Interesting idea proposed by an economist and greenhouse skeptic in today's NY Times: tie the penalties related to global warming directly to the observed temperature increase, rather than emissions. That way, if temperatures do go up a lot, the penalties are severe, if - like the skeptics expect - they don't go up much, the penalties will be minor.
Only problem is that with this kind of mechanism, by the time the temperatures have gone up, it's probably too late to do much about them. The feedback is way too slow.
You also have to question his sincerity when he advocates using temperature readings "at the equator, because climate models forecast pronounced warming there" - ok, but far more pronounced as you leave the equator and head to the poles.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mark and Mike,
ReplyDeleteI have been following your blog with great interest. Thanks for the updates and excellent commentary. Like both of you, I am wondering what the heck is going to happen now. Knowing you guys are there-- giving us the inside "scoop" is wonderful. I have high hopes that the results will be meaningful to the whole world! But somehow I know that politics always seems to rule and things will probably end with little resolution.
Gail
America left in the dust by Chinese ramp up of Solar panel and other alternative energy equipment production.
ReplyDeleteIn China, The Green Rush Is On : NPR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121512377