturers both reasonably knew that not producing more fuel-efficient cars would have either a deliberate and deleterious effect on the environment of California, or knew that the State and its taxpayers would mitigate the difference in environmental impact caused by inefficient fuel standards in its gas guzzlers.

I think that's too high a standard to prove. In terms of cause and effect, even if the effect creates a quantifiable damages claim, we're still stuck at determining the cause, and in this case, forseeability and consequently, proximate cause, are iffy and speculatory at best.....

[Noah Johnson]

I know, the corporations removed choice from the consumers, and the consumers had absolutely no choice or recourse in the matter. There's nothing at all they could have done to remedy the situation. It's too bad they were helplessly forced, practically at gunpoint, to indulge the auto industry's malevolent designs.
This logic takes us straight to the late 19th century, when it was legal to water milk down to stretch it further, then just add chalk to it to make it look white again. Of course, nobody FORCED the consumers to drink the chalked milk, or the tainted meat, or the hundreds of other extremely dubious products... so I guess everything was just fine when they died. The Pure Food and Drugs act was nothing but big government interfering with trade, all right. Same with the Clean Air Act and all those other evil laws making corporations responsible for their actions.

[Tages]

This logic takes us straight to the late 19th century, when it was legal to water milk down to stretch it further, then just add chalk to it to make it look white again. Of course, nobody FORCED the consumers to drink the chalked milk, or the tainted meat, or the hundreds of other extremely dubious products... so I guess everything was just fine when they died. The Pure Food and Drugs act was nothing but big government interfering with trade, all right. Same with the Clean Air Act and all those other evil laws making corporations responsible for their actions.
How are these situations comparable? Have auto manufacturers purposely designed death traps and fraudulently sold them as reliable products?

[Slam_Bradley]

This suit is strictly for show. There are enormous issues with causality. What distinguishes the damage done by GM and Ford vs. Toyota and Volkswagon? What about coal fired power plants? Apparently the cars that are driven in China don't contribute to the problem.

[Noah Johnson]

How are these situations comparable? Have auto manufacturers purposely designed death traps and fraudulently sold them as reliable products?
Yes, as a matter of fact. One example would be SUVs, where safety studies have shown that larger windows make the vehicles safer, but smaller windows make them SEEM safer to consumers, while actually making them more dangerous. Guess which design strategy they went with?

Also, I could be wrong, but weren't some auto manufacturers also involved in the lethally irresponsible creation of a phony "scientific debate" about global warming? I know the oil companies were, obviously, but I don't recall whether any of the car companies were also involved.

[Winslow]

My point is that the freeway-based development for which you blame the California state government didn't "just happen" nor was it solely the result of government action, it came about in large part because corporations wanted it to happen.

That's a stretch Ian. I'm not buying your "cause and effect" argument.

Also, as a "hands off" economist, I'm kind of surprised at your argument (or maybe not understanding it). If GM illegally bought competitors, then maybe. But I've never heard of such an allegation.

California developed their cities using a freeway and suburban model. Now they have a lot of smog, and are trying to blame someone else.

[Slam_Bradley]

Yes, as a matter of fact. One example would be SUVs, where safety studies have shown that larger windows make the vehicles safer, but smaller windows make them SEEM safer to consumers, while actually making them more dangerous. Guess which design strategy they went with?

Also, I could be wrong, but weren't some auto manufacturers also involved in the lethally irresponsible creation of a phony "scientific debate" about global warming? I know the oil companies were, obviously, but I don't recall whether any of the car companies were also involved.


All of which has exactly nothing to do with the auto companies allegedly getting rid public transportation in California.

[Winslow]

How are these situations comparable? Have auto manufacturers purposely designed death traps and fraudulently sold them as reliable products?

The Pinto.

But other than that, I'm with you.

[Noah Johnson]

All of which has exactly nothing to do with the auto companies allegedly getting rid public transportation in California.
Didn't say it did. I was just arguing Tages' point about how consumers supposedly aren't manipulated by dishonest companies, or if they are it's their own fault, not the fault of those manipulating them.

[Tages]

All of which has exactly nothing to do with the auto companies allegedly getting rid public transportation in California.
I love this red fish, what do you call it?

[Noah Johnson]

I love this red fish, what do you call it?
Is it gefilte?

[Tages]

Is it gefilte?
Never had it.

[Ray R.]

All of which has exactly nothing to do with the auto companies allegedly getting rid public transportation in California.

When did the RICO conspiracy and Sherman antitrust charges get thrown into the mix? I must have missed that development, as it wasn't mentioned in the article.....

[Slam_Bradley]

Didn't say it did. I was just arguing Tages' point about how consumers supposedly aren't manipulated by dishonest companies, or if they are it's their own fault, not the fault of those manipulating them.


Tages is very capable of speaking for himself, but it was very clear that he was talking about the allegation that California consumers had no choice but to buy Big Three gas-guzzlers because their public transportation was shut down by the car companies.

Those were the goalposts.

[Dreadstar]

Y'know, California could reduce its emissions quite simply, but the public would revolt.

[Slam_Bradley]

When did the RICO conspiracy and Sherman antitrust charges get thrown into the mix? I must have missed that development, as it wasn't mentioned in the article.....


Around here...

Umm have you read about the pots-war campaign by GM andDunlop buy up the private bus and trolley-car companies in California, sell off their assets and rip up their track so people would be forced to use cars?

Isn't Iangould saying that the corporations themselves removed alternative forms of transportation? If the corporations put the consumer in a position where its products had to be bought (I think transportation can be thought of as a necessity), then the consumer shouldn't really carry any of the blame.

But that's what I feel morally, and probably not how the law works.

It's a very fluid conversation. Try to keep up.

[Ray R.]

Y'know, California could reduce its emissions quite simply, but the public would revolt.

Reminds of the scene in "L.A. Story," where Steve Martin's character drives his car down to the mailbox to get his mail, then drives back.

[Slam_Bradley]

Y'know, California could reduce its emissions quite simply, but the public would revolt.


The Californians are revolting.

[Ray R.]

Around here...


It's a very fluid conversation. Try to keep up.

Silly me, I thought it was a self-described "nuisance" suit.....

[Ray R.]

The Californians are revolting.

You're just bitter because they haven't started a film festival yet in your sleepy Idaho town.

[Iangould]

This suit is strictly for show. There are enormous issues with causality. What distinguishes the damage done by GM and Ford vs. Toyota and Volkswagon? What about coal fired power plants? Apparently the cars that are driven in China don't contribute to the problem.

Toyota and Volkswagen are named in the suit.

The six major global auto manufacturers sued probably accoutn for 80-90% of world car production - including China.

[Iangould]

Your point has validity. Still too many x-factors, though.

Define mitigation expenses. I'm not so sure those are quantifiable as they relate to global warming, and then that still leaves the causation question if they do.

And at best it's a stretch to assume willful negligence on behalf of carmakers in Michigan, Tennessee and other states for the act of INACTION that required the State of California to engage in alternative energy schemes as a response to global warming.

Emphysema and lung cancer and other respiratory ailments have been linked to cancer, and internal tobacco company documents showed that their own tests concluded linkage between long-term usage and ill health. They showed they had scienter, or reasonable knowledge of the liability they could face if an injured party could prove negligence, fraud, etc.

With global warming, or even the mitigation of the effects of global warning, you're asking a District Court Judge to assume, for the sake of argument, that car manufacturers both reasonably knew that not producing more fuel-efficient cars would have either a deliberate and deleterious effect on the environment of California, or knew that the State and its taxpayers would mitigate the difference in environmental impact caused by inefficient fuel standards in its gas guzzlers.

I think that's too high a standard to prove. In terms of cause and effect, even if the effect creates a quantifiable damages claim, we're still stuck at determining the cause, and in this case, forseeability and consequently, proximate cause, are iffy and speculatory at best.....

I suspect the California government is looking to deal - probably for some expansion of the ZEV program or a token payment to go away although "token" here woudl probably amount to, say, $50 million per company.

[Iangould]

Double post

[Dreadstar]

I suspect the California government is looking to deal - probably for some expansion of the ZEV program or a token payment to go away although "token" here woudl probably amount to, say, $50 million per company.

Don't know why, but that just screams blackmail to me.

[Iangould]

That's a stretch Ian. I'm not buying your "cause and effect" argument.

Also, as a "hands off" economist, I'm kind of surprised at your argument (or maybe not understanding it). If GM illegally bought competitors, then maybe. But I've never heard of such an allegation.

California developed their cities using a freeway and suburban model. Now they have a lot of smog, and are trying to blame someone else.


But I'm not a "hands-off" economist.

I believe that markets tend to be more allocatively efficent than government fiat but that regulated markets are often more efficient than unregulated ones.

[Noah Johnson]

Don't know why, but that just screams blackmail to me.
Technically, that would be extortion, actually.

Or, to put it another way, it's shrewd use of economic incentives. At present, there's little incentive for companies to produce cleaner cars, since someone else will be paying to clean up whatever mess they make. Alter those assumptions, however, and you might get results.

[Trystenn]

This seems kinda dumb to me, i mean what are they trying to prove?

[Iangould]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

The General Motors streetcar conspiracy refers to a contention that General Motors (GM), acting in conjunction with several other companies and through the National City Lines (NCL) holding company, illegally acquired many streetcar systems in various cities around the United States, dismantled and replaced them with buses for the express purpose of promoting the automobile.

GM was acquitted of the charge of deliberately shutting down public transportation systems but convicted on a related charge of illegally monopolising sales of buses to National City Lines.

[Ray R.]

Technically, that would be extortion, actually.

Or, to put it another way, it's shrewd use of economic incentives. At present, there's little incentive for companies to produce cleaner cars, since someone else will be paying to clean up whatever mess they make. Alter those assumptions, however, and you might get results.

Yup, extortion.

Not sure why extortion is necessary, though. It seems like the automobile manufacturing market is slowly correcting itself as a result of higher gas prices, longer commutes, environmental regulations, etc. They're doing it out of necessity, not incentive. Frankly, the joke around here is that you need to give a hummer to sell a Hummer, plus 0% financing.

I think both the stick and the carrot are consumer demand. There are waiting lists for months for hybrids around here in the D.C. area. As long as India, China, Malaysia and the rest of the Far East keep upping the demand for fossil fuels, then the price of gas is going to stay high. Therefore, unless GM can afford to lay off 75,000 workers every quarter, then they react to consumer preference and either change fuel standards and fuel efficiency or go out of business. It may not be as fast as needed, and legislative changes like reclassifying SUVs, upping CAFE standards and even more and dropping tax incentives on vehicles with shitty track records on emissions and fuel efficiency is necessary.

People know about global warming. They also like driving their cars. Plus, new public transportation is pricey. They want to add one line to our Metro here and the cost is going to somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 to $2.5 billion dollars. Who pays for it? The drivers using the toll roads....but it's going to take decades.

Dumping responsibility on car manufacturers is a cop-out. Consumer preference and demand, as well as state and federal legislative action or inaction, is also responsible. It's a systemic problem, not one where there are "bad actors" who need to be punished for contributing to global warming....

[BlairH]

This seems kinda dumb to me, i mean what are they trying to prove?
That they have a bigger penis than the auto industry?

[Ray R.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

The General Motors streetcar conspiracy refers to a contention that General Motors (GM), acting in conjunction with several other companies and through the National City Lines (NCL) holding company, illegally acquired many streetcar systems in various cities around the United States, dismantled and replaced them with buses for the express purpose of promoting the automobile.

GM was acquitted of the charge of deliberately shutting down public transportation systems but convicted on a related charge of illegally monopolising sales of buses to National City Lines.

Ian, this case was decided in 1949. And GM replaced streetcars with buses. One form of public transportation for another.

There were also mitigating factors diluting the conspiracy, as pointed out in the Wiki article.

BTW, it was an underlying plot point in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"

In 1949, gasoline cost 27 cents a gallon. Global warming didn't exist in anything but science fiction novels.

So, claims of the automobile industry increasing the mitigating costs of the State of California in fighting global warming due to the elimination of competition in the form of public transportation is without much merit.

[Iangould]

Yup, extortion.

Not sure why extortion is necessary, though. It seems like the automobile manufacturing market is slowly correcting itself as a result of higher gas prices, longer commutes, environmental regulations, etc. They're doing it out of necessity, not incentive. Frankly, the joke around here is that you need to give a hummer to sell a Hummer, plus 0% financing.

I think both the stick and the carrot are consumer demand. There are waiting lists for months for hybrids around here in the D.C. area. As long as India, China, Malaysia and the rest of the Far East keep upping the demand for fossil fuels, then the price of gas is going to stay high. Therefore, unless GM can afford to lay off 75,000 workers every quarter, then they react to consumer preference and either change fuel standards and fuel efficiency or go out of business. It may not be as fast as needed, and legislative changes like reclassifying SUVs, upping CAFE standards and even more and dropping tax incentives on vehicles with shitty track records on emissions and fuel efficiency is necessary.

There's a lot that merits a cosndiered resposne here but my time is short so I'll make one quick point and maybe come back later.

Is there anything in the recent corporate history of either GM or Ford (other than Bill ford sacking himself) that suggests an ability to repsond to consumer demand or even the companies' own economic interests?

[Iangould]

So, claims of the automobile industry increasing the mitigating costs of the State of California in fighting global warming due to the elimination of competition in the form of public transportation is without much merit.

That wasn't what I was saying though Ray - I was simply pointing out that the current California transport system is hardly the result of government policy acting in a vaccuum.

[Iangould]

That they have a bigger penis than the auto industry?

More like "Democrats can pander to popular sentiment just as well as Republicans. Now forget about those illegal immigrants and watch us kick some fat corporate arses."

[Ray R.]

There's a lot that merits a cosndiered resposne here but my time is short so I'll make one quick point and maybe come back later.

Is there anything in the recent corporate history of either GM or Ford (other than Bill ford sacking himself) that suggests an ability to repsond to consumer demand or even the companies' own economic interests?

It ain't much, but it's a start. If they can't compete, then they should go the way of the dinosaur, and not get bailed out on the taxpayer's dime.

http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/300_hybrids/

http://www.ford.com/en/vehicles/specialtyVehicles/environmental/hybridElectric/default.htm

[Iangould]

I guess this is as good a place as any for this:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060921-054133-6011r

Branson makes big global warming gift

NEW YORK, Sept. 21 (UPI) -- British entrepreneur Richard Branson Thursday pledged $3 billion to the fight against global warming at a New York news conference.

Branson, head of the Virgin airline and train companies, said he would commit all profits from his travel businesses to the campaign for the next 10 years. He told the BBC the money would be invested in renewable energy initiatives.

The announcement came on the second day of the Clinton Global Initiative, a meeting on philanthropy convened by former U.S. President Bill Clinton, the New York Times reported.

"Our generation has inherited an incredibly beautiful world from our parents and they from their parents," Branson said. "It is in our hands whether our children and their children inherit the same world. We must not be the generation responsible for irreversibly damaging the environment."

[Ray R.]

That wasn't what I was saying though Ray - I was simply pointing out that the current California transport system is hardly the result of government policy acting in a vaccuum.

Fair enough. But the salient point isn't to use events of corporate malfeasance from the late forties to dictate extortion today. If it looked like I was showing you up, I apologize.

Believe me, I do not feel comfortable playing devil's advocate for the automobile manufacturers or oil companies for that matter, but at least from the legal perspective, it seems like this suit is about passing the buck, fairly or unfairly, but without the requisite legal foundation to do so.

[Winslow]

That wasn't what I was saying though Ray - I was simply pointing out that the current California transport system is hardly the result of government policy acting in a vaccuum.

As a construction engineer familiar with the process of development, I think I can say it is government policy acting in vacuum

GM's street car conspiracy had very little (to arguably negligible) affect on the process of development as comapred to Robert Moses.

If you want to blame someone for the rise of the subruban urban planning that required the auto and highways, blame this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses

Not GM.

[Nick Soapdish]

Not sure why extortion is necessary, though. It seems like the automobile manufacturing market is slowly correcting itself as a result of higher gas prices, longer commutes, environmental regulations, etc.


Environmental regulations?

Have there been any changes recently other than delaying increased fuel efficiency standards?

[Tages]

I guess this is as good a place as any for this:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060921-054133-6011r

Branson makes big global warming gift

NEW YORK, Sept. 21 (UPI) -- British entrepreneur Richard Branson Thursday pledged $3 billion to the fight against global warming at a New York news conference.

Branson, head of the Virgin airline and train companies, said he would commit all profits from his travel businesses to the campaign for the next 10 years. He told the BBC the money would be invested in renewable energy initiatives.

The announcement came on the second day of the Clinton Global Initiative, a meeting on philanthropy convened by former U.S. President Bill Clinton, the New York Times reported.

"Our generation has inherited an incredibly beautiful world from our parents and they from their parents," Branson said. "It is in our hands whether our children and their children inherit the same world. We must not be the generation responsible for irreversibly damaging the environment."
Good for him. I would have put it towards AIDS and cancer research and third world water purification programs, but hey, it's his money.

[king mob]

Good for him. I would have put it towards AIDS and cancer research and third world water purification programs, but hey, it's his money.


There's two main reasons why Branson did this. The first is that governments will eventually legislate against industries and companies who do contribute to global warming. Branson is simply investing his money into new industires that probably won't be legislated and will be profitable. So it's a bit cynical but if it mean other companies follow in Branson's path then we're at least moving in the right direction.


The second reason is that although AIDS, etc are huge problems, global warming is becoming the major problem that faces us all right now.

[Winslow]

There's two main reasons why Branson did this. The first is that governments will eventually legislate against industries and companies who do contribute to global warming. Branson is simply investing his money into new industires that probably won't be legislated and will be profitable. So it's a bit cynical but if it mean other companies follow in Branson's path then we're at least moving in the right direction.


The second reason is that although AIDS, etc are huge problems, global warming is becoming the major problem that faces us all right now.

15 million orphans in Africa isn't a problem right now?

Anyway . . .

Law suits are a horrible means of legislating. If California wants cleaner cars, make it a law that cars have to meet certain emmission requirements, or they won't be licensed.

[king mob]

15 million orphans in Africa isn't a problem right now?




Of course it's a problem, but global warming is one of the contributary factors. Trying to solve it would actually aid a lot of major worl problems.

[Winslow]

I think your grammar is not saying what you think it's saying king mob.

Global Warming contributes to AIDs? Or maybe I can't read and need another coffee.

Where we agree is that global warming is a problem.

Where we disagree is the urgency to correct the problem (there are other things that should be tackled first), and the manner in which to correct the problem.

[king mob]

I think your grammar is not saying what you think it's saying king mob.

Global Warming contributes to AIDs? Or maybe I can't read and need another coffee.

Where we agree is that global warming is a problem.

Where we disagree is the urgency to correct the problem (there are other things that should be tackled first), and the manner in which to correct the problem.


I'm loaded up with drugs as i'm poorly so i'm perhaps not up to speed today.

No, global warming doesn't cause AIDS in Africa, and it is a huge problem (and perhaps one worthy of discussion in another thread) but Africa is suffering due to global warming and that does affect things like water supply and where people can settle and make a life.

I totally agree these are huge problems, but we can hardly solve the problems of giving African villages clean water when that land is being turned into desert due to global warming. A lot of these problems are interconnected and although it's simplistic to saying that solving Problem A will solve Problem B, it's certainly true to say that solving a problem like global warming will help out many of the worlds problems.

Global warming is a urgent problem, it's possibly THE most urgent problem we face. How we solve it is hugely complicated, but any move (such as Branson's) is a step in the right direction and we all have to play our own part. If that means getting a bus rather than jumping in a car then it's a start. However it's about education and there's an awful lot of people who need educated about just how serious a problem this is.

[cactusmaac]

It's not an "urgent" problem, especially not compared to AIDS and malaria.

It will be acting out over the course of the next century, not in five to ten years time.

On the long list of problems concerning Africa, global warming isn't particularly high compared to disease, war, failed states, illiteracy, malnutrition etc.

It's more of a significant problem for places like Bangladesh which are susceptible to massive flooding.

[cactusmaac]

15 million orphans in Africa isn't a problem right now?

Anyway . . .

Law suits are a horrible means of legislating. If California wants cleaner cars, make it a law that cars have to meet certain emmission requirements, or they won't be licensed.

A much more effective route would be to tax carbon emissions in the same way alcohol and cigarettes get taxed.

[Winslow]

A much more effective route would be to tax carbon emissions in the same way alcohol and cigarettes get taxed.

That makes sense to me.

[DocAbsurd]

Umm have you read about the post-war campaign by GM and Dunlop buy up the private bus and trolley-car companies in California, sell off their assets and rip up their track so people would be forced to use cars?

I heard that someone called Judge Doom headed up the whole scheme to wipe out toons in Hollywood.

Killed off Marvin Acme, framed some silly-arsed rabbit, even got Disney and Warner Brothers characters to band together.

This bit of silliness brought to you by the 'Who Kiboshed Roger Rabbit?' campaign.




Doc 'Samolians' Absurd

[king mob]

It's not an "urgent" problem, especially not compared to AIDS and malaria.

It will be acting out over the course of the next century, not in five to ten years time.

On the long list of problems concerning Africa, global warming isn't particularly high compared to disease, war, failed states, illiteracy, malnutrition etc.

It's more of a significant problem for places like Bangladesh which are susceptible to massive flooding.

It is urgent because we need to change how we all live now and address the issues with developing countries like India and how they will pollute. It's not just third world countries that are being affected by this-it's everywhere.

As i said, global warming is contributing so some of those problems you mention. now we shouldn't say we'll ignore the other problems, we shouldn't, but we have to make it clear that a lot of these big international problems like world hunger and global warming are connected.

[cactusmaac]

Northern Europe is actually probably going to be better off thanks to global warming. The winters will become much milder, cutting down on heating costs and reducing fatalities due to cold.

As for world hunger, global warming is pretty far down the list of the factors affecting it. The major cause of it now is poverty and politics, not climate. That's been true since the Green Revolution fostered by Norman Borlaug.

[king mob]

A much more effective route would be to tax carbon emissions in the same way alcohol and cigarettes get taxed.


We've had these taxes in the UK for a while now. They're a good idea but they need to be done with a well run and fully integrated public transport system, something most cities here don't have thanks to years of deregularisation and privatisation. Things like the congestion charge has worked in London and is about to be rolled out across other cities over the next few years.

[king mob]

Northern Europe is actually probably going to be better off thanks to global warming. The winters will become much milder, cutting down on heating costs and reducing fatalities due to cold.

Areas like East Anglia will disapear under water, cites like London and Bristol will suffer serious flooding. Countries like Holland will see widespread flooding. Also we'll actually have colder winters such as we had last year and we're already seeing less rainfall on average per year.

This isn't just going to be a chance to brush up on our tans.

As for world hunger, global warming is pretty far down the list of the factors affecting it. The major cause of it now is poverty and politics, not climate. That's been true since the Green Revolution fostered by Norman Borlaug.

Yes, poverty and politics are major causes but global warming is seeing climate change and drought conditions increase. As said, all these problems are connected and they're all in urgent need of being dealt with.

[cactusmaac]

We've had these taxes in the UK for a while now. They're a good idea but they need to be done with a well run and fully integrated public transport system, something most cities here don't have thanks to years of deregularisation and privatisation. Things like the congestion charge has worked in London and is about to be rolled out across other cities over the next few years.

I used public transport in England lots before I passed my driving test, and I would never go back to using it. The sheer convenience of point-to-point travel is something that public transport will never be able to replicate unless the entire population is living in dense urban centres.

[cactusmaac]

Areas like East Anglia will disapear under water, cites like London and Bristol will suffer serious flooding. Countries like Holland will see widespread flooding. Also we'll actually have colder winters such as we had last year and we're already seeing less rainfall on average per year.

This isn't just going to be a chance to brush up on our tans.

Yes, poverty and politics are major causes but global warming is seeing climate change and drought conditions increase. As said, all these problems are connected and they're all in urgent need of being dealt with.

It's not going to cause an immediate and huge change in climate conditions. The effects will be acted out over a long-term period. As far as England goes, the danger of flooding comes far more from the woeful spending on flood defences.

[king mob]

I used public transport in England lots before I passed my driving test, and I would never go back to using it. The sheer convenience of point-to-point travel is something that public transport will never be able to replicate unless the entire population is living in dense urban centres.


Cities like Nottingham are doing wonders in trying to get a fully integrated transport policy together, the likes of Bristol, Glasgow and Newcastle used to have great systems before Thatcher fucked everything up. It's very much a uphill struggle right now, especially when you compare the UK's system to the likes of Sweden or France who have excellent public transport structures.

This is the problem-we can't get people to get out their cars if public transport is shite and overpriced. Taxing emissions is great and helps, but it needs to be backed up with a transport policy that actually works.

[king mob]

It's not going to cause an immediate and huge change in climate conditions. The effects will be acted out over a long-term period. As far as England goes, the danger of flooding comes far more from the woeful spending on flood defences.


No, it's not. We've had major floods over the last few years because of rising sea levels, we're seeing the effects of climate change now and it's not something that's going to get any better.

Just building better flood defences is ignoring the main problem. The UK as a whole has seen a huge rise in areas of land being flooded each winter, and now we have flash-floods during the summer. These changes are not just weather patterns or freak conditions, these are distinct changes to the climate.

[cactusmaac]

I honestly don't think much can be done about reducing emissions. The technology just isn't there, no matter how much cash is thrown at alternative energies. Maybe hybrids and electrics will be ultra-cheap in two decades time but who knows?

Taxes would be effective if there was a genuine alternative to fossil fuels but stopping people from driving on the scale required would effectively mean the car being outlawed.

An engineer I know said if the problem was excess warming, they could just send mega sunshades into space although to use them effectively would mean needing to come with clmate models far more sophisticated than the ones used currently.

[king mob]

I honestly don't think much can be done about reducing emissions. The technology just isn't there, no matter how much cash is thrown at alternative energies. Maybe hybrids and electrics will be ultra-cheap in two decades time but who knows?

The electric car could be with us sooner than we think. This film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F) is worth checking out.

As for hybrids, they're out there. There's also the option to convert your car to biodiesel which is a great option but it does make your car smell like a chippy on a Saturday night.

Taxes would be effective if there was a genuine alternative to fossil fuels but stopping people from driving on the scale required would effectively mean the car being outlawed.

Taxes have worked but the car won't be outlawed. What's more likely is fossil fuels will be outlawed, Sweden are going to be oil-free by 2020. That could be the way we all have to go.

As for alternatives, there's plenty but we all know how hard it will be to convince people to change.

An engineer I know said if the problem was excess warming, they could just send mega sunshades into space although to use them effectively would mean needing to come with clmate models far more sophisticated than the ones used currently.


The problem is that we've simply put too much polution into the atmosphere. We all have to take responsibility and try to be a bit more ethical and consider how actions are affecting the planet.

[Nick Soapdish]

I honestly don't think much can be done about reducing emissions. The technology just isn't there, no matter how much cash is thrown at alternative energies. Maybe hybrids and electrics will be ultra-cheap in two decades time but who knows?

Taxes would be effective if there was a genuine alternative to fossil fuels but stopping people from driving on the scale required would effectively mean the car being outlawed.

An engineer I know said if the problem was excess warming, they could just send mega sunshades into space although to use them effectively would mean needing to come with clmate models far more sophisticated than the ones used currently.

In the short term? Not much. The American auto companies at least aren't geared up for any kind of quick changes.

If we had stuck with it from when we had first started (or toughened) fuel efficiency standards, then we might be somewhere.

But currently, we are still claiming that higher fuel efficiency can't be done effectively even though our cars can't be sold in China because they don't meet their standards. (I guess we don't think of it as much of a market.)

The alternative is that we could relax air quality standards. Allow more particulates into the atmosphere which will reflect more of the sun's rays. 'Course, this results in all sorts of respiratory ailments, eventual contamination of the water and soil, etc. But it's how we delayed some of the effects from carbon emissions in the past.

Edit: Also the problem isn't just excess warming. It's the excess carbon in the atmosphere that gets absorbed by the oceans and raises the acidity of them, making it more difficult for corals and other calcareous organisms to grow.

[Ontir]

There is, and has been, a great deal of technology available which can severely reduce emissions, but it represents a paradigm shift in Detroit's profit chain, and they're un-willing to go for it. Ultimately, it's not going to matter though. Asia is going greener with their vehicles, and with the shrinking and re-conceptualization of Ford, Toyota is now the 2nd largest auto maker in America, GM isn't doing much on the hybrid front yet, and China is gearing up to devour the American auto industry with extremely green (in comparison) cars. For the American auto industry, it's going to be the late 70's and 80's all over again!

[Ray R.]

There is, and has been, a great deal of technology available which can severely reduce emissions, but it represents a paradigm shift in Detroit's profit chain, and they're un-willing to go for it. Ultimately, it's not going to matter though. Asia is going greener with their vehicles, and with the shrinking and re-conceptualization of Ford, Toyota is now the 2nd largest auto maker in America, GM isn't doing much on the hybrid front yet, and China is gearing up to devour the American auto industry with extremely green (in comparison) cars. For the American auto industry, it's going to be the late 70's and 80's all over again!

I concur.

Q: How many GM and Ford car salesmen does it take to change a light bulb?

A: I'm going to work this out on my calculator, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

One more for posterity's sake:

Lexus engineers have a way of testing to see if their cars are air-tight. They would put a cat in the car and close it up. They would check the car again in 24 hours. If the cat was dead, it passed the test.

Chrysler heard about this and decided to try it. They put a cat in one of their cars and closed it up. When they checked it again in 24 hours, the cat was gone.

[Noah Johnson]

It's not going to cause an immediate and huge change in climate conditions. The effects will be acted out over a long-term period. As far as England goes, the danger of flooding comes far more from the woeful spending on flood defences.
It's not quite as simple as you're making it out to be, cactus. Remember that near-hurricane that ripped up London a couple years back? Climate change in effect.

Moreover, while the seriously disastrous effects will take a while to play out, remember that many aspects of the problem, such as the atmospheric carbon cycle, are self-reinforcing systems. For an analogy, think of when a washing machine has an unbalanced load. It spins, and the load becomes unbalanced, causing it to spin asymmetrically, making the load MORE unbalanced, causing it to spin MORE asymmetrically, and so on. Thus, it really, really, REALLY isn't a case of "We can fix it later when it starts getting really bad." The time to start fixing it was twenty years ago, but now we've got a death toll already in the thousands and rising fast, and even if we start doing everything possible to fix the problem immediately, it's going to continue to get worse on its own for a while. If we continue, as you suggest, knowingly exacerbating the problem, we could end up facing a climate that irreversibly moves to being unlivable for most species currently alive on earth. Including us.

[Iangould]

Northern Europe is actually probably going to be better off thanks to global warming. The winters will become much milder, cutting down on heating costs and reducing fatalities due to cold.

As for world hunger, global warming is pretty far down the list of the factors affecting it. The major cause of it now is poverty and politics, not climate. That's been true since the Green Revolution fostered by Norman Borlaug.

Actually it's quite possible that northern Europe wil lend up getting colder if the gulf stream shuts down.

I'm also uncertain about your claim that hunger in Africa is unrelated to global warming. Southern Africa is experiencing its worst drought on record - so is much of Australia. In both Western Australia and South Australia it's being suggested that we're seeing isn't a drought - it a long-lasting change to a drier climate. Signifcant farming areas in both states may simply need to be abandoned.

There's no definitive linke yet between the multi-decadal drying out of south-west Australia and global warming but it seems to be the most probable cause.

You might want to read some of the recent coverage in New Scientist and The Economist about water shortages in India. This year was the first decent monsoon inabotu the past six years. Watertables are dropping; farmers are beign forced to invest in deeper and deeper wells and more expensive pumps to simply maintain production and there's increasing conflict betwen rich and poor over water extraction. Amongst other things, that conflict has contributed to the increasing Naxalite violence in India.

[Iangould]

I used public transport in England lots before I passed my driving test, and I would never go back to using it. The sheer convenience of point-to-point travel is something that public transport will never be able to replicate unless the entire population is living in dense urban centres.

Brisbane is one of the least dense cities on the planet - and we have a fantastic public transport system.

[Iangould]

I honestly don't think much can be done about reducing emissions. The technology just isn't there, ...

No, the political and public will isn't there.

Average American fuel efficiency has been declining . I somehow doubt that the technology to build the micro-compact cars of the 1970's has been lost.

[Iangould]

An engineer I know said if the problem was excess warming, they could just send mega sunshades into space although to use them effectively would mean needing to come with clmate models far more sophisticated than the ones used currently.

Did he mention how much that would cost?

If so, did he mention the space shuttle and the ISS in his answer?

I'm also curious as to how sunshades will reverse the effect of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels on oceanic acidity levels and the resultign impacts on marien life.

At this point I think we have ot consider ever possible option for amelioration but "sunshades in space" is an expensive techno-wank.

If we had to embrace a technical fix We could start tomorrow building long-duration stratospheric balloons - pain them black on the bottom, silver on top; fill them with helium and send them up into the stratosphere.

You'd likely need a few billion of them to make a real difference but its real off-the-shelf tehcnology we coudl use immediately - and if it turns out we ARE wrong about the extent of global warming we can modulate the number of balloons much quicker and cheaper than we could with large spaceborne structures.

[Iangould]

Not that I obsess about this stuff or anything but I went looking for data on Maac's buddy's parasol idea:

http://fermat.nap.edu/openbook/0309043867/html/447.html

Given the equatorial radius of the earth and a nominal low orbit of 222 km, the radius of the sphere in which the sheet, or parasol, is to be located is 6.6 × 103 km. Then the area of the sphere to completely wrap the earth is 5.5 × 1014 m2. To compensate completely for the greenhouse warming from a doubling in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, 3,4 the parasol must cover 1 percent of the area, or 5.5 × 1012 m2.

If this parasol must be 1 micron (µm) thick, 5.5 × 106 m3 of material is required. At a density of 1 g/cm3, 5.5 × 109 kg would have to be lifted into low earth orbit. The cost of establishing such a project is dominated by the cost of putting the parasol into orbit. At an optimistic cost of $1,000/kg, the cost of lifting the material into orbit would be $5.5 trillion.5 Such a parasol would mitigate about 1000 Gt of carbon emissions, for a cost of about $5.5/t C mitigated or about $1.5/t CO2 (rounding the number). At current launch costs of $10,000/kg, the cost would be $55/t C mitigated or about $15/t CO2.

So based onextremely optimistic estimates - and ignoring any cost of manufacture - you're talking roughly $5 trillion.

That's around an order of magnitude higher than estimates for comprehensive GHG redcutions.

[king mob]

expensive techno-wank.




I had one of them once when i went to see Orbital.

[king mob]

It's not quite as simple as you're making it out to be, cactus. Remember that near-hurricane that ripped up London a couple years back? Climate change in effect.




Or the hurricane that's just finished battering the west coast of the UK. Or the fact we've started getting tornados in places like Birmingham, or any number of examples which point to a clear and distinct change in the UK's climate.

[cactusmaac]

As far as the past data goes, hurricanes aren't any more severe than they were fifty years ago. What's more I'm somewhat wary of everything climate-related being tied in with CO2 concentrations in the air. How much of this is due to that and how much is part of the natural ebb and flow of the earth's systems is an open question.

Thanks for looking at the parasol thing Ian.

[king mob]

As far as the past data goes, hurricanes aren't any more severe than they were fifty years ago. What's more I'm somewhat wary of everything climate-related being tied in with CO2 concentrations in the air. How much of this is due to that and how much is part of the natural ebb and flow of the earth's systems is an open question.

Thanks for looking at the parasol thing Ian.


Hurricanes are more common though-a sign that the seas are warming up. As for actual proof of global warming, etc, this should make things clear. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3928017.stm)

[Samurai]

Hurricanes are more common though-a sign that the seas are warming up. As for actual proof of global warming, etc, this should make things clear. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3928017.stm)
Except, this year we've had fewer hurricanes than usual...

http://www.news.com.au/sundayheraldsun/story/0,,20400748-5006029,00.html

In fact, America has this year had fewer hurricanes than usual. And most hurricane experts agree with Dr Chris Landsea of the US National Hurricane Centre, who says "there has been no change in the number and intensity of (the strongest) hurricanes around the world in the last 15 years".

[Ontir]

Thank God! We couldn't use even half of what we got last year! Maybe the systems spent themselves with the 3 majors that hit then, and we're in a meteorological re-boot.

[Night]

How are they going to get enough of the world to join them in the suit? I don't think there's enough people in CA to offest the rest of the world.

I'm surprised Judge Doom hasn't come up yet
http://doninside.altervista.org/testblog/images/judge_doom.jpg

[Ontir]

California has the 6th largest economy on Earth, and it's long been said that when California gets a sniffle, the country gets a cold, so bringing the rest of the country is possible. The rest of the world is increasigly ahead of us on this issue.

[Winslow]

California has the 6th largest economy on Earth, and it's long been said that when California gets a sniffle, the country gets a cold, so bringing the rest of the country is possible. The rest of the world is increasigly ahead of us on this issue.

Well, if that happens, it wouldn't surprise me to see Michigan secede. And I wouldn't blame tham.

[Iangould]

As far as the past data goes, hurricanes aren't any more severe than they were fifty years ago. What's more I'm somewhat wary of everything climate-related being tied in with CO2 concentrations in the air. How much of this is due to that and how much is part of the natural ebb and flow of the earth's systems is an open question.

Maac, there's a lot of dispute back and forth about hurricane frequency and intensity. I'll see if I can find some links.

[Iangould]

Well, if that happens, it wouldn't surprise me to see Michigan secede. And I wouldn't blame tham.

Yes and Washington state should secede over the Microsoft anti-trsut suit and the Carolinas should secede over the tobacco settlement.

[Iangould]

As I said earleir, there seems to be a lot of dispute about hurricanes.

This site seems to be a pretty fair summary:

http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm

1.) Q: Is global warming causing more hurricanes?

A: No. The global, annual frequency of tropical cyclones (the generic, meteorological term for the storm that is called a tropical storm or hurricane in the Atlantic region) is about 90, plus or minus 10. There is no indication whatsoever of a long-term trend in this number.

2.) Q: But I’ve noticed that there seem to have been lots more hurricanes, beginning around 1995.

A: You probably live in North America, Central America, or Europe and are talking about hurricanes in the North Atlantic. (It’s important to remember that only 11% of all hurricanes occur in the Atlantic, the rest are in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.) There has been a large upswing in the frequency of Atlantic hurricanes, beginning in 1995. This corresponds to an upswing in tropical North Atlantic sea surface temperature, which is very likely a response to increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases. It is important to note that the late summer and early fall tropical Atlantic sea surface temperature closely follows the Northern Hemisphere mean surface temperature (including land), which makes it unlikely that regional Atlantic climate phenomena are affecting tropical sea surface temperatures ( and thereby affecting hurricanes) on time scales of more than a few years. In particular, there is no evidence for "natural cycles" of either Atlantic hurricane activity or tropical Atlantic sea surface temperature.

3.) Q: Is the intensity of hurricanes increasing with time?

A: There is some evidence that it is. Records of hurricane activity worldwide show an upswing of both the maximum wind speed in and the duration of hurricanes. The energy released by the average hurricane (again considering all hurricanes worldwide) seems to have increased by around 70% in the past 30 years or so, corresponding to about a 15% increase in the maximum wind speed and a 60% increase in storm lifetime.

[Iangould]

That site I linked to early concludes that there are some cost-effective mitigation strategies:

1. Adding dust to the stratosphere either using cannons or commercial aircraft (you change the compostion of fuel to produce more particulates);

2. Cloud seeding to increase cloud cover which results in more heat being reflected back into space;

Neither of these is an alternative to reducing GHG emissions in the long term but they could buy us some time.

There are two basic reasons why I say they aren't an alternative to reducing GHG emissions:

1. there are other impacts from increasing atmospheric CO2 besides global warming - most notably the changes in oceanic pH I mentioned earlier;

2. If oil and coal consumption continues to grow at 2-3% per year then even on even the most optimistic projections wer'e going to run out a lot sooner than most people realize.

[king mob]

2. If oil and coal consumption continues to grow at 2-3% per year then even on even the most optimistic projections wer'e going to run out a lot sooner than most people realize.


Which is why we could see more countries following Sweden's lead and becoming oil-free. Of course that would mean some serious readjustment of certain country's economies.

[cactusmaac]

50% of Sweden's power is nuclear. That's the kind of shift we're likely to see.

Given how China and India are still industrialising (and Africa and large swathes of the world are yet to do so) I wouldn't forecast a decline in fossil fuel consumption.

[king mob]

50% of Sweden's power is nuclear. That's the kind of shift we're likely to see.

Given how China and India are still industrialising (and Africa and large swathes of the world are yet to do so) I wouldn't forecast a decline in fossil fuel consumption.


Which is why we've got to try to work out how to get everyone on board in regards to climate change.