The Antiplanner is increasingly convinced that most believers in anthropomorphic climate change care less about saving the planet than they do about changing people’s behavior. Climate change is just an excuse for using the power of government to force such changes.
We can see this in the city of Portland’s Climate Action Plan, which is all about changing behavior. The plan aims to reduce per capita electricity usage by 25 percent and per capita driving by an unbelievable two-thirds by 2050.
To achieve these goals, the plan calls for no additions to the region’s urban-growth boundary; rebuilding the city so that 90 percent of its residents are within a 20-minute walk of grocery stores and other services (which, as these maps show, is far from the case today); and building 1,000 community gardens so people can eat locally grown food. Portlanders are to eat “less beef and more chicken, fewer bananas and more apples and pears.”
The plan offers no proof that these are the most cost-effective ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or even that they will reduce them at all. Instead, it merely presents a litany of politically and environmentally correct ideas.
What will life be like in this Portopia of the future? Probably pretty noisy and (due to four- and five-story buildings) dark.
Teachers and students returning to the classroom order cheap viagra after summer vacation can better prepare for the school year ahead with the following chiropractor’s tips. It is very easy to buy sildenafil jelly from the online sites. purchase cialis from india my link Adding weight-training exercises such as weightlifting and resistance training, as they improve endothelial function. check my store levitra generika It lowers your confidence and increases fear in satisfying her in buy generic cialis bed. Meanwhile, a group calling itself the Climate and Health Council wants medical doctors to advise patients on how to reduce their carbon footprints. What next? Will cable TV installers be required to advise people on what televisions have the least carbon emissions? Maybe lectures on the carbon impacts of bringing new babies in the world will become a required part of sex education classes.
Forget all this social engineering. Those who truly want to reduce greenhouse gases should support a carbon tax, which would allow individuals to find their own preferred responses. If we had a national carbon tax, no other local actions should be necessary to achieve emission reduction targets. In fact, by reducing efficiency, local actions will merely increase the cost, and reduce the likelihood, of reaching targets.
On the other hand, if the U.S. does not implement a carbon tax (or cap-and-trade, which will probably be less effective and more expensive), actions by the city of Portland will do little other than to make it more expensive and less desirable to live there. To the extent that Portland succeeds in reducing the use of petroleum for driving, for example, it will merely reduce the world price of oil which will lead people elsewhere to consume more, thus partially if not wholly mitigating the benefits of Portland’s actions.
The Antiplanner remains skeptical about whether we need to do anything at all about greenhouse gases. As Megan McArdle points out, the real issue raised by ClimateGate is not that some scientists were snide or threatened to “beat the crap out of” faithful Antiplanner ally Pat Michaels, but that they made a concerted effort to shield their climate models and the data behind them from outside scrutiny.
For example, when skeptics asked for Phil Jones’ raw data, one of the recently revealed internal memos reveals that he felt they had three options: provide the data, provide some of the data, or provide “reconstructed” data, which wouldn’t really be raw data but would “annoy them” (see a file named “jonesfoiathoughts.doc”). If Jones truly believed in their models and the spirit of inquiry, he wouldn’t consider “annoying” his critics to be a worthwhile goal. In fact, as CBS News points out, many of the data are questionable and the computer model based on those data is riddled with bugs.
In short, if global warming is real, we need a carbon tax, not behavioral engineering by meddling urban planners. Real or not, such attempts at behavioral controls will do far more harm than good to both our economy and our ability to deal with climate issues.
Can Smart Growth Cost-Effectively Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions? If you can’t attend this event in person, go here to watch it on line at noon Eastern time, Thursday, December 3.
Actually the first thing we need to do is quit building fossil fueled power plants and build only nuclear. End of about 40% of present Oregon CO2 emissions.
See http://www.sustainableoregon.com/electricity.html
For an introduction to the climate fraud, see: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/index.html
Lets save a lot of climate debate by recognizing that the key scientists behind the IPCC have hidden the data, fiddled the data, fiddled the results, subverted the peer review process and prevented independent review. Thus the entire IPCC work is NOT CREDIBLE UNTIL IT IS RE-EXAMINED PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH. So, please don’t use the IPCC or anything coming from any CRU “scientist” or those in other institutions that work closely with the CRU. That includes Mann and Hansen and all of their co-authors.
Thanks
JK
I’m up early and feeling generous, so I’ll do the resident lefties’ work for them today: “The Antiplanner’s blasphemous doubts on GlowBall Warmening stem from having in the past received money from (Gasp!) Oil Companies and from his base and vile nature. He is forever barred and tarred, befouled and tainted by BushitlerMcChimpyCheneyismus.”
OK, we know that, so go back to bed and let the grownups debate.
My problem with Mr. Karlock’s comment is the phrase “we need to do”, which always signals an attempt to abandon the strict discipline of the market. What we need to do, is what we actually do, at any given time as the price of things varies in a free market. A somewhat imperfect market is like democracy: A terrible system, orders of magnitude better than any other.
Here’s another anecdote about how much more interested climate activists are in punishing auto drivers than in reducing carbon emissions:
When my state developed a “climate action plan,” the organizers were completely uninterested in eliminating the 100,000 or more unwarranted stop signs that impede auto traffic on the state’s streets, wasting tons of fuel in millions of stop-and-start cycles. This action could be taken immediately at no cost, but I have never seen it mentioned in the climate strategy of any locale. Small, but symbolic, proof that “climate strategies” are about making life hard for auto users, not about reducing fuel use.
Aarne H. Frobom wrote:
> Small, but symbolic, proof that “climate strategies†are about making life hard for auto users,
> not about reducing fuel use.
[Emphasis added above]
Aarne, you are so correct. If we wanted to make the transportation system (including the street and highway network) work better, we would reduce carbon use and emissions. But the carbon emissions debate has little to do with the environmental impact of emissions, and much to do with social engineering.
JK’s point about nuclear power is correct as is BJS’s point about market forces. I would add let market forces work the natural gas resources, a fuel that pollutes less and is easily incorporated into our energy infrastructure.
The impediment to natural gas is government regulation of drilling and, I expect soon, fracturing to release the gas from rock.
The Antiplanner is absolutely correct this is about people’s behavior more than actually doing something for carbon emissions. I suspect eventually there will be income redistribution disguised in a similar way.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> On the other hand, if the U.S. does not implement a carbon tax (or cap-and-trade, which will probably be less effective
> and more expensive), actions by the city of Portland will do little other than to make it more expensive and less desirable
> to live there. To the extent that Portland succeeds in reducing the use of petroleum for driving, for example, it will
> merely reduce the world price of oil which will lead people elsewhere to consume more, thus partially if not wholly
> mitigating the benefits of Portland’s actions.
Let’s say (for the sake of discussion) that that Portland Metro forces people to make the lifestyle changes and limitations found in the document in question and all of this comes true. From a national perspective, so what?
Have these people no sense of scale?
Metro’s so-called “service area” (I use the term loosely) is about 1.5 million. The population of the United States is about 308 million. That means that Metro has less than 1/2 of one percent of the nation’s population under its jurisdiction. So in a national sense, the impact that Metro will have is effectively nothing.
And there’s this gem on physical page 16 of the above document:
Personal mobility and access to services has never been better. Every resident lives in a walkable and bikeable neighborhood that includes retail businesses, schools, parks and jobs. Most people rely on walking, bicycling and transit rather than driving. Pedestrians and bicyclists are prominent in the region’s commercial centers, corridors and neighborhoods. Public transportation, bikeways, sidewalks and greenways connect neighborhoods. When people do need to drive, vehicles are highly efficient and run on low-carbon electricity and renewable fuels.
The words above tell me that this is about lifestyles (and changing same), not about carbon emissions and not about transportation.
As Megan McArdle points out, the real issue raised by ClimateGate is not that some scientists were snide or threatened to “beat the crap out of†faithful Antiplanner ally Pat Michaels, but that they made a concerted effort to shield their climate models and the data behind them from outside scrutiny.
Randal, you “forgot” to type “of one guy, effectively a human DoS attack” after you typed ‘from outside scrutiny’. One guy, 5 FOI requests a day. And no evidence of anything after all this time. Not one scrap of evidence.
Nonetheless, despite the Swift Boat siege with Copenhagen impending, I’m for a C tax. And as the ideologically pure Roger Pielke Sr continus to assert, a decent chunk of the man-made climate change forcing comes from land use. So changing our land-use patterns are also necessary. Ah, well. Whaddya gonna do? Stop progress?
DS
blacquejacqueshellac wrote:
> My problem with Mr. Karlock’s comment is the phrase “we need to doâ€, which always signals an attempt to abandon the strict
> discipline of the market. What we need to do, is what we actually do, at any given time as the price of things varies
> in a free market. A somewhat imperfect market is like democracy: A terrible system, orders of magnitude better than
> any other.
Well, I am tempted to agree with you.
But in terms of “bang for the buck,” when it comes to reducing carbon emissions without the lifestyle changes that Portland Metro seems to want to impose on its citizens, I believe that my friend Mr. Karlock is correct.
Replacing coal-fired electric generating stations with nuclear-powered electric generation is a way to achieve large reductions in emissions and improve overall air quality easily. Don’t take my word for it – even Portland Metro’s report, on physical page 21, in Figure 3 admits that the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions are from generation of electricity. On physical page 34 in Figure 9, this is reinforced.
Dan asserted:
> So changing our land-use patterns are also necessary.
Why?
Albedo. UHI. Pan evaporation. Runoff. Eutrophication. Nitrification. Emissions. Fuel availability. Resource constraints for infra.
Just a few off the top of my head.
DS
Well, I must say that ‘debate’ format certainly favors Randal – he can spew forth multiple refuted arguments without worry that they can be rebutted. Sheesh.
DS
Aside from your wise-a$$ comments about 5 story buildings creating dark cityscapes, I agree, Randall.
TexanOkie: “Aside from your wise-a$$ comments about 5 story buildings creating dark cityscapes, I agree, Randall.”
ws: Yep, Randall “Free Market” O’Toole contradicting himself once again. ROT loves growth — except dense growth, but him and Cox operate under the fact that they’re “pro-choice” towards development..so as long as that choice is low density, single-family, auto only transportation development.
Great, some NIMBY neighbors fight for density and height limits. NIMBY neighbors also fight tooth and nail for development similar to their own living arrangements — even on lots of equal size as theirs.
I wouldn’t read too much into this document. Talk is cheap and public commitments and “action plans” rarely have much to support their implementation.
Portland cannot possibly follow through on many of the document’s suggestions. Unless the city starts opening grocery stores or embarks on an urban renewal-type program to raze the city and rebuilt it along the lines of its utopian principles, it cannot meet the “20-minute” standard.
Reducing per capita auto use by two-thirds would require deporting most of its current residents and replacing them with very low-income immigrants who are much less likely to own a vehicle.
And I have no idea how Portland plans to change the dietary habits of its residents. Whatever it is, I’m sure I’ll be shocked.
Any plan that relies on peak oil scare tactics and economic autarky is not likely to succeed. But fortunately there are places like Clark County that are ready to receive the inflow of people if Portland ever decides to pursue this lunacy. Exit over voice every time.
Dan still has his head up his ass.
The evidence is in the source code.
Who’s a denialist now?
Dan said: “Well, I must say that ‘debate’ format certainly favors Randal – he can spew forth multiple refuted arguments without worry that they can be rebutted. Sheesh.”
Sometimes it’s just not worth it.
Exactly, bennett.
DS
Hide the decline and contain the Medieval Warming Period.
Dismiss attempts to correlate solar cycles to temperatures, but hug tree-ring proxies.
Label skeptics deniers, a smear intended to link skeptics with Holocaust deniers.
Climate change is happening as it has always. The 20th century temperature increase is nothing special in the long history of climate swings that includes the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period.
Humans may play a role, but there are too many unanswered questions and problems to be fundamentally (read: religiously) certain of computer modeling and man’s effect. Too many feedback mechanisms and forcings and their effects, including clouds and the solar cycle, are not fully understood.
The proxy temperature data is weak and has been heavily manipulated by prominent IPCC scientists, as the evidence (e-mails and climate modeling programming) shows.
Even the observed data is questionable. Meteorologist Anthony Watts surveyed over 75% of US weather stations that collect data for national measurement. Most stations are off by more than 2°C; many are located 10 meters or less from an artificial heating source (such as air conditioner units, building exhausts, etc.) In fact, less than 10% met NOAA’s strict placement requirements.
The lack of skepticism regarding AGW and the degree of propaganda employed by warmists shows that fundamentalism remains alive and well.
For the lurkers out there,
Aside from the fact that there is zero evidence on the ground – in reality, in the factually-based community – that anything in the e-mails (suppression, manipulation, data deletion) actually happened:
This video does an excellent job of detailing a couple of the most glaring contradictions and outright denialist stupidities in the Swift Boat campaign ululated around the denialosphere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=player_embedded
My favorite line: “febrile nitwits”. I should start using that one. Nevertheless,
o No glaciers are advancing.
o The ocean is not suddenly de-acidified.
o The corals have not un-bleached.
o Sea levels are not dropping.
o Plants and animals are not moving back down south and down hill.
o Spring will not come later next year.
o The wildfires haven’t stopped.
o The droughts did not suddenly decrease.
o Temperatures have not cooled to pre-industrial levels.
o No other phenological phenomenon, hundreds of which have been observed across dozens of scientific disciplines – will reverse itself in the wake of this hack (and the other* attempted hacks) and subsequent Swift Boat campaign. None.
Just another nutter conspiracy theory.
Too bad it’s not real except in the addled minds of ~12% of the population. The rest of the planet has passed them by. Perhaps this is just a cry for attention or validation.
Ah, well. It’ll be shown to be a Swift Boat-style campaign and the world will continue to figure out how to reduce carbon, make land-use changes, become more efficient, and figure out how to pay the hundreds of $Bns for adaptation.
We’ll vote on ACES soon, CA will continue to limit emissions and change land-use patterns, states will continue to join RGGIs, carbon will be controlled via the EPA, Europe will continue to out-compete us in innovation, India will hope to figure out where to get water from, etc.
DS
* http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2300282
Typical trash talk from you, Dan. I don’t understand your puerile need to call names like a schoolyard bully.
“No glaciers are advancing.”
This regurgitated, warmist talking point is myth. About 1/5 of world glaciers are advancing, including the Hubbard glacier in Alaska and Engabreen glacier in Norway. A Google Search took .11 seconds to reveal the list.
I’d go on to show how the other bulleted “facts” are simply your vomiting propaganda and urban legend, but you don’t get no play, boy. Not with $hit like this, which is so obviously false and could have been easily fact checked by 6th graders.
10 points for me! yay!
Normally at this point I’d play the gullible rube for as many points as I can get, but we’ve been directed in our denialist game to not shoot fish in a barrel for points, else face penalites. As I’m near the top of the charts, I can’t risk the penalty for shooting gullible rubes in a barrel.
Gullible rubes falling for Swift Boat propaganda notwithstanding, we’ll vote on ACES soon, CA will continue to limit emissions and change land-use patterns, states will continue to join RGGIs, carbon will be controlled via the EPA, Europe will continue to out-compete us in innovation, India will hope to figure out where to get water from, etc.
Carbn reduction and land-use changes, here we come!
DS
Here ya go, son. Here’s 100 points for being an asshole. (Hey, if Professor Watson can say it on TV…)
See, Danny boy, you made the ludicrous claim that “no glaciers are advancing”. Then you brought up some stupid little blog game made up by some nobody blogger to deflect that I questioned your hasty generalization/oversight/outright fabrication.
Dan, seriously. Stop being such a fucking dick.
Including glaciers.
Its a Swift Boat-style campaign, and despite the LowWatts of the world spreading nincompoopery, the planet’s human societies will continue to discuss man-made climate change, and to figure out how to reduce carbon, make land-use changes, become more efficient, and figure out how to pay the hundreds of $Bns for adaptation.
We’ll vote on ACES soon, CA will continue to limit emissions and change land-use patterns, states will continue to join RGGIs, carbon will be controlled via the EPA, Europe will continue to out-compete us in innovation, India will hope to figure out where to get water from, we’ll join with countries to help LDCs and each other, etc.
snicker
DS
This is the irony aspect of where those who hate government(most of you far right psychos Karlock, O’Toole, Cox, etc) will defend big government where it suits you.
If you want to drive that’s fine, though respect those that don’t want to.
I favor a fair and open market. Roads and rails can co-exist.
Stop being so damn greedy!
Yeah, those liberals love to hate the swiftboaters. How dare anyone question why Senator Kerry applied for five purple hearts when he didn’t even go to the hospital once (and applied to leave Vietnam because of his boo-boos)? And now we have people who question global warming! And how can anyone question Senator Gore when the underlying data has been destroyed?
The problem with them glaciers is that they stopped advancing, and turned around and started retreating, before the industrial age. Isn’t that inconvenient? Maybe we can hush that up and construct a hockey stick graph that better fits our desires!
Though Andy, you’re pushing for a harsh political agenda your self.
You’re as bad as the people you hate!
Dan the Idiot: “Carbn reduction and land-use changes, here we come!”
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Three weeks, and still not one tiny scrap of evidence for Randal’s ‘hide’ assertion. Shucky darns.
And despite evidenceless assertions trumpeted by febrile nitwits, the world continues to progress, to move forward, to discuss, to innovate for, to move, to solve how to adapt to and mitigate man-made climate change. California’s AB32 leads the way for other places to emulate.
DS