I appreciated Lisa's forwarding the link to the Washington Post article on
the new IPCC report.  While I don't want to beat the uncertainty theme to
death, I still couldn't help noticing the following dissenting view among
the report's authors:

"Not all the authors share Trenberth's view of the new draft report. 'I
think, if anything, it is a little bit more uncertain than it was last
time,' said Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, a lead author of one section of the 14-chapter report, which
totals nearly 1,000 pages. 'We're really no closer to attributing [global
warming since the 19th century] to anything in particular.'

"In large measure, that is because of extreme uncertainties about the role
of aerosols and 'the assumption that [computer climate] models are good
surrogates for the data,' Lindzen said."

I'd appreciate Ray's or anyone else's opinion of the "ethical relevance" of
this dissenting opinion.  What if Lindzen is right and the other authors
are wrong?  Should we still undertake massive and immediate measures to
curtail every known source of greenhouse gas emissions; or would a somewhat
slower, more moderate pace of reduction be a wiser, more prudent course of
action?

Or perhaps, is it that Lindzen is not credible?  Does the fact that he
works at MIT give us any reason not to believe him, as opposed to believing
Kevin E. Trenberth, who is head of the Climate Analysis Section at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado?  Are people
who live in Boston somehow less trustworthy than folks from Boulder,
Colorado?

Alternatively, should we psychoanalyze Lindzen's statements?  Do I detect a
whiff of anti-environmentalism in his comments?  Can we safely assume that
on the human goodness to evil spectrum Lindzen is more likely closer to the
100% unadulterated evil end of the continuum then Trenberth, who seems
clearly much closer to God with his conclusion that man-made "climate
change has emerged from the noise of natural variability"?

I'd also like to comment on the general topic of reducing gasoline
consumption as a means of combating global warming.  In reality I am all
for that; but since this year I am working almost exclusively at home, I am
doing very little, if any driving.  Therefore I am looking for other ways
in which I can make a positive contribution to the cause.  One of the
things that I have come up with so far relates to the problem of animal
emissions of methane.  Our family has a couple of Boston terriers, a dog
breed notoriously prone to flatulence.  Should I be thinking about getting
rid of these dogs?  Perhaps Veggie Biggs is right after all, that killing
is best . . . .  any ethical considerations there that I should think
about?

Alternatively, if killing all our pets seems too Draconian a measure for
fighting climate change (given Lindzen's comments above, perhaps we don't
want to overdo it just yet anyway), I say we should simply levy massive pet
taxes on companion animals as a means of reducing the number of methane
producing animals.  Put another way, pet prices in the U.S. have been
occurring on the demand curve range where price changes are relatively
irrelevant.  That is, present average US pet price changes are operating in
the lower price range that is relatively inelastic.  If so, and I do think
so, then it would be possible to increase the price of companion animals
substantially before there is any significant change in demand.   So let's
say, 1000 US dollars per dog, mixed breed (roughly 15 times what it costs
to adopt a dog from a shelter); 5000 dollars US per pure bred dog (roughly
10 times what it costs to buy the average pure bred dog from a breeder);
and a flat 7500 dollars per cat, feral or indoor (I mean, we really, really
want to knock down those cat populations--kill two birds with one stone, so
to speak).  I think it would be very very interesting to see how elastic
the demand is for companion animals.

On a purely economic basis, if the above proposal has merit, the US would
be quite rational, economically speaking, to increase the tax on pets
*substantially* without changing demand.  And to actually effect a change
in the gross numbers of US methane producing companion animals (cats and
dogs) would require a very large increase in pet prices - relatively
speaking.  It is possible that the negative distribution effects could be
ameliorated, however, the politicians would not have the guts (imho) to
even suggest consideration of such a policy.  So the present generation of
USians will continue to benefit at the expense of their/our descendants who
will have to pay the piper.  In spite of the fact that, for example, the
great left-wing radical economist :-), Milton Friedman, has suggested a
negative income tax (funded by the pet tax - my view) as one way of
ameliorating the negative impacts of greedy capitalism on the lower income
(or no-income) pet-owning folks.

How's that for a swift idea?

Jim T.


>Just thought you all would enjoy the article.
>
>Good Day
>Li-
>
>===============================================================================
>=================================
>According to the new preliminary analysis by the IPCC, an international
> collaboration of several hundred scientists sponsored by the United Nations
>  and the World Meteorological Organization, human beings have "discernibly"
> influenced the planet's climate and the Earth's surface is likely to warm at
> least 2 degrees and as much as 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the 21st
> century.
>
>   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31237-2000Apr17.html



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%