Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:27:42 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**The nice thing about reducing CO2 emissions, is that there is no
serious downside. It's only about the money and where it is spent.
If all the climate scientists are correct and we fail to act, then
the costs may exceed the ability of the population of this planet to
pay.

No downside? What about the economic downside?

**I did say: "No serious downside". The estimated costs, right now, are not
onerous. As we move foreward, those costs will increase. Possibly more
importantly, there are some potential upsides for many new industries.

If we went on a major
global greenhouse gas reduction program, fossil fuel based
transportation would come to an end,

**Which it exxentially will anyway. Oil is rapidly running out.

many inherently inefficient
industries (e.g. aluminum) would be effectively banned,

**Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy source.
Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just to press the
point home, I did a little research a while back on the aluminium industry.

* Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present level (in
Australia).
* Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
approximately $200.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was approximately
$400.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
* Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still be very
profitable.

The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They don't
menton the massive profits.

and production
of most everything made from processed petroleum (e.g. plastics,
fertilizer) would be drastically reduced.

**That would depend on the measures that are taken.

I'm sure the IPCC has
recognized this downside, which might explain their emphasis:
"... on assessing the socio-economic
aspects of climate change and implications for sustainable
development, risk management and the framing of a response
through both adaptation and mitigation."
in the 5th report, which covers the topic and should include any
downsides. Personally, I don't see any way to make it happen without
nationalizing every industry that belches CO2, methane, or water
vapor, and putting them all on a rather restrictive diet. Like I
said, I can't wait to hear their expert advice on adaptation and
mitigation without collateral damage. "The operation was a success,
but the patient died" comes to mind.

**There will certainly be some serious downsides in any CO2 abatement
programmes. The alternative is, however, utterly unthinkable.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au