Don't worry, gasoline will go up to $5/gallon in a few weeks and that'll dissuade a lot of extracurricular driving. Unfortunately, inflation will skyrocket also, since everything we eat or buy is transported to us.

So have you spoken to your neighbors about this choice, with the same expression on your face that you'd use if their zippers were down? You know, uh, dude, I don't want to embarrass you, but you should know that you're doing something you don't want to be seen doing?

have the young women and families take the train :)

appreciate your thinking Lenny. Go onwardoregon.org - if you're not signed up yet, do it!

The research-based Drive Less/Save More Campaign encourages individuals to change their personal behavior to reduce single-person car trips. Its goal is to change social norms over time. While we still need policy changes and other incentives, this innovative campaign is part of the mix for success. Go to www.DriveLessSaveMore.com to learn more.

"A neighbor's daughter plays classic soccer. This weekend 15 families are individually driving to Ashland so that their girl can play in what really is a recreational soccer game. How do we develop an ethos that makes that an unacceptable choice? " So maybe, if we passed a law that mandated car pooling? Restricted driving mileage?

Changing the weather is no easy task. The thought that some law will be passed or some politician will be elected that will change global temperatures is absurd. The US is a small portion of the world's population - not that being good stewards of the environment isn't a good idea, but you're not about to change global temperatures.

The obvious solution here is to outlaw soccer, the sissy sport.

They don't call it the NATIONAL Football League for nothing, you know. Tell your neighbor to buy his daughter a pair of shoulder pads.

Last time I checked, there is no train to Ashland, OR. Maybe that might be a good place to start? The tracks have been there for over a century. Wouldn't take much to upgrade them a bit and extend the southern terminus of some of the Cascades service from Eugene down to Ashland.

I'd take it.

cheers, ~Garlynn

Doretta is right. Most people will not change their habits to combat global warming. It will take very expensive energy to produce major change. If gas were $10/gallon, we'd see changed habits in a hurry. Of course, as usual, the poor will suffer most unless there is a compensatory reallocation of wealth and income.

It's not at all obvious that "Global warming choices" is an appropriate headline for this posting, as the actual verbiage in the commentary is really about conservation, which is an issue considerably broader than the issue of burning hydrocarbon fuels.

And for those who haven't yet had their fill of leftie self-righteousness, pay a visit here.

Or how about making it easier for people without limiting their choices?

Raising vehicle fuel efficiency is one of the most important things we can do to limit global warming. It will take care of many problems (with the added benefit of reducing dependence on foreign oil, leading to true national security). Rep. John Conyers of Michigan (D) has said that he's not going to go and make the Auto Industry raise efficiency for fear of crippling his state's economy. This is really too bad -- there must be a way to still make profits while making better cars.

Why not get Oregon, Washington and California together and pass a law which only allows cars that get a certain high mileage in their states, to be phased in over a 15 year period? Then as people need to replace their cars, the only cars available to buy are those with high fuel efficiency?

Or perhaps a large SUV tax? Don't punish people who choose efficient cars because some choose to drive gas guzzling monsters.

The train is great -- but also not the mode of transportation if you have to get somewhere quickly. Carpooling is also a wonderful idea, but not always practical for the busy family.

Raising vehicle fuel efficiency is the best choice and I wish Onward Oregon was concentrating on that, rather than coming up with ways to limit people's choices.

And of course I understand the need for collective good choices, and personal action is critical, but let's work to make it as easy for people as we can.

<h2>One of the (many) problems with economists is that, for people who constantly prattle about the genius of the market, they are often prone to assuming that it never gets any better at FIXING problems ... a tendency nicely noted in this brief excerpt from a good longer article, "Imagining the Unimaginable: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions" by David Hodas in Natural Resources and the Environment, Winter 2007:</h2>

The most comprehensive review ever carried out on the economics of climate change, the just-released Stem Review on the Economics of Climate Change (available at www.stemreview.org.uk) suggests that to stabilize the atmosphere at 550 parts per million C02 equivalent would require reducing global emissions to about 25 percent below current levels, and, to allow economic growth, reducing emissions per unit of Gross Domestic Product to 75 percent below current rates. These challenges make Kyoto took like an easy warm-up.

Within the United Sates many perceive these challenges as utterly impossible without destroying our economy. However, the underlying assumption about the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is fundamentally wrong. Most economic models predicting future compliance costs are wrong, and they will always be wrong. The problem with most economic predictions of future compliance costs is that economists do not really trust that this time the market will again innovate and be competitive; the models are flawed because of lack of trust in the marketplace to invent solutions not imagined (because there was no need to imagine) before the mandate was in place.

Until the market is required to innovate to meet a mandate, there is little economic incentive for business to invest in developing or purchasing technology that could meet that mandate. On the other hand, the brilliance of the market, proven time and again, has been that once a mandate is in place, competition to meet that new demand becomes fierce, innovation is rapid, and costs always plummet. Removing lead from gasoline, etiminating CFCs to protect stratospheric ozone, reducing sulfur emissions to mitigate acid precipitation, and the near total elimination of organic compounds from the waste streams of our major chemical companies are but a few examples of seemingly unimaginable reductions being achieved, and achieved at remarkably low costs (and sometimes at a net savings to the economy).

Should not predictions be based on the reality of how markets have actually responded, rather than on models that do not trust that markets will respond? If the experience in California is used to measure greenhouse gas emissions reductions, then not one is a 30 percent reduction possible, but 45 percent would be relatively easy.

<hr/>

(Hodas is a professor of law at Widener University and a Natural Resources & Environment editorial board member.)

RealClimate.org calls itself “Climate science from climate scientists”. Its list of scientists includes Michael E. Mann, the creator of the hockey stick temperature curve that Al Gore made famous. (realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10)

Real climate also contains some interesting facts (bold added):

In terms of mass, water vapour is much more prevalent (about 0.3% of atmospheric mass, compared to about 0.06% for CO2), and so is ~80% of all greenhouse gases by mass (~90% by volume). However, the radiative importance is less (since all molecules are not created equal). . . . it's clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%, . . . the maximum supportable number for the importance of water vapour alone is about 60-70% and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect. (Of course, using the same approach, the maximum supportable number for CO2 is 20-30%, and since that adds up to more than 100%, there is a slight problem with such estimates!). (realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

<hr/>

At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

<h2> In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13)</h2>

Is anyone else un-easy with concluding that man is the cause of global warming? Or that man COMPLETELY stopping CO2 emission would make any real difference?

Thanks JK

In other words, CO2 did not initiate previous warmings, but the elevated CO2 that came with higher temperatures amplified those warmings.

In the current situation, CO2 has been increasing for years because of industrial emissions, not in response to global warming 800 years ago (oh, you mean at the beginning of the Little Ice Age?). Increased CO2 is, as it always has (whatever its source), warming the globe. Yes, if men (and even women) completely stopped emitting CO2, that warming might well still crank the engine to release CO2 and temperatures would still go up before they came back down.

But here's the difference that ought to matter: We have evidence that Earth's systems can cycle back from the warming that comes from CO2 released from ice melt. We have no reason to be confident that the planet can cycle back when the CO2 trapped in the ice and the CO2 trapped in, say, most of the world's petrolized dinosaur carcasses are released all at once.

Feel lucky?

The size of the possible consequence pretty well dwarfs the size of the (admittedly nonnegligible) changes we'd have to make to make a real dent in its likelihood.

Besides, almost every sacrifice we would have to make to actually get our emissions significantly down is something that our grandmothers and great-grandmothers -- and most of the mothers in the world -- would disown us in disgust to hear us whine about how "necessary" it is. Nobody's asking you to haul water by hand.

One more thing we need to address in global warming is population density. Increased density has caused more warming than greenhouse gases according to a NASA study.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2007-03-28T214215Z_01_N28326235_RTRIDST_0_CALIFORNIA-WARMING.XML

Urban areas lose heat a lot less than more open areas.

The mental gymnastics some you go through to get around the increasingly wide and thick body of SCIENCE that disputes the human caused global warming THEORY is something to watch. I guess that once you declare the "debate over" it frees up your minds to avoid any and all critical thinking as the emerging science stacks up against your new found religion.

Careful now. Those who dare question ANY of Albert Gores doomsday scenarios regarding climate change will be charged with heresy and cast into the BlueOregon dungeon for global warming debaters. Choose your words wisely and do not deviate from the script. It's all settled, people. The oracle has spoken.

steve,

you are confusing a macro effect (greenhouse gases) with a micro effect (massive paved over conurbations). the latter can be dealt with by employing micro solutions (more trees, less asphalt, etc), the former is going to needa whole host of solutions.

jim,

you are going to get carpel tunnel syndrome repeating yourself on that fully debunked "heating must precede rising carbon levels" talking point.

Kari,

Made no attempt to do anything of the sort and I'd never urinate upon any of your furnishings. No, my comment was merely an attempt (a failed one, apparently) at humor based on past discussions on this blog and others anytime "Global Warming" is mentioned. See your point, though.

To proceed a bit further with JMG's remarks abouc economists, no, of course it is impossible to forecast every technological advance, whether one is an economist or not, but I am less concerned about economists' failure to make forecasts than I am with (1) their use of obviously fallacious assumptions, especially the failure to recognize that resources on a finite planet are finite, and (2) their failure to factor in scientific and engineering constraints. As an example of the latter, consider discussion about the possible extraction of petroleum from heavy tar sands (which Canada and Venezuela possess in great abundance). The canonical economist's commentary is along the lines of, well, when the price of petroleum rises enough, those tar sands will be "economical" to exploit. This ignores the fact that there are also thermodynamic considerations (if energy consumed equals energy produced, then there's no point in even starting the project). If you think this is silly, I suggest you contemplate why we are not producing energy from controlled nuclear fusion: not only has controlled fusion proved to be technologically of extraordinary difficulty, but every experiment run to date has resulted in a net energy loss.

Doretta,

If we're talking motivation for voluntary change, then we should use both positive and negative arguments, because some folks are swayed by one and some folks by the other. And often we need to be convinced of our wrong action before we decide that some different right action would be patriotic, nature enhancing, or community spitited.

All things considered, I think $10/gal gas would do more overall than any public relations efforts.

Susan Abe is right on in her response to the data from realclimate that Jim Karlock quoted. In past warming periods CO2 increases lagged behind warming. Back then there were not billions of naked apes converting most of the earth's sequestered carbon into greenhouse gas. We're causing warming in spite of any natural cycles that may be operating.

"you are confusing a macro effect (greenhouse gases) with a micro effect (massive paved over conurbations). the latter can be dealt with by employing micro solutions (more trees, less asphalt, etc), the former is going to needa whole host of solutions."

OK, so urbanization causes temperatures to rise a FEW degrees in cities while the state-wide average rises a fraction of a degree. This we fix with trees?

My point is that the "smart-growth" people who see denisty as the solution to everything are causing a big part of the problem.

Susan Abe appears to be afraid of contradiction, inconsistency and opposing facts. She must be an employee of one of our local government agencies.

Susan Abe appears to be afraid of contradiction, inconsistency and opposing facts. She must be an employee of one of our local government agencies.

I cannot comment for Ms. Abe, but I am such an employee. I do scientific research for a government agency. The research process involves sifting through contradictions and inconsistencies. One usually finds contradictions and inconsistencies dropping away as one better understands the research problem.

As for "opposing facts", what exactly does the writer mean? For example, if we take the statement "1+1=2" as a fact, then would "1+1=3" be an opposing fact?

Actually, I adore contradiction, inconsistency and opposing "facts." They crack me up. That's why I have so much trouble resisting pointing them out, as I did above, so other people can enjoy the joke.

But does that explain why I don't work for government? The connection eludes me.

Roger is prime meat for the "both sides now" news media and the predatory PR industry, both which give well-supported statements and oft repeated tripe the same weight.

The fossil fuel lobby can pay for reams of studies that reach conclusions to their liking. The important question is how these studies do in peer reviewed journals. So far, they're striking out.

Tom Civiletti The fossil fuel lobby can pay for reams of studies that reach conclusions to their liking. The important question is how these studies do in peer reviewed journals. So far, they're striking out. JK: Some peer reviewed articles that DO not agree with the Al Gore wing of the debate:

2. Impact of solar variability on the earth’s climate a. “Solar variability and the earth’s climate: introduction and overview” George Reid Space Science Reviews 94 (2000) p.1-11 Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little Ice Age as well as through geological times and the complexity in establishing the solar/climate link. b. “Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays” N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007 Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how this in turn would impact the mean temperature. c. “Global temperature forced by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases?” Wibjorn Karlen Ambio, Vol. 30 (2001)p. 349-350 Argues that the present interglacial has been cooler by about 2̊C than the previous ones during the last 400,000 thousand years when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 100 ppmv less than at present. d. “The sun’s role in climate variations” D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677 Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little Ice Age, as well as through geological times, and the complexity in establishing the solar/climate link.

This is a small sample from eight pages of peer reviewed articles that question the popular view of global warming. From: friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20SHORT%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

Doesn’t look like a strike out to me.

Thanks JK

<hr/>