There's also a lot of talk about solar cycles, and extra solar radiation being FAR more extensive than anything man is doing.
Saw an interesting show on volcanos, and how they are "set off" to blow in response to excess heat in the atmosphere, shooting tons of ash into the sky and leading to a cooling off period.
The Milankovich Theory, as it is called, based on the so-called, "Milankovich Wobbles" [changes in the eccentricity, and axial tilt of the Earth's orbit] is certainly a viable predictive and explanatory mechanism in regard to climate change; however, like many theories, it has its limits: the periodicities of mass climate change, at times, fly in the face of normal orbital variations, and this requires a bit of an adjunct explanation. In this respect, the carbon: oxygen dynamic is often sought to elaborate upon these "holes" in the Milankovich theory. Even the most ardent proponents of the Milankovich Theory admit that the wobbles are often an exacerbating condition to atmospheric-composition changes, rather than the
sufficient cause on their own.
In terms of anthropogenic effect, the argument is
necessarily short-sighted: we are considering a time period [~170 years] under which we may have affected climate, whereas climate change is measured in epochs comprising multiple millennia. For example, the
exponential increases in so-called "carbon consumption" from the Industrial Revolution onward has not caused a linear progression in temperature like one would expect, if the "Greenhouse Effect" was a viable predictive mechanism on its own. The point here: atmospheric composition, orbital patterns, and the whole works is a complicated mess, and no one theory will viably explain these changes. However, in my opinion, to blindly assume that screwing with these dynamics will have no effect is unwise.
If only that's all there was to it.
Spain tried this "going green" nonsense and their data showed that for every "green" job created, 2.11 jobs in other sectors were lost.
Not so, at all. Unless one gets their data solely from conservative talking-heads like Glenn Beck, the issue is appreciably more complicated; and this complexity is due in large part to the methodological issues afoot in Mr. Alvarez's study.
To cut to the "brass tax", so to speak, let us look at the most fundamental component of this study: the job creation to loss ratio. By Mr. Alvarez's estimates [see:
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf] the Spanish Government has created 50, 000 jobs as a direct result of the cap-and-trade 'green subsidy' program - the United Nations, on the other hand, estimates the absolute job creation to be in excess of 100, 000 jobs under the new policy, significantly diminishing the impact of Mr. Alvarez's results. This is in addition to the official estimates from Spain's government [maybe as skewed as Alvarez's] which posit, like the UN, more than double Alvarez's estimates, and directly refute his dollar-per-job estimates in regard to absolute losses.
As well, "The European Union has been in the forefront of renewables development, setting ambitious targets. In coming decades, this policy can be expected to create large numbers of new jobs. A modeling exercise supported by the EU found that under current policies,
there would be about 950,000 direct and indirect full-time jobs by 2010 and 1.4 million by 2020. These are “net” numbers— taking into account potential job losses in conventional energy and relating to renewables support mechanisms, which may result in lower spending elsewhere in the economy." [see:
http://www.unep.org/labour_environment/PDFs/Greenjobs/UNEP-Green-Jobs-E-Bookp85-129-Part2section1.pdf]
Spain has certainly had its shortcomings in regard to policy application here, but the EU as a whole has seen tremendous growth in so-called "renewable markets". The model here would obviously be Germany, with approximately 192,000
net job increases since 1998 in wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and associated services industries. In fact, certain cities in Germany operating off of a "green model" contain energy-producing houses which sell the excess electricity produced by the houses on a monthly bases to energy companies, for a profit in the high range of $1,000 per household.
Finally, none of this takes into consideration prominent US-based studies at the University of Massachusetts, for example, that directly refute Mr. Alvarez's findings - nor is it taking into consideration the fact Alvarez has previously been funded by Exxon Mobile to the tune of $1.6 million dollars, and this study in particular was funded by a think-tank who receives appreciable oil money as well. It also does not take into account that the Energy Information Administration's own review of the potential market impacts of a EU-like program directly refute Alvarez's results, as well.
At any rate, I am unsure where I stand on so-called "cap-and-trade" and "green subsidy programs" in the North American market from a moral-pragmatic standpoint; I have even more reservations when considering their viability. However, the Spanish study needs to be read and presented in context, and not in the reduced state presented by Glenn Beck and so forth.
I say drill. We've got the oil, let's use it.
Depending upon your geographic viewpoint here, the issue is not so simple. Conservatives, for example, are so adamant about drilling in Alaska's off-shore supplies when, in reality, the contribution to total US-domestic crude production derived thereof would be miniscule - if I am not mistaken [which I may be] well under 1%. Unfortunately, the US is not
particularly [considered in relation to so-called "oil rich" countries] rich with crude supplies, and thus, the conundrum it finds itself in now.
To illuminate the lack of cogency in the "drill now" argument, one need look no further than the US's previous stature as the largest oil-exporter of crude for the majority-half of the 20th century. In fact, until circa 1975 or so, the US was the world's largest producer of crude, and since that point has steadily declined [see:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/27919]. End-point, peak-oil, whatever one chooses to call it, is a fundamental reality of the US energy discourse - as such, "drill now" may not be the most cogent argument out there! While I certainly empathize with your position - particularly the push-back you feel because Environmentalists are so f
ucking douchey; man I despise them at times - I think that the US does need to seek out a comprehensive energy strategy beyond probing for, and hoping for, more proven reserves beyond their dwindling supplies.
I'm not against being "green" in and of itself, but I in no way feel it should be forced, taxed, and controlled by the government.
Word.
