Les Jones

I think it's amazing how many people think statements like "all climatologists agree that mankind is altering the chemistry of our atmosphere" are only important if we can accurately guess what effects that alteration might have on climate.

It's also pretty amazing how many people think trying a little harder to reduce our emissions will destroy the economy.

I have no beef with reducing emissions for things like reducing smog, which is becoming an issue here in the Smokies area for visibility. But the only reason to reduce CO2 emissions is if the greenhouse gas theory of anthropogenic global warming is correct.

By the time you know whether the theory is correct, it is too late to reduce C02. The actual reason to reduce CO2 emissions is because the RISK of climate change is real. Even the pretend climatologists owned by oil companies don't claim there is no risk in altering the chemical composition of our atmosphere. Do you?

Also, visibility is a pretty soft motivator for cleaning our air. Air pollution increases the incidence of respiratory diseases, and it weakens forests that we depend on for wood, water purification, and recreation.

Some people think stewardship is a noble endeavor, but that's a religious concept. Your post seems to imply that religious concepts are not to be taken seriously, so never mind stewardship.

Hellbent: you talk about air pollution and CO2 in the same breath, but again, CO2 is only pollution if the greenhouse gas theory is correct in correct and in scale.

Thing is, there are real, honest-to-gosh pollutants that we know for a fact cause problems (sulfur compounds and acid rain, heavy metals, particulates from coal plants, etc.). The more money we spend on maybe pollutants like C02, the less money we spend on definite pollutants.

Actually, you're the one who was speaking of CO2 and other pollutants in the same breath in your first reply. I intended my response to be taken in two parts, the first paragraph dealing with CO2, the second with smog.

Regarding CO2, it is a pollutant if increasing its concentration in the atmosphere induces a risk of climate change. There really is no debate about whether "the greenhouse gas theory is correct". Climatologists don't claim to be correct. They are making predictions, and they damn well know it. Their job is risk assessment and modelling. I'm sure they'd love to deal with a problem straightforward enough to be reduced to correct/incorrect.

It's funny that when you apply the parlance of risk assessment to this issue, "conservative" means the exact opposite of its political meaning.

Finally, in reality, the same processes that produce CO2 also produce other pollutants like sulfur gases and particulates, so reduction is not an either/or proposition as you contend.

"Finally, in reality, the same processes that produce CO2 also produce other pollutants like sulfur gases and particulates, so reduction is not an either/or proposition as you contend."

Maybe. Burning coal produces CO2, and also produces sulfur gases, particulates, heavy metals, etc. Switching to nuclear solves all those problems. (It also introduces some problems in terms of waste disposal, and I'm not sure that the people who are complaining about greenhouse gases now are really ready for nuclear power. With the newer pebble bed designs I'm fine with it.)

On the other hand, if we're stuck with coal power - and in many cases we are, at least for the few decades it would take to get nuclear plants up and running - there are ways to minimize those other pollutants (by using scrubbers or low-sulfur coal, for instance) but there's no way to way to get rid of the CO2.

I'm all for hybrid car technology as a way to reduce fuel consumption.

I'm with you on nuclear power and pebble beds.

There is a big difference between reducing emissions and replacing coal entirely. I'm sure we'll be burning coal until it runs out, but we should still conserve and phase in cleaner technologies as they arise.

Solar and wind are very promising as components of conservation, not so much as a replacement power. If a lot of us had solar water heaters, a few panels, or even small wind turbines that supplied just a fraction of our electrical demand, it would add up to reduced CO2 emissions.

The Kyoto agreement is small potatoes, easily accomplished with modest, incremental changes. The investments and incentives needed to reach those goals would create jobs and innovations and nurture the markets and industries that our grandchildren will come to depend on as coal and oil become limited resources.