How very useful: if you've got an iPhone, you can download an app with rebuttals to common denialist arguments.
Also, if you enjoy that kind of thing, you will certainly enjoy Tim Lambert's demolition of Monckton in a debate.
- Log in to post comments
Advertisment
Oh goody, prepare for the AGW denialists to arrive, full of attitude, but with no evidence. *starts sharpening cyberclaws*
There's a Turing Test joke in here somewhere.
*In which the commenter mutters about another 40 dollars per month, that he already has a phone, that he will not just give in to peer pressure, that the Iphone camera is not great, that he should maybe wait for the software version 4 to come out, and in which said commenter glances at the computer clock to see if there is still time to dash into town to get the bloody thing*
Off-topic:
PZ, it's possible this is old news, but it was new to ME so I sent you a link via email.
You made a list of the "50 Most Brilliant Atheists of All Time."
http://brainz.org/50-most-brilliant-atheists-all-time/
You edged out Jodie Foster, you bastard! And I LIKE her!
One feature I like is that each argument has a "Report" button so that you can report back saying where and when you encountered each argument.
It would be nifty in the extreme to have similar apps for creationism and theism.
pfft, this assumes intellectual honesty on account of those denying climate. Doesn't happen, I've had people allege conspiracy before admitting that there's even the possibility that there could be valid scientific data at play.
Are you saying Jodie Foster is underneath me? Oooooh.
Do they have one for creationists? Particularly the Young Earth variety? That would be handy.
The App works on an iPod touch as well as the iPhone. Just downloaded it and it looks like they are keeping it updated. Anyway, it works just fine on the touch, and the links work as long as you have wifi.
KKBundy (#8)
Yes.
As much as I don't like apples ethos, or at least my perception of it, damn if I don't get my moneys worth of use out of my iPhone....
I like these apps (I'm including the antiYEC one) for three good reasons: 1) I don't read their arguments in their blogs/whatever, as I have neither time nor interest. These things prevent blindsiding. 2) it provides a nice overview for my own curiousit. 3) It allieviates the issues of my own failing hard drive between my ears.
I mention these things, because there were a few people denouncing the anticreationist one because it took the work and thought of battling creationists.
Please let that app be a taser. Because a) it would make the iphone much cooler, so cool in fact it might reverse global warming and b) it would be fun.
PZ! What would the trophy wife think?
A. NoYd- the creationist claim guide has been removed, apparently for copyright reasons.
I hope it comes back, in some form or other. I didn't have an iPhone at the time, and now I'm kicking myself for not nabbing it.
While we are on the subject of apps, I just released my first iPhone/iPod game and because I like you people so much, below are 10 promotional codes good for a FREE download. The game is called SwitchOff New York and is a simple tap/twitch game based on the idea that everyone left their lights on and you have to shut them off NOW, or run out of power...
Click the "Redeem" link on the iTunes AppStore Home Page and enter one of these codes:
Y9NY93TRJPT9
EMWPN7XRYNJT
EKNM7KHKF3LE
X4EWTY9T7PJT
7XT9HFL6FJEL
M6HP3FKAH9EA
TTTMPXYMRJE4
JLXHFWTH6RJR
99R7FY96JAJY
Y33EWWF9YYT4
If the codes have all be used, and you still want to give it a try, use this link: http://itunes.com/app/switchoffnewyork
I wouldn't say Lambert demolished Monckton; it's virtually impossible to prepare unless you know what Monckton has made up for the day so you're ready to explain to the audience how Monckton was lying about everything. For the most part Monckton just parrots nonsense which he's already made public (or got from other denialists), but he also comes up with a few new inventions now and then. The newspaper's live feed was pretty poor too - crappy resolution + you never see the speaker's drawings so you just don't know what the hell either of them is talking about.
Interesting interview with Phil Jones of CRU:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm
Re pummeling:
Some biologist professors are more assertive than others:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/us/13alabama.html?hp
Shit, try biology professors!
ROTFLMAO!
Speaking of making shit up--here's one straight out of the Joseph Geobbel's playbook:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quot…
Not satisfied to continually distort scientist's words, positions and research to support them, they actually fabricate a quote out of whole cloth to discredit probably the most preeminent of climate scientists, Sir John Houghton! These guys are the absolute scum of the Earth!
According to some of my coworkers, it's snowing in DC, therefore climate change is a socialist lie. I think we're beyond iApps. It's time to fire teachers that pass students without merit.
Good to see you sticking it to the Deniers, PZ. More!
Oh for PZ's sake does one of you clots care to explain to me why paying AGW taxes to the government to pay 3rd world countries for AGW damage which ends up in swiss banks to fund their leaders comfy retirement does a fekkin thing to stop climate change?
Better idea, no one likes air pollution so lets address any man caused issues that way. Give a tax rebate to convert cars to natural gas, tax to build infrastructure to delivery points to get US nat gas to customers cars and get out of the subsidies we pay to people who really dont like us. That way I can buy a plot of land next to hadrian's wall to grow grapes like my roman ancestors did circa 400 AD and a vacation home in vineland where other ancestors grew grapes in labrador. Also not that during the medieval warming period that some AGW priests claim doesnt exist when it arrives again the people of california will have about 98% less water available so lets plan on what to do about that. Climate changes, man has little or nought to do that affects it. Address the points raised not your religious beliefs please.
One way around that is if these indexes were set up as web pages using the HTML5 data storage capabilities of the iPhone's Safari browser (a la this online reference). The benefits of this is all the claims are stored locally so you can view them without an internet connection, also it's just a webpage so you can't be banned or blocked.
broboxley,
Wow is there any straw left in the world given your demand for it?
Vineyards in Britain?
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/college.asp?P=5328
Natural gas cars--great, except the supply is finite. Eventually (as in, within 50-60 years) we will need to develop a sustainable energy economy in any case. Climate change merely makes it more urgent.
As to the rest of your post, it is based on utter ignorance. Why not learn enough of the science that you at least learn what you are opposing:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
johnnykaje: if Apple decides an app isn't kosher, they reach into everyone's iPhone and delete it. You wouldn't have that app even if you downloaded it earlier.
Think I'm joking? Read the app store terms of use, or look at what happened with Google Voice. Apple's being even more totalitarian today than Microsoft was in the 90s, but is being given a free pass because the iPhone looks cool.
The only way around it is to jailbreak the device - ie remove the restrictions preventing it from doing half of what it's capable of - and toggling the killswitch. I'll leave it as an exercise to figure out how, but I heartily endorse doing so.
thanks for making my point, hadrians wall is on the scottish border and the link you provided indicates that in the past the climate supported grape vines there. Natural gas running out in 60 years? Oil yes NG no
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_enr_sum_dcu_NUS_a.htm reserves US proven
in billions note
usage reported in millions here
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm
I am a very frequent visitor to realclimate thank you very much just have a disagreement about causation
broboxley,
What do you claim is the cause of the current warming?
How does it cause simultaneous stratospheric cooling?
What do you think will happen to natural gas demand when oil runs out?
It would appear that the disagreement you have is with the evidence.
broboxley:
Based on which particular bit of scripture?
@tempest.stormwind
Looking at the comments above, where did johnnykaje even say in their comment that they deleted apps from people's iPhones? Amazon are the ones that appear to do this under certain conditions for ebooks.
Once an app is on your iPhone there is no way for Apple to remove it. Why I have several apps that have since been removed from the app store still on my non-jailbroken iPhone working happily.
You sir are an idiot.
epikt not sure what sect you belong to, appears it maybe the church of shaddup and give us all yer money
if carbon is the problem
https://www.llnl.gov/str/May05/Friedmann.html
not giving money to 3rd world despots and our rich commodity traders here at home
a_ray_in_dilbert_space
a cut and paste from
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
note the last sentence. I agree with that. we need to see in the geologic record what tends to happen during warm periods from the past. Make preparations based on that evidence not running about the church of AGW demanding tithes to save the earth or the Himalayan glaciers will melt
************************
The time span of the past few million years has been punctuated by many rapid climate transitions, most of them on time scales of centuries to decades or even less. The most detailed information is available for the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene stepwise change around 11,500 years ago, which seems to have occurred over a few decades. The speed of this change is probably representative of similar but less well-studied climate transitions during the last few hundred thousand years. These include sudden cold events (Heinrich events/stadials), warm events (Interstadials) and the beginning and ending of long warm phases, such as the Eemian interglacial. Detailed analysis of terrestrial and marine records of climate change will, however, be necessary before we can say confidently on what timescale these events occurred; they almost certainly did not take longer than a few centuries.
Various mechanisms, involving changes in ocean circulation, changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or haze particles, and changes in snow and ice cover, have been invoked to explain these sudden regional and global transitions. We do not know whether such changes could occur in the near future as a result of human effects on climate.
@Geoffrey: I stand corrected on the behaviour of the killswitch - I was operating on incorrect information. Thank you for calling me on it.
I was not, however, mistaken on the existence of the killswitch, nor even its purpose - it exists to remove things from people's iPhones. After keeping it secret since launch, Jobs himself confirmed it in 2008, but says they've never needed to use it.
I was also not mistaken as to them having totalitarian control over what you run on your device. Google Voice is a great example of that, but really, any of the mods that only work on jailbroken systems will serve.
To explain where I'm coming from, I'll leave you with Tinkerer's Sunset. The section on jailbreaking echoes my thoughts exactly. Thanks for the correction, though.
(Now I'll stop derailing the thread.)
broboxley, please watch this video about past climate change.
Ilewelly: thank you for the link on 24:40 he speaks about the saurian era, obviously warmer than now, so carbon loading has happened in the past a major point I was trying to make to the many agw crowd whose faith rests on the belief that it has never been this warm in the past. Will continue watching.
Ilewelly: excellent vid/lecture, my conclusion is that the paleo folks are very close to being able to do global modelling that will sharply identify change. I also note that some decent volcanic action will null out man's contribution of c02 even if we all downed tools and never burnt anything again ever. Thanks for the link
Where has anyone claimed this? Certainly no scientists who accept AGW think this. On the contrary, it is well-known that it was considerably warmer in the distant past. The problem is threefold.
One, life on Earth was considerably different at those times. Humans were not around, and the relative populations of various groups of organisms (such as arthropods vs. vertebrates) were substantially different.
Second, although it was warmer in the past, climate has been remarkably stable over roughly the last 10,000 years, which is the time period over which human civilization has existed. The current warming far outstrips anything seen globally since well before human civilization first formed. Our society is highly dependent on the relatively stable climate (compared to current changes) we have experienced since the end of the last ice age.
Third, the rate of warming is much faster than anything that has happened since before anatomically modern humans first evolved, and probably at least a couple of orders of magnitude longer. There have been small fast changes in the recent past, and large slow changes further back, and large fast local changes, but the sustained rate of change we have experienced worlwide over the last century has not happened in a much longer time.
What is worse, when warming trends like the one we are seeing now have occurred in the distant past, they were accompanied by extinction events. Now it isn't necessarily possible to prove cause vs. effect, but these do not appear benign changes, all indications are they had serious detrimental effects on ecosystems worldwide.
No, although a massive one might (but those are rare and would cause enough destruction in their own right). Further, the time that aerosols stay in the atmosphere is much shorter than CO2's, meaning that the aerosols will disappear and the warming will reassert itself. Unless you mean the contribution of volcanoes to CO2, but compared to human contributions the net impact of volcanic eruptions is tiny. If you look at CO2 measurements and look for where volcanic eruptions occurred, you would have a hard time even seeing them. Their contribution to the increase in global CO2 was much smaller than humans over. Once again, any volcanic eruption capable of significantly overshadowing human contributions to CO2 would be so devastating that it would make a small nuclear war look like nothing.
Supplementing TheBlackCat's excellent rebuttal (seriously, claiming that AGW implies "never this warm in the past, ever" is a pretty serious strawman), I'd like to note that according to the US Geological Survey:
Source: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
Also, to illustrate If you look at CO2 measurements and look for where volcanic eruptions occurred, you would have a hard time even seeing them, I suggest looking into the impact of supervolcanoes. You may be surprised.
Thanks for that, tempest, it looks like I was wrong. Any volcanic eruption capable of significantly overshadowing human contributions to CO2 would be so devastating that it would make a large nuclear war look like nothing.
broboxley | February 13, 2010 10:46 PM:
Richard Alley refers to much greater volcanic action than all the volcanic eruptions which have occurred in the last 50,000 years. See here.
Volcanic eruptions on the scale of Pinatubo are actually correlated with drops in CO2 levels, see here. Cooler temperatures reduce soil respiration and enhance carbon uptake, which reduces CO2. In addition, the scattering effect of volcanic aerosols increases the fraction of the light which is diffuse light. Diffuse light is used more efficiently by plants, which increases CO2 uptake by plants.
However, volcanic eruptions have two conflicting effects on CO2 levels. The other, of course, is the volcanic emission of CO2. Whether the emissions are less than or greater than the absorbing effect described above depends on the size of the eruption. Volcanic aerosols rain out of the atmosphere relatively quickly (about 2 years, assuming the eruption is big enough to put aerosols into the stratosphere, otherwise they last mere weeks), while CO2 accumulates and can last a long time. For eruptions large enough to inject aerosols into the stratosphere, increasing the size of the eruption has little effect on how long the aerosols stay in the atmosphere. And therefor, the amount of CO2 absorbed due to effects of cooling on soil and plants increase only a little even if the eruption is much larger. As the size of an eruption gets bigger, the CO2 absorbed by soil and plants increases slowly, while the CO2 emissions increase quickly. For a sufficiently large volcanic eruption (much larger than Pinatubo), the CO2 absorbed by soil and plants is less than CO2 emitted by the volcano, resulting in a net increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. Pinatubo (1991) sized eruptions actually reduce CO2 levels, but very much larger volcanic eruptions increase CO2 levels.
The "agw crowd" doesn't have faith in such nonsense. You can find here a very good overview of temperature reconstruction over the past 65 million years :
. it has been considerably warmer in the distant past, but :
1. the rate of warming has never been as high as it has been over the last 50 years
2. there weren't 6.5 billion humans
When will the childish ignorant incoherent "anti science crowd" understand that those are the key factors, and not the absolute value of the temperature ?
broboxley, I am more than comfortable confining myself to the peer-reviewed literature. It would appear that you are the one who keeps retreating int "churches".
I know of no climate scientist who claims that it has not warmed before or that it cannot warm except via greenhouse gasses. This characterization is utterly a straw man, which leads me to suspect that a)you are misinformed; or b)you are being disingenuous. The former we can do something about, but I am afraid the latter is incurable.
Yes it has warmed in the past. However, at no time has it warmed so rapidly when we had a complex civilization with an infrastructure dependent on that climate. In fact the past 10000 years, during which all of that infrastructure has developed, have been a period of excptional climatic stability.
You seem somewhat weak on your understanding of the various forcings and feedbacks of the climate system. Volcanism, for instance, can cool temperatures dramatically for a period of a few years. However, the effects of CO2 persist for centuries! I will restate: We are deciding what Earth's climate will be for centuries into the future.
Your citation of paleoclimatic periods also seems somewhat selective. The closest analogue to the current warming epoch is probably the PETM, which coincided with one of the biggest mass extinction events in Earth's history.
You claim we should plan mitigation for Worst-Case (WC) temparature rise. However, the potential consequences of a 6 degree C rise in global average temperature could well be the demise of human civilization--particularly given the strains placed on Earth's productive capacity by a population of 9-10 billion.
You also make the mistake of assuming that uncertainty favors inaction. Au contraire. There is a whole lot mor probability on the high side of the risk equation now than on the low side. Again, it would appear that you haven't looked into this all that much.
Yes it has warmed in the past. However, at no time has it warmed so rapidly when we had a complex civilization with an infrastructure dependent on that climate. In fact the past 10000 years, during which all of that infrastructure has developed, have been a period of excptional climatic stability.
*********************
counterpoint
mayan
anazai
ankor wat
just a few examples of higher civilizations decimated by climate change
now I am more personally worried about this
http://www.nucleardarkness.org/index2.php
Man-made CO2 is only 3.2%, with natural CO2 other 96.77% is that a reasonable figure? If so we should be able to find a way to sequester that much with some thoughtful science. If we do and it keeps getting warmer what will you do next?
as far as the belief and faith part goes lay (the popular version not true scientists) of AGW is at this point an organized religion. It wants to re-create the social construct to avoid a world shattering event. Has a globally recognized leader
pope:A Gore
saints:Hansen
wayward clergy:Jones
believes in superstitious nonsense like the purchase of indulgences:carbon credit offsets
has atheists:moncton
insists on tithing: cap and trade
just look at the last synod at copenhagen, everyone had to show to be acknowledged. From the footage and interviews it was a church meeting to figure out how to dismantle the west and who was going to get which parts
There you go, broboxley, retreating into church again. I said that I was more than happy to discuss peer-reviewed research only, and yet you insist on discussing religion. Do you contend that there is a global church of gravity? Why is it that you anti-science types are incapable of understanding that there can be agreement based on evidence rather than faith.
Nowhere have I mentioned carbon taxes or cap and trade. If you don't like them, then come up with effective strategies of your own.
You say we should be able to sequester anthropogenic carbon. First, where the hell did you get the 3.2%? Human emissions have increased atmospheric CO2 by 38%! Do you mean yearly emissions? And actually, the carbon was very effectively sequestered--as coal and oil--until we came along.
So, borboxley, where are your sequestration strategies? I would contend that unless you have some concrete ideas, my sequestration strategy--leaving the coal in the ground--is the way to go. After all, it's been validated by millions of years.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space: I was making a point about the popular version of AGW I am happy to stick with peer reviewed literature or grey literature in which the science is reasonable and consistent.
*******************
Human emissions have increased atmospheric CO2 by 38%!
*******************
so 38% of the current c02 levels is solely attributable to human emissions? so are you adding yearly percentages cumulatively to get there or are you stating that natural emissions are flat and the only increase is human contributions? Please clarify
******************
leave the coal in the ground by all means. Our village in the near arctic is actively looking at small local nuclear generators to replace diesel generators for electricity. We have wind power but it is not always reliable and subject to damage in extremely high winds. Replacing current technology with cleaner is needful but we need to develop sequestering technology so we can moderate
climate in the future
Broboxley,
Current CO2 levels are 38% higher than those of pre-industrial times, going back at least 600000 years, and quite possibly much longer.
Personally, I do not care how you do it, but somehow energy prices must factor in environmental damage. Cap and Trade, carbon taxes, etc. are means to that end, not the end in themselves.
Again, I know of no viable carbon sequestration technologies. These will take time to develop--if they are viable at all. What is your proposal for the interim period where we do not have carbon sequestration>
I am not opposed to nukes--particularly the latest generation technologies. However, waste disposal and proliferation in an age of terrorism remain to be dealt with. Your suggestions?
I presume that you will at least grant that the peer reviewed research presents extremely strong evidence that current warming is anthropogenic. True?
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
are you referring to the study that relates
"The authors show that peak CO2 levels over the last 2.1 million years averaged only 280 ppm; but today, CO2 is at 385 ppm, or 38% higher.
Now we are 38% higher than the average from the time period, now during the time period was there measurements that were much lower and much higher to get that average?" and if so was there any high points that matched today? averages can be interested factoids.
Now if the answer is no could you extrapolate that? Are you factoring in from about 1790 to today that is the sole source of the increase in c02 or is there other factors such as 2 world wars rapid industrialization postwar and the rise of 3rd world dirty manufacturing that are the main contributors? Saying that we are 38% higher due to man's industry ignores a boatload of natural dumping of C02 that may be involved as well. Would the c02 levels be this high if we all stopped driving, working heating and eating? The past doesnt indicate that.
I remember the yellow london fog back in the day. Have spent time in mexico city and remember parts of lake ontario that you could dip a finger into at night and use it for a glow stick. Now you can catch and eat the fish at the same spot.
We need to adress carbon the same way as water and air pollution.
Filter it, separate it inject it deep. There is a lot of current research going on to support that and a few people are in the angel funding portion of development.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110141842.htm
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
doesnt mean we cant get to a cleaner energy solution for economic reasons if nothing else.
Argh. Blockquote fail after the first paragraph. I'll try to go to bed very soon.
thank you david
http://fossil.energy.gov/sequestration/overview.html
carbon capture and storage
Broboxley,
We know that CO2 has not been this high from ice core measurements. We know that the increase is overwhelmingly anthropogenic because of the low C-13/C-12 ratio. This shows that the source must be fossil.
We also know that roughly 50-60% of CO2 has gone into the oceans--and that they are becoming more acidic as a result.
The study you cite on this proportion is interesting, but it is only one study and is contradicted by others. In any case, all it says is that we haven't gotten to saturation yet. That cannot continue as temperatures and CO2 continue to rise.
To date, there have been no successful, economical approaches to sequestration.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:That cannot continue as temperatures and CO2 continue to rise.
To date, there have been no successful, economical approaches to sequestration.
********************
which leads to what solution? That is measurable, achievable, and without severe economic disruption?
@broboxley: You are asking the wrong question. The correction question is "which leads to what solution? That is measurable, achievable, and with less severe economic disruption than we would see otherwise?"
We are going to see severe economic disruption no matter what we do. It is inevitable at this point. Even ignoring effects on global climate and mass die-offs in the ocean from ocean acidification, fossil fuels are a finite resource and we are going to run out. The question is, do we spend some money over a long period of time to minimize these effects, or have a much more sudden, catostrophic disruption in world economies and social structures down the road? Those are the only options at this point. "Do nothing" is the same as the second option.
@TheBlackCat: I agree we need to spend our money now
I propose we spend it on cleaner fossil fuels like natural gas as a bridge to clean non fossil fuels like nuke wind solar geotherm hydrogen and sequestering carbon as well as placing caps with financial penalties on energy producers while subsidizing individuals cost of those caps
I reject trading those caps as it represents a severe tax on the poor and encourages economic malfeance such as provided by enron in the past. I also reject heavily taxing people on the basis of climate change just to see the money be transferred to people whose idea of climate change is turning up the heater in the Rolls Royce, what Copenhagen resulted in.
broboxley,
I hope that you will agree that the first step in any solution is accepting the established science. Unfortunately, we have squandered 2 decades now arguing over established science, and I'm afraid that the actions we must take now are more drastic and disruptibe than they would have been 2 decades ago.
Given all of the lost time, it is critical that we buy some of that time back by launching an all-out effort for energy conservation. We also must make sure that energy reflects its true costs--including environmental costs. Whether you do that with cap and trade or with carbon taxes or by some other mechanism is not important. Carbon taxes have the advantage that we can use the revenue to encourage conservation measures at all levels of society. Cap and trade--if done right--might reward innovation to a greater degree.
However, I think that it is beyond dispute that energy costs are absurdly low. When it is actually cheaper to ship raw materials to China and have furniture built there and then shipped back here than it is to build the furinture in N. Carolina, I think you can argue that we are distorting the economy and losing jobs. Likewise, when I can buy the tripical and perishable (not to mention smelly) fruit durian more cheaply than I can buy locally grown apples, something's wrong.
In the short term, I see no way energy prices can do anything but increase. They would do so merely due to peak fossil fuels. However, it is arguable that we can formulate policies that ultimately result in a stronger, cleaner sustainable energy economy.
I don't believe that we can keep CO2 out of the danger zone (450-600 ppmv). We can take longer to get there, though, and hopefully, in the interim develop effective sequestration and mitigation techniques.
We also need to be cognizant that it may already be too late. If it is, then we will at least be able to look our sons and daughters in the eye and say we tried. If we do not try, I for one will not even be able to look in the mirror.
@a_ray_in_dilbert_space: uh, furniture factories are already coming back in North Carolina. With break even costs of a Barrel of oil hovering around $55 a gallon transport is no longer cheap.
The Medieval Warming Period was established science until just very recently.
Put aside science for the moment and turn to the art of economics
Oil will just keep going higher so we need to replace that with something whether natural gas or non fossil based fuels.
Fine, we can guide innovation with tax policies.
the fact that Wall St is salivating at the prospect of opening a new gambling casino using carbon chips should make you pause on the trade issue.
Harsh penalities that fall on those least able to pay them should not be the first choice. Reasonable conservation is fine but innovation to get to cheap globally available energy should be a prime mover to cleanup the mess. Cheap is not evil by and of itself.
A prime goal should be to lift the standard of living of all, not reducing the standard of living of some.