Many complex issues here but even then I wonder if several factors have been omitted. For example carbon emissions may decline naturally as fossil fuels deplete whereas MIT seem to assume unlimited availability. There are welfare costs in not taking action, for example health and water problems. US terms-of-trade may not worsen if other countries have similar problems, and so on.

It seems odd to have a safety valve price cap when in the European scheme the carbon price fell to nearly zero. MIT assumes a tendency to relentless economic growth while others think a global slowdown is likely.

John D.

You've described a vision for personal transport. Please add a comment about how we'll move the freight. If we make ultra-small transportation vehicles for people will my 1000-lb car have to share the roads with 18 wheelers?

johnd,

you said what wopuld have been if we started in 1975.

I got news for you we did!

The peoples wagon, the first tiny car to sell in large numbers inthe USA, had 42 gross HP motor, (about 18 HP be todasy measures)and a max speed of 65mph(optimistically), and a fuel efficiency rating of 16 mpg.

It polluted like more than a thousand cars do today; and drank fuel worse than any present day SUV.

We have coem a very long way, already!! I'm gald you noticed.

Here's another early contribution to fuel economy. The first generation Honda Civic. 40mpg in 1973! However, keep in mind that the first anti-smog emissions control equipment actually reduced fuel mileage, and new safety regulations have made cars progressively larger and heavier, which necessitates more horsepower to maintain performance, necessarily impacting fuel economy. (That first Civic was only 1,500 pounds!)

Today's Civic sedan gets about the same mileage and is a much cleaner vehicle to operate. I'd still call that progress.

As for a one person vehicle, well, there are lots of two-wheeled options for that made by Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Vespa, and a few other scooter makers. However, they are not really suitable for many climates in the US. We'll need something like the Venture One.

I'm with you John. My scooter only requires 3kwh for almost all of my transportation needs. When it comes to semis we're already so out-sized already I don't think going to smaller cars will matter anyway. What you need John, (and I'd like one as well to keep out of the rain) is a Venture 1

flytheroad.com

Equating big business and climate change science (if that's what you are trying to do gr) just reveals a complete ignorance of what science is and the way science is done. Remember scientists deal with measurements of the real world. Any result of significance will be the subject of scrutiny by other scientists trying to replicate their results - it’s a competitive business. If they cannot be replicated then that’s the end of them - reputation and funding goes down the drain. Sure, there are a few idiots who try it and just look what happens - eg the recent Korean cloning disaster. They just don't get away with it for very long. Now there are literally thousands of research groups working in the climate field so to believe they are all some how in some conspiracy is just plain crazy.

As for this study, In terms of studying economic means to reduce CO2 (such as cap and trade), who would you expect as authors of such a study - meteorologists, physicists, environmentalists? I don't think so. Economists of course!

The report is flawed a many grounds, to name a few not yet mentioned:
1. Does not consider a peak oil event
2. Does not consider use of waste biomass (agriculture waste, garbage, sewage) which does not effect land use.
3. Does not even mention the electric car!

As gondolas replace taxis on Wall St and Madison Ave there will still be folks "documenting" that the continents are sinking as Greenland's ice cap disappears.
I hate cap and trade schemes. It is like trying to eliminate murder buy auctioning off licenses to kill. The only way to eliminate fossil carbon releases is to stop using fossil fuels just as we have stopped using tetraethyl lead and certain types of freon.

Instead of arguing about the reality and causes of global warming (and I believe it is anthropogenic), it is more important to have a serious discussion about how to prevent catastrophic consequences by curtailing GHG emissions.

Lets assume that we must reduce our CO2, CH4 etc. by 50% or so in then next few decades. How will we do it?

1. A carbon tax (accompanied by tax shifting to make it more acceptable to business and workers) is simpler and more effective than cap and trade. The later failed in its first year in the EU since some assigned caps were greater than the historical emissions. Also we cannot trust our congress to assign lower caps each year in order to reduce CO2? Better would be automatic feedback; if emissions do not decrease, the tax increases incrementally until the goals are met. Revenue generated by the tax must be used for projects to further reduce consumption such as R/D on alternative transportation, funding electrically powered mass transit, some biofuels research, efficiency tax credits, low interest loans, weatherization etc.

2. Transportation efficiency: CAFÉ standards should be increased and modified to eliminate loopholes. Consumer Reports stated that the flexfuel loop hole allows flexfuel vehicles with an actual EPA fuel economy rating of 21 MPG to receive a credit of 35 MPG. We must discuss a minimum vehicle fuel efficiency. The gas or diesel fueled Hummer may be prohibited. Electrically powered trains for freight and mass transit as in Europe and short range electrical vehicles for local transportation are probably the long term solution. Biofuels are increasing ozone pollution, GHG emissions, energy use and soil depletion. There will probably be some small amount of biofuels in our future energy supply but their use must not deplete soil fertility. Patzek shows that our current annual consumption of fossil fuels and nuclear energy surpasses the entire primary biological productivity of the 48 states. We must not force 3rd world tropical countries to switch their agriculture to energy crops for us. No agricultural imperialism.

3. Energy efficiency: As Amory Lovins has stated for years, we do not use energy just for the sake of consuming it, we want the services it provides. Efficiency and conservation are essential parts of any solution to global warming and peak fossil fuel.

We will follow Australia’s example and ban the incandescent light bulb within a few years. It is easily replaced by fluorescent and LED fixtures. The last time I worked in MO, I replaced 14 60 watts lights in the apartment we rented with 14 watt CFL’s. We just built several light fixtures with Cree’s new LED that provide about 70 lumens/watt, about the same as a PL9 compact fluorescent and 5 times the efficacy of an incandescent bulb. LED’s will continue to improve to perhaps double the efficacy of the best fluorescents within a few years.

In 1981 I wrote an article for Solar Age on recovering heat from graywater (water from showers etc.) to preheat water entering a water heater. A recent calculation shows that universal application of this simple, passive heat exchanger technology in all residences in the US would reduce annual energy (electricity, natural gas and fuel oil) consumption by 1/3 Ejoule and GHG emissions by 30 million metric tonnes.

Smart energy metering for residences, commercial and industrial consumers will allow real time pricing, display of customer consumption and costs, automatic control of some loads, e.g. irrigation pumps and some appliances such as washing machines and hot water heaters can run during off peak hours or at times when some alternative energy (such as wind) is at is maximum availability. Real time display of costs itself reduces consumption. We will adopt CA’s multitier pricing for energy assuring a lifeline rate for low income households. Added income from charging for excessive consumption will be used for weatherization. Real time display of costs itself reduces consumption.

Cogeneration (Combined heat and power) should be encouraged with low interest loans from utility companies. Several energy companies have designed residential sized generators for grid tied systems. We should use our remaining natural gas to maximum advantage while it is replaced with some biomass based fuels and electricity.

4. Building Efficiency: We construct a building once but be must heat, cool and light it for its entire life. We must mandate minimum building efficiency for insulation and lighting as we attempted to do after the first oil crisis in 1973. Government buildings should lead the way starting immediately with a policy to at least minimize life cycle costs. Discounting future expenses is wrong for a finite resource. (Architects can be sent to reeducation camps in very hot or very cold climates and forced to live in some of the stupid buildings they designed)

5. Alternative Energy: I live in MT and we had our first large windfarm installed in 2004, ninety 1.5 MW turbines. It took less than a year to install and produces about 3% of MT electricity consumption. There is wind for hundreds of more farms in MT alone. No GHG’s and we don’t need the national guard to protect them as with nuclear generators. Plans to install wave action generation in Puget sound and HI have been approved. All government buildings will purchase only renewable electricity within 5 years.

6. Trade Policy: Those who argue that our unilateral action on global warming is useless because developing nations’ increasing emissions offset any gains we make are not being sincere. We will use trade policy to force any county trading with us to reduce their emissions. Tariffs will be used to encourage compliance and income will be used to further reduce our own GHG emissions.

7: Population: The US is growing at about 3 million persons/year. We cannot keep up with that growth so we must have a government policy and action to accomplish ZPG.

8. Political: I would like to see community based energy policy committees which would promote local solutions and provide a wide variety of approaches.

I’d appreciate comments. Remember, I made the a priori assumption that we will act.

marcus:  mail me, if you don't mind?

Marcus:

You certainly should not trust my word, or anyone else on the matter on AGW. But take into consideration the last in a row of emotional testimonies of world leading scientist Dr. Nilse-Axel Morner, head of Paleophysics Department of Stockholm University, 1999-2003 president of INQUA commission on sea level, studying the subject for 35 years:

“Tide gauging is very complicated. IPCC choose Honk Kong, which have six gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm sea level rise. Every geologist knows that it is subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment, it is the only record which you should not use…Not even ignorance could be responsible for things like that.

Back to satellite altimetry, it shows no sea rise from 1992 to 2002, absolutely no trend! Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in IPCC publications and web site was a straight line – suddenly it changed and showed very strong uplift of same as tide gauge 2.3 mm per year. It looked as thought they recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they suddenly had twisted up, because they entered “a correction factor”, which they took from tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. …It is terrible… they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have any trend!

…It is a falsification of data set! Why? Because they know the answer!”

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf

Glenn:

Conservation, renewable energy, biofuels, etc. are all good and beneficial. But they have severe limitations and can not substitute sizeable amount of energy provided by fossil fuels. Move from oil as transportation fuel of choice is absolutely necessary, but it is long and complicated process. BTW, transportation emits only 20% of CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels, less than meat and milk production industry emits CO2 equivalent, which could not be “decarbonized” even theoretically. The only one real opportunity to seriously reduce GHG emissions is nuclear power. Before nuclear power generation will be embraced by all AGW concerned countries, everything else, including recent MIT study, is vaporware.

gr: Reeducation camps for architects was hyperbole, however, if we are serious about the future, sustainability criteria must trump many other building design considerations. About 15 years ago I was in a charette on sustainable development with the AIA, NPS and several conservation groups, about 75 persons. Architects had no clue and talked about recycled cherry wood for cabinets and other trivia.

We don't need draconian penalties to engineer domestic solutions; education, leadership, standards and financial incentives will suffice. Compare tax incentives, a progressive rate structure for energy consumption, CAFE standard with going to war in the Middle East to secure more oil supplies.

Andry: Using nuclear to increase our electrical supply and to replace coal will require breeder reactors with increased potential for nuclear weapons. Nuclear power is always a precursor for weapons programs. We can set an example by decommissioning our existing reactors and burning up the spent fuel. I know from experience, we can usually reduce electrical consumption in most buildings by 50% without much effort. There are much more efficient appliances, e.g. 8 watt refrigerators, efficient lighting, induction cooking etc., much easier and less dangerous than nuclear. The graywater exchanger example I gave above would save 20 billion kwh/year and eliminate 12 million tonnes of CO2/year just from electrical savings; nuclear generated 465 billion kwh in 2005 and less net. The CEC just passed efficiency standards for some previously unregulated appliances which will ultimately save a GW and 2 million tonnes CO2/year.

In case you can't get access to this paper Andrey or anyone else, basically there are compelling reasons for that "correction factor" Andrey is complaining about.

The first error in the original data was due to drift in the TOPEX Microwave Radiometer. Although this was first noticed by comparison to tide gauges, it was then confirmed by comparisons to other orbiting microwave radiometers and radiosondes.

The second error in the original data was due to degradation of the instrument. It caused an erroneous apparent drop in sea level by a cm at the end of 1998. This drop can be seen in Fig. 2 of Morners paper!

This adds to a long list of misinformation that you propogate Andrey. Either you are ignorant or you are paid. Either way you aren't being very productive and you are wasting my time.