Climate change

[billw55]

There are those who wish to discontinue all use of carbon-based fuels. This is not limited to just burning for energy purposes, but also drilling, shipping, pipelines, refining, etc. It has less to do with CO2 liberation, than the complete ceasation of the petroleum industry. Whether any link between CO2 and climate changes exists is irrelevant, as long as they can prevent the oil companies from operating. What they would suggest to replace this for energy use is anybody's guess (many seem to be anti-nuclear, anti-hydroelectric, and anti-wind also). I guess that would require the entire planet to be covered with solar panels, but I can envision a problem with that also.

Those sound like some weird claims to me. Still, to me one bit rings true: that many environmentalists have much to say about what we should not do, while offering no ideas about what we should do. We need a realistic energy solution, and being against everything won't provide it.

 

[about carbon taxes]

 

Consumers will end up paying more in taxes for their energy, however, the government can use that revenue to offset taxes from other sources creating a net overall wash in taxes for the consumers.

 

Just incase you didn't follow that.

 

The cost of coal sourced energy goes up due to taxes.

The revenue collected from the coal tax is offset by tax breaks elsewhere, net effect no tax increase.

A nice idea, but I don't believe for a microsecond that this would actually happen.

[Daniel1960]

Congress just issued a recent assessment of a carbon tax:

 

http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2012/09_september/carbon-tax-budget-deficit.pdf

 

A proposed carbon tax would have the following estimated effects (depending on how implemented):

 

Reduce the deficit 12% by 2020.

 

Lower income households could face a disproportionate increase in tax burden: after-tax income for lowest income taxpayers decreases by 3.4%, while those in the highest income decreases only 0.8%.

 

Some revenue-recylcing possibilities to alleviate this added burden on low-income households could be lump-sum transfers or reduced payroll taxes, but these would likely reduce employment and GDP, and not be availble for deficit reduction.

 

Trade-exposed industries would be particulary challenged, losing global market share (and jobs) to competitors in other countries.

 

The most economically efficient use of a carbon tax would be to reduce distortionary taxes (i.e. labor, income, and investment).

[PassedOut]

The only deception involved is that any energy stemming from carbon-based materials is somehow "dirty" (I noticed that you called them "dirty" also).

If you look back, you'll see that I used the word "dirtier." Have you actually seen and touched coal? Have you seen birds covered with oil?

 

It is not at all deceptive to point out that some energy sources are dirtier than others: London smog disaster, England

 

London, England was the site of a dense smog caused by heavy coal combustion during the winter of 1952, which killed approximately 12,000 people.

 

The air and water can be protected by enacting certain measures in both extraction and production. I am not opposed to efforts to enact these measures, but to advocate eliminating the entire industry, doe not make any sense to me.

But the web sites you gave actually advocate "enacting certain measures in both extraction and production" of the sort both you and I agree are necessary. Because of governmental actions taken to protect folks, London is a much nicer place today. So is Los Angeles.

 

As I said before, it might be that a few cranks actually want the immediate elimination of the entire industry, but I haven't seen evidence of that (and the cranks surely have no influence).

 

Protecting the air and water from toxic substances -- as important as that might be -- is not the same thing as cutting back the CO2 emissions that cause global warming. The initial success of the carbon tax in British Columbia is heartening evidence that this conservative, market-driven approach works well in practice, cutting emissions without hurting the economy.

[Daniel1960]

If you look back, you'll see that I used the word "dirtier." Have you actually seen and touched coal? Have you seen birds covered with oil?

 

It is not at all deceptive to point out that some energy sources are dirtier than others: London smog disaster, England

 

 

 

 

But the web sites you gave actually advocate "enacting certain measures in both extraction and production" of the sort both you and I agree are necessary. Because of governmental actions taken to protect folks, London is a much nicer place today. So is Los Angeles.

 

As I said before, it might be that a few cranks actually want the immediate elimination of the entire industry, but I haven't seen evidence of that (and the cranks surely have no influence).

 

Protecting the air and water from toxic substances -- as important as that might be -- is not the same thing as cutting back the CO2 emissions that cause global warming. The initial success of the carbon tax in British Columbia is heartening evidence that this conservative, market-driven approach works well in practice, cutting emissions without hurting the economy.

 

I think you are misinterpreting dirty and dirtier. The websites refer to all carbon-based fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas) as "dirty energy." The Earthworks websites advocates eliminating breaking our dependence on dirty energy by avoiding natural gas and nuclear power. Natural gas burns very cleanly, emitting only water and carbon dioxide.

 

Greenpeace refers to all the fuels ase "dirty," while acknowledging that some are dirtier than others. Their website does advocate complete elimination of carbon-based fuels, and claims that are alternatives present today to meet all our energy needs (without mentioning them).

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/dirty-energy

[PassedOut]

Natural gas burns very cleanly, emitting only water and carbon dioxide.

Yes, the but problems lie in its extraction and in the fact that carbon dioxide causes global warming. (We do heat our home in Upper Michigan with natural gas, so we are part of the problem.)

 

Greenpeace refers to all the fuels ase "dirty," while acknowledging that some are dirtier than others. Their website does advocate complete elimination of carbon-based fuels, and claims that are alternatives present today to meet all our energy needs (without mentioning them).

I don't read the GreenPeace advocacy to be as calamitous as you seem to. Here is what they say:

 

Burning any fossil fuel is bad for the climate, but some are worse than others. To minimise the worst impacts of global warming we need to be pragmatic, ensuring we deal with the worst offenders first.

 

And without a doubt the worst offender is coal. Next comes oil in its various forms, and finally natural gas.

 

As well as damaging our climate, these are all finite resources and will eventually run out. If we begin the transition now to a clean energy system we will avoid the increasing expense, conflict and instability of supplies that will come as the last fossil fuels become more difficult, dangerous and expensive to reach. And we will protect ourselves from the worst impacts of climate change.

 

Obviously we can't make the switch over night, but the longer we go on using them, the worse the climate damage will be – and the harder and more expensive it will be to make the changes we need.

I disagree with GreenPeace about nuclear fuel, but it does seem reasonable to conduct the inevitable phase out of fossil fuels in a planned, responsible, cost-effective way.

[Daniel1960]

Yes, the but problems lie in its extraction and in the fact that carbon dioxide causes global warming.

 

 

I don't read the GreenPeace advocacy to be as calamitous as you seem to:

 

 

I disagree with GreenPeace about nuclear fuel, but it does seem reasonable to conduct the inevitable phase out of fossil fuels in a planned, responsible, cost-effective way.

 

We seem to agree on the nuclear option.

 

I am not as calamitous as you are with regards to global warming.

 

I do not know when this inevitable phase out will begin, but production of oil, natural gas, and coal have increased about 20% over the past decade, and are forecast to continue growing for the next couple of decades, with renewables still playing only a minor role.

 

http://lwtc247.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/world-fossil-fuel-production-bp.png

 

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/24/energy_sources.jpg

[Al_U_Card]

Initial evaluations of the BC carbon "price" were critical, viz:

 

This paper finds that BC’s carbon tax regime is progressive for the first year,

although personal and corporate income tax cuts lead to an undesirable net

benefit for the top 20% of households. But as the carbon tax increases, the

current regime becomes regressive, a situation the BC government must rectify

in its next and future budgets.

 

one POV

 

Current estimations show some positive effects relative to other Canadian provinces, (BC was pretty much always out in front along with Alberta...)in fossil fuel reductions and economic activity maintenance. Still there are issues with lower income households viz:

 

Is B.C.’s carbon tax putting low-income British Columbians at a disadvantage?

 

An important concern about carbon taxes is their potential to negatively impact low-income households. The last thing we want is for environmental policy to be exacerbating inequity in the province, and on this point, Donnelly raises some valid arguments. B.C. did implement low-income tax credits when it brought in the carbon tax, and although those credits have increased since 2008, the increases have not kept pace with the rise in the carbon tax. This issue came up in our research, and 71 per cent of participants said carbon tax revenue should be used to protect low-income British Columbians from rising energy prices.

 

current events

 

 

The upcoming review of this measure (they reduced income taxes and replaced them with this tax)will see the BC government decide on how to carry on. A summary of some polling is here

 

As for the effect of this on climate.....hmmmnnn, looks like it is a wash, at best.

Catastrophe averted!

[dwar0123]

As for the effect of this on climate.....hmmmnnn, looks like it is a wash, at best.

Catastrophe averted!

 

Must resist urge to yell at you for expecting measurable effects on climate so quickly after implementation of legislation aimed at incentivizing non carbon based energy development, a process that could take decades to begin to see a significant number of non carbon energy plants come online and start to alter the carbon output.

 

After all, neither us wants to just shut down all the carbon plants all at once.

[luke warm]

I don't have much sympathy for folks who don't want to pay the true costs for their consumption choices. Society should not be subsidizing their lifestyle choices.

do you feel the same in all areas? btw, your commute would get quite a bit more expensive, also... there are millions of long-distance truckers (and the price of diesel is a joke, imo - diesel is basically a byproduct, but it's price is driven by supply and demand i suppose)... they'd have to be better compensated, the products they transport would go up in price, etc etc

 

The most economically efficient use of a carbon tax would be to reduce distortionary taxes (i.e. labor, income, and investment).

given the number of people who don't pay income tax now, i don't know how they could pay less

 

(We do heat our home in Upper Michigan with natural gas, so we are part of the problem.)

what's your solution to that problem?

 

After all, neither us wants to just shut down all the carbon plants all at once.

what's your timeline? and, what do you do for PassedOut's heating problem in the meantime?

[dwar0123]

what's your timeline? and, what do you do for PassedOut's heating problem in the meantime?

That will vary with each individual carbon producing source depending on the market forces in play. For an ancient coal fired plant near a large natural source of geothermal energy, it may be quick. For a modern coal fired plant right next to a large source of coal in a very cloudy state in the middle of nowhere, it might not be for 30 years.

 

The idea is to incentivize alternatives by making them relatively cheaper. After that, we will let the markets do its magic. This will spur development of alternative energy sources, which will in turn drive research, cutting their relative costs even further.

 

As for natural gas, it is relatively clean so it will be one of the last carbon sources to be driven out by market forces, honestly don't see it going anywhere for decades.

[mike777]

Now futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil is part of distinguished panel of engineers that says solar power will scale up to produce all the energy needs of Earth's people in 20 years.

 

There is 10,000 times more sunlight than we need to meet 100 percent of our energy needs, he says, and the technology needed for collecting and storing it is about to emerge as the field of solar energy is going to advance exponentially in accordance with Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns. That law yields a doubling of price performance in information technologies every year.

 

--

 

 

I note this was said back in 2008 so only 16 more years.

 

I wonder in the 4 years has solar power technology been advancing at an exponetial rate of growth? I hope so but not sure what the numbers say.

[Al_U_Card]

Must resist urge to yell at you for expecting measurable effects on climate so quickly after implementation of legislation aimed at incentivizing non carbon based energy development, a process that could take decades to begin to see a significant number of non carbon energy plants come online and start to alter the carbon output.

 

After all, neither us wants to just shut down all the carbon plants all at once.

 

No need to yell...lol. The idea is that the resultant net reduction in [CO2] might make a difference (using IPCC numbers for climate sensitivity, of course) of about 0.0000000000000001 deg. C. Do the bureaucrats that administer this taxation system get paid on results or......? The global climate impact of ▲[CO2] is not the measure to use for this or any other taxation scheme. It was latched onto by the CAGW-advocates as a convenient and theoretically possible factor. Once the taxes are in place (for whatever justification) they never go away and if temperature change is the metric here, they never will.

[Al_U_Card]

Now futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil is part of distinguished panel of engineers that says solar power will scale up to produce all the energy needs of Earth's people in 20 years.

 

There is 10,000 times more sunlight than we need to meet 100 percent of our energy needs, he says, and the technology needed for collecting and storing it is about to emerge as the field of solar energy is going to advance exponentially in accordance with Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns. That law yields a doubling of price performance in information technologies every year.

 

--

 

 

I note this was said back in 2008 so only 16 more years.

 

I wonder in the 4 years has solar power technology been advancing at an exponetial rate of growth? I hope so but not sure what the numbers say.

 

Solyndra and SENER (Spain)

[mike777]

Solyndra and SENER (Spain)

 

 

so does that prove that solar power tech is advancing at an exponential pace....creative destruction of old companies that dont keep up?

 

or is this just another example of how poorly central govts allocate capital?

[dwar0123]

It proves that governments do not have a 100% success rate.

 

If you actually needed proof of that....well, there you go.

[mike777]

I would wish the central govts would get out of the business of picking winners and losers and give those billions to basic research or to funding education in science, math and engineering.

 

I still expect many failures.

[dwar0123]

I would wish the central govts would get out of the business of picking winners and losers and give those billions to basic research or to funding education in science, math and engineering.

When you say give billions to basic research, how do you envision that working without them picking winners and losers?

[mike777]

quote me in full may help answer your question.

 

 

I would wish the central govts would get out of the business of picking winners and losers and give those billions to basic research or to funding education in science, math and engineering.

 

I still expect many failures

--

 

 

In any event back to my main point which was I hope that solar power tech is growing at an expo. rate.

[dwar0123]

quote me in full may help answer your question

I was aware of the full quote when I asked the question, you should try answering it rather than pretend I took you out of context.

 

You want government to not be in the business of picking winners and losers, how does the government avoid doing that when giving money to basic research.

[mike777]

as you take it out of context yet again....lol

 

there is a huge difference between basic research or giving money for education and crony capitalism...again in full context....

 

Clearly you dont see it..

[dwar0123]

as you take it out of context yet again....lol

 

there is a huge difference between basic research or giving money for education and crony capitalism...again in full context....

 

Clearly you dont see it..

Clearly I don't, thats why I am asking. I wish you would explain intead of hiding between a faux claim of a lack of context.

 

How would you give a portion of the billions to basic research without the government picking winners and losers.

 

Its a question, not a claim, what is so hard about answering it.

[Al_U_Card]

In a related field, when statistical analysis is used, care must be taken to not only use the proper methods, but data and computer code must be easily available to allow for verification and replication by outside parties.

 

Here is a nice 30 min. lecture by a biostatistician who blew the whistle on the Duke University researcher whose spurious "discoveries" got all the way to (botched) clinical trials because the institution defended his position rather than allowing for open and factual criticism of his methods and results.

 

A cancer on the science

[PassedOut]

When a hurricane hits an important densely-populated area, it brings lots of folks face to face with reality. Perhaps hurricane Sandy will provide the US a needed wake-up call: Sandy shows the U.S. is unprepared for climate disasters

 

There are two main ways to respond to climate change. First, we can try to slow the rate of global warming by curbing our greenhouse-gas emissions. But theres also adaptationwe can try to reshape our existing infrastructure to make ourselves more resilient in the face of climate disasters.

 

Many experts say well need to do both. Even if the world could eliminate all of its emissions tomorrow, weve already loaded enough carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere to eventually raise global temperatures by about 1.4°C over pre-industrial levels. Thats far less drastic than what would happen if we burnt every last fossil fuel around, but even a mild temperature increase will mean somewhat more heat waves, droughts, sea-level rise. A certain level of adaptation will be necessary no matter what.

[Al_U_Card]

Shall we wait for NOAA to debunk the storms = anthropogenic [CO2] increase global warming meme or shall we just refer to the peer-review...

 

“What this means is that all current climate models are based on bad assumptions. And because the raw output of those models do not reproduce the actual state of the environment, climate modelers have applied “adjustments” to get the numbers to work out. The result is that climate models are both fundamentally wrong and have been wrongly adjusted”

From: Actual measurements

 

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/earth-energy-budget/stephens-earth-energy-balance-diag-crop-600.gif

 

The authors describe just how lost:

 

“For the decade considered [2000-2010], the average imbalance is 0.6 = 340.2 − 239.7 − 99.9 Wm2 when these TOA fluxes are constrained to the best estimate ocean heat content (OHC) observations since 2005 (refs 13,14). This small imbalance is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux. The combined uncertainty on the net TOA flux determined from CERES is ±4 Wm2(95% confidence) due largely to instrument calibration errors12,15. Thus the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change11.”

 

Models, models everywhere and nary a fact in sight...

[luke warm]

When a hurricane hits an important densely-populated area, it brings lots of folks face to face with reality. Perhaps hurricane Sandy will provide the US a needed wake-up call: Sandy shows the U.S. is unprepared for climate disasters

sigh... sound and fury, signifying nothing