Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 Next
Comments 17251 to 17300:
-
bjchip at 09:27 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Actually I would reckon that the most important reason to make a carbon tax revenue neutral would be to ensure that the revenue does not become something the government or the society depends on to do stuff. Want better schools then set the income tax rates accordingly and pay for schools. Want better mass transit? The same. Don't use the CO2 tax to do anything but discourage the emissions of CO2 because if government gets dependent on it there is created a perverse incentive for some parts of government to maintain the emissions to keep the income flow.
Just saying. :-)
Also :
" "governments can reduce pollution that causes xxxx...."" apparently contains the assumption that governments can reduce pollution. This is only regarded as an assumption by a certain class of extremist who is ignorant of the experiences in Sweden and Canada and France where government action did unquestioningly reduce pollution, though the French result is clearly secondary.
Similarly
""congress may consider at tax on ...xxxx... to 'help"..."" appears to offend the same nerve endings that are so ultra-sensitized to the use of government to do the things that the people separately cannot accomplish. Which is a description of the purpose of government generally.
Reading the above, it is fairly clear that the offending passages aren't offensive, and the perception that they are is a matter of someone trying to re-frame the debate and shift the overton window even further to the right of our home than it is, and it is already in the vacant lot next door.
In a few years it won't matter. I expect the financial crash of 2018 to put paid to the neoliberals.
-
nigelj at 07:07 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
macquigg @16, my thoughts exactly. Somehow in the past people on right and left had more of a consensus on environmental issues, as you say. in fact the big silent majority constantly show they are generally moderate in beliefs, and what we might be seeing right now is a very noisy partisan minority of activists on the right becoming ever more prominent and influential and noisy (and possibly on the harder left as well at times in their particular way).
I think its driven by conservatives mainly with a fear that social values are liberalising generally and economics is moving slowly from being belief orientated, to more evidence based. I suggest those more strongly and partisan inclined towards the Republicans are seeing their very belief orientated way of thinking, and socially conservative values becoming ever more challenged by a more science based approach and are becoming defensive and very loud and opposed to some of the key science theories. This spills over now into environmental issues. They compromised in the past but are now becming nervous. I have a more liberal outlook, but even I get nervous at the pace of change sometimes.
I dont know what the answer is but it must include emphasis at all times on the value of science, evidence and logic and try to constrain beliefs and values to simple defensibe things most people would accept, and there are plenty of those. I hasten to add those that lean very liberal sometimes have their own echo chamber problems, and dogma its not all one sided.
I do agree partisan politics appears to be a big factor in denialism. But we shouldnt over simplify too much, and I think several things contribute, including basic understanding of science way of thinking, vested interests, jobs, politics and world view. Most writers I have come across think the same, and it reflects my own experience talking to people.
I can also at least imagine that anyone whos job is immediately threatend by policy would understandably be nervous, and perhaps fight back against the science, regardless of their political leanings. Of course some poeople are more accepting and sanguine and just move on to new horizons. But some democrats are also climate sceptics, its not a republicans, for example so this shows ideology is unlikely to be the only factor.
Having said this , its remarkable just how many of the loud, persistent, noisy climate sceptics turn out to be driven by conservative / right leaning / libertarian ideology. I find this in my personal experience, and this is also backed up by some evidence as this website has shown polls where conservatives do feature more in climate scepticism. I think its a gut visceral dislike of government rules and restrictions over business, so quite deep seated in character and beliefs. Of course their point of view sometimes has merit, but it seems to have become extraodinarily irrational and dogmatic these days, possibly for the reasons I explained above. You only have to read their discourse in the media.
-
scaddenp at 06:53 AM on 25 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Maybe the new government in NZ could provide some pointers for state governments. Looks to be more serious about climate change.
Details of the coalition between center-left Labour, populist center NZ First, and the leftie Greens (their first time in government) were in newspaper this morning. Includes attempt to move government fleet to emissions-free vehicles by 2025-26; 100% renewables for electricity by 2035; a Zero Carbon Act (not sure what that will mean); 100 million trees per annum to be planted; Green Investment fund of $100m to stimulate investment in low carbon industries; subsidized public transport for low income people; emphasis on rail infrastructure, cycling, walking and cancelling a major motorway project. NZ population less than that in half the US states (about same as Louisiana or South Caralina).
-
macquigg at 06:22 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
What's amazing to me about this survey is what a huge impact special interest spending has on public opinion. When I was a kid, conservation of our environment was non-partisan, maybe even "conservative". Now we are seeing a 69 to 25 spread between liberal and conservative over an issue which is not fundamentally aligned with either party. How can these people who argue with such great passion against climate science be so thoroughly controlled by forces they aren't even aware of? They can't all be industry shills. My best guess is partisan tribalism, spreading like a virus. P.S. I'm not talking about Tom13. I don't know his politics.
-
nigelj at 06:10 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
I dont have a problem with people expressing sceptical points of view like Toms. I think people have a right to comment even climate sceptics (I say this reluctantly and through clenched teeth). Freedom of speech is so important.
But Tom has not backed up his key asstertion on leading questions, and dogmatic empty repetion does clutter things up, and obscure interesting comments like Sauerj.
-
psries at 06:03 AM on 25 October 2017IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers
Just wanting to point out the link under "Many of the Himalayan Glaciers are retreating" in the 2nd from last paragraph no longer goes anywhere. http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2573&from=rss_home
I'm not sure if this was due to a recent webpage change at USGS.
-
nigelj at 06:03 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Sauerj @9, yes the carbon prices in the survey example does not reflect the full cost of emissions on society, if thats what you are saying. However I think any intial carbon tax would be set in the low to moderate level, and ideally increased over time. It's just how the world works in regard to so many things. So the survey was sprobably correct to be based on the lower price. I hope I'm correctly interpreting what you are getting at.
Regarding your other comments on the most desirable option, I agree a carbon tax and dividend does have a lot of positive attributes provided its correctly implemented. I'm inclined to agree let the market decide on best renewable options. To me markets do this sort of thing well and governments role is to set the boundaries and rules of the game.
However I dont have a problem with subsidies, provided they dont favour one particular renewable energy source, and provided they are time limited. Even in a good quality market it can be very hard for things to get off the ground, especially new technology coming up against predatory entrenched interests. The UK wind industry has taken off and had modest subsidies. I'm not sure a tax alone would have been enough; or as quick to get results, and we do need reasonably rapid progress now.
-
nigelj at 05:39 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Tom13@13
"I also highlighted two of the specific leading questions in the Yale surveys."
They are not questions. For the second time they are statements!
There is a huge difference between leading questions that manouver people to a desired result, and statements made along the way that are just background material. Of course such statements need to be carefully accurate, but your examples were accurate.
The statements also dont lead anyone, because they are simply factual statements that dont imply some result or manipulate in some way or lead someone to a false or constrained conclusion.
I dont think you understand the philosophy in your own links. In my experience surveys by large organisations of repute as above rarely lead people, you get that more in surveys by smaller ideologically driven smaller lobby groups trying it on shamelessly!
I'm open minded. If someone can show a genuine leading question in the surveys that's interesting, but Tom hasnt. He is time wasting instead. He made a claim and can't back it up, so just goes on repeating the claim. Is that not being dogmatic?
Moderator Response:[JH] Tom13's most recent comment was dleted in its entirety because it was a Moderation Complaint. He is on the cusp of recusing himself from posting on this website.
-
nigelj at 05:06 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Tom13 @8
I have already read your link on leading questions. Thanks for more links, but I have read similar articles in the past anyway.
You have made a series of completely hollow accusations, with not one single piece of evidence, and nothing more than empty circular rhetoric and ad hominems.
You have not provided one single alleged leading question you think is somehow comparable to the principles and examples in your link. Not one.
-
macquigg at 03:21 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Tom13 @8: How would you phrase the survey questions to be NOT biased in your opinion? Also, please stop the ad-hominem argument. Everyone here is "up to speed" on the issue at hand.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:53 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
I looked at the surveys Nigelj mentioned and I do not find the leading questions that Tom13 is objecting to. Clicking on the survey link in the PEW aricle took me to a discussion of the survey and the questions do not rely on assumption that a fact is true, or the various other pitfalls described in Tom13's own link. Once again, just saying that something is bad does not make it so.
Examples include:
First on the list: "percent of adults who say _____ should be the more important priority for adressing America's energy supply." Answers can be "Alternative sources" or "Expand production of oil, coal and natural gas" or "Both" or "Don't know." This is completely different from the examples in Tom13's link of what constitutes a leading question.
Other surveys and questions were referenced and I compared with the descriptions in Tom13's link but did not really find them either to include the characteristics of bad design mentioned in said link. As far as I can tell, the PEW surveys' results linked by NigelJconstitute valid public opinion information.
-
sauerj at 00:24 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
What does $15/mon equates to $X/ton-CO2?: Rough math: Avg Emission: 18ton/US-person/yr; so $15/(18*4/12)=$2.5/ton. Close enough? Compare to: CCL's $100/ton (after 10yr ramp) or CLC's starting $40/ton plus ~2%>%GDP ramp. CCLs: at $100/ton is ~$1/gal petro and $0.10/kwh for coal power. So, $2.5/ton is 2.5c/gal petro and $0.0025/kwh. ... $2.5/ton rate is negligible in correcting the 'market failure' of the existing FF price signal.
A more apropos survey question would be aimed at increasing household total costs (direct & indirect) to equal either 1) 'the generally accepted present value of future costs' or 2) 'current CCL or CLC proposed rates'. For example, $240/mon (@ $40/ton) or $600/mon (@ the full ramped $100/ton). The survey results would then be more forthcoming on public sentiment for the degree of incremental price signal required to truly drive market-based transitions with a high degree of economic force & efficacy.
The implications on the weak carbon tax policies of EU and Australia should also be considered in the big picture here, where some of the revenue was returned to the carbon polluters as hardship subsidies (EU) or used for pet projects by the government (both); the former making the tax ineffective, the latter making it regressive. This history shows how hard it is for the public to economically & politically "bite the bullet" in transiting away from status quo. We are enslaved by its 'present-day' short-term security; fooled by the lie of its incorrectly low 'non-future cost' pricing; and too weak & ignorant to want to pay the correct price now & let 'right' economics force us to change.
Of all macro policies (tax, cap-trd, cmnd-cntrl, subs), it is relatively obvious that carbon taxing is the most effective (least burdensome, most direct); read book linked below. But, contrary to the weak tax policies of EU & Au, we have to let the tax force non-sustainable processes to crater & die, and this means making the tax as politically durable as possible, so it doesn't 1) get repealed (like in Au), 2) doesn't subsidize the polluters and 3) has serious economic force to it. Policitical durability makes it stick for businesses: "We are in this for keeps; you better change if you want to remain profitable". And, the most politically durable plan is to return all of the revenue to the households, no pet political favors & projects! Let the market drive the best technologies and where the investments go. Or, at the most, do these side transitional efforts with side money; let them support themselves financially; like we would do today with today's tax revenue.
Read the book linked here and see if you can find anything wrong with it. It's about the truest, clearest thinking on how best to fix our present-day market failure of carbon energy pricing. islandpress.org/book/the-case-for-a-carbon-tax
-
Tom13 at 23:41 PM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Nigelj
I gave you a link at #2 above, I have also included a few additional links below in order to assist you in getting up to speed on the subject of misleading surveys. Once you are up to speed, then you should be able to recognize the deficiencies in the quality of the results of the surveys you are currently defending.
surveyanyplace.com/docs/leading-question/
researchaccess.com/2013/07/leading-questions/
Moderator Response:[JH] Your posts suggest that you consider yourself to be well-versed about how survey questions should be formulated. If so, you should be able to explain why a particular survey question is "biased" without resorting to hand-waving and lecturing other commenters.
-
nigelj at 16:44 PM on 24 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Michael Sweet, thank's for the article its interesting. I have read similar views in the past, and they are very convincing.
Basically everything I said is completely consistent with the article, so Im not sure of your point.
Like you say it comes down to economics in the end, so the nuclear debate is a bit of an arm chair debate. I don't think nuclear has something so special that governments in market economies like America should force it onto countries, so it comes down to costs and what generators want to do.
I was reading that it will take 20 years to fully decomission some old reactor in The UK. Just astonishing and sobering.
Ultimately nuclear is low emissions, but it is not truly renewable, so is out of step philosophically with the way things are slowly starting to go.
-
nigelj at 16:21 PM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Heres the Pew Reseach. It say two thirds of Americans favour renewable energy as below. Its not the same as a carbon tax, (as I stated above) but it does show good support for renewable energy,and forms another part of the overall picture on public opinion on doing something about climate change.
-
nigelj at 16:01 PM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Tom13 @4, and another thing. You now appear to say the following are leading statements. It's the only way I can interpret it:
"Look at the first Leading question "governments can reduce pollution that causes xxxx...."
"The second example "congress may consider at tax on ...xxxx... to 'help"..."
This is just really hard to comprehend. What on earth is a leading statement? Theres no such thing really.
They also dont lead anyone, because they are simply statements of reasonable fact as I already explained. Governments can most certainly reduce pollution, just look at the historical evidence In America going right back to Nixon in the 1960s with vehicle pollution. And its clear theres reasonable support by Congress for at least considering a carbon tax and dividend. The sentence said 'may' not that they absolutely would. So its reasonable not manipulative or exaggerated or "leading".
But above all theres no evidence of misleading questions or so called misleading statements.
-
nigelj at 15:46 PM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Tom @13,
"Both polls are using leading questions and/or leading statements -"
No they arent. Please provide specific examples of your alleged leading questions with internet links back to the relevant page. Frankly I doubt it. I havent seen any.Im tired of people who post wild claims.
"You mentioned other surveys that have similar results."
The article above listed other surveys "This result is consistent with a survey from last year that also found Americans are willing to pay an average of $15 to $20 per month to combat climate change. Another recent Yale survey found that overall" The survey websites were linked in the words.
With the greatest of respect dont you actually read anything?! I gave you yet another survey, the pew research survey on climate change. Its old and doesnt ask the same question but shows majority support for renewable energy.
"Your last statement "The case of what the majority want is however pretty clear:" -Based on what - misleading surveys which dont reflect actual public opinion such as the two yale surveys cited in this article?"
We have a total of four surveys. You havent provided any evidence at all that they are flawed, just wild accusations and conflated claims. The point I was also making that maybe is too subtle for you is its unlikely all these survyes would have a genuine flaw. And none do anyway.
You also haven't supplied any evidence of any surveys finding anything different, and I mean proper recent surveys, not trash from some think tank. So you are asking is to believe your wild accusations, while not providing anything better. I dont buy it.
-
Tom13 at 14:57 PM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Nigelj
Both polls are using leading questions and/or leading statements - a very common trick to influence the survey results.
FYI - I cited one of the many articles which discuss common tricks used in surveys to generate preferred responses, Its a common trick and an obvious trick. The point is that when surveys use such tricks/tactics, the survey results rarely reflect the actual sentiment of the public.
You mentioned other surveys that have similar results. Can you give us a citation or link to a survey that had similar results without the leading questions-
Your last statement "The case of what the majority want is however pretty clear:" -Based on what - misleading surveys which dont reflect actual public opinion such as the two yale surveys cited in this article?
-
michael sweet at 11:05 AM on 24 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM:
Abbotts 2009 article about solar thermal is available here. Look for the button to download the PDF (it took me a little while to find it). It seemed to me that the article is out of date. Jacobson has done a more recent, in depth resource analysis and likes wind and pv solar better. I think in the end we will build whatever technologies are the most economic. The economics of many renewable energy technologies are shifting so rapidly that the favoured technologies in 10 years are likely to be different from the mix of technologies favoured now.
Nigelj,
Read Abbotts article about nuclear before you comment on its contents.
-
nigelj at 09:58 AM on 24 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
High sulphur coal is definitely part of the problem. This is both Chinese coal, and particularly coal they import which has been low grade:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166516203000314
cen.acs.org/articles/95/i4/Peering-Chinas-thick-haze-air.html
www.wsj.com/articles/china-coal-ban-highly-polluting-types-banned-starting-in-2015-1410852013
Heres part of the problem relating to regulation and enforcement challenges.
cen.acs.org/articles/95/i4/Peering-Chinas-thick-haze-air.html
"Although the overall efforts to curb pollution are escalating, many facilities have tried to cut costs and evade strict emission limits by covertly shutting down their air pollution controls, often at night. There are no accurate estimates of how much these illicit emissions contributed to long-term pollution and the corresponding haze. However, websites of environmental regulation agencies at different levels of government indicate that virtually every pollution inspection by regulators in recent years detected dozens of such illegal emissions."
-
nigelj at 09:34 AM on 24 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @175
The best answers are sometimes a bit complex. A world with thousands of nuclear reactors would probably stretch supplies of uranium, and be high cost, but above all it lifts the chances of a serious accident very high. And nuclear accidents have little respect for borders.
But if a country has no other useful energy resources, nuclear would probably be appropriate. If its confined to just a few countries.
-
nigelj at 08:36 AM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Tom13@2, I'm struggling to make sense of your comments. You have quoted statements, not questions.
The statements are also reasonable, correct, and evidence based, and regardless of that its up to the public to decide whether they agree.
The link on leading 'questions' is very good, but just doesn't appear relvant to anything you have said.
Please note regardless of your criticism of this particular study, several others listed in the article had a similar result, and Pew reserach has also found a majority want more done on renewable energy, although that reseach was more general and is older now. The case of what the majority want is however pretty clear
-
NorrisM at 07:22 AM on 24 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
michael sweet @ 113
Just got around to reading the Derek Abbott paper today on the problems with nuclear power supplying the world's needs. Very sobering. I think one of the contributors to the Clack paper criticizing Jacobson made reference to some comment by Keynes regarding changing your views with new informatiion. I am not saying that I am turning 100% just reading one article but the sheer number of nuclear plants required even to deal with half of the world's needs (he works on a theoretical 100% just to point out the order of magnitude) is quite staggering. He is effectively suggesting 2,000 nuclear plants in the USA alone (for 50%). The same goes for the access to sufficient uranium without resorting to sea water. This article certainly is food for thought.
If I cannot find Abbott's 2010 paper on solar thermal technology I will ask for help. First want to try Google Scholar on my own. I was able to access this paper for free from the url.
-
Tom13 at 06:34 AM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
This survey is a prime example of a typical biased survey. Look at the first Leading question "governments can reduce pollution that causes xxxx...."
The second example "congress may consider at tax on ...xxxx... to 'help"..."
the attached link points out some of the more common tricks used in advocacy surveys - Dont place too much credibilty on such a survey.
-
nigelj at 05:49 AM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Yes the huge silent majority are completely ignored, again. And yes politicians are worried about losing even a few votes. You also have the problem of campaign donations, and you cant tell me this doesn't influence policy.
And it all makes a mockery of democracy and the will of the people. Do the leaders have the moral right to ignore the will of a strong majority, especially when they are clearly taking a responsible position?
Having said that I think you are right. Lets be optimistic. Eventually the huge silent majority do tend to prevail, and politicians finally start thinking and taking notice, just looking at history and a good recent example is drug decriminilisation.
Carbon taxes have the virtue of practicality and the dividend does overcome ideological concerns about excessive taxation. There is a lot to be said for cap and trade in theory. It is a very elegant mechanism, but not so acceptable to Republicans, and IMO rather opaque and susceptible to manipulation by corporates and government alike. (Just look at evidence in Europe). Carbon tax and dividend appears more politically acceptable, transparent and practical. Of course you can also have both in parallel apllied to different problems.
But a dividend fully returned to the public would not necessarily go into buying electric cars and so on. IMO Ideally about half the divided should go to the consumer, and half to promoting renewable energy and electric car charging networks. But please just do something, anything.
-
nigelj at 05:06 AM on 24 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Aleks @43, well biofuels are supposed to be carbon neutral from what I gather.
However I'm not much of a fan of biofuels. Mostly a waste of time and a dead end. I cant see the sense in planting and subsidising vast acres of maize, for minimal gains and just causing a whole raft of other problems, and displacing other crops.
The exception might be biofuels made from algae and processes like that
-
ubrew12 at 03:48 AM on 24 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
I don't understand it either. Perhaps one factor is the Chinese coal is high in sulfur and other contaminants.
-
aleks at 02:21 AM on 24 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
nigelj@37
"Stop burning fossil fuels". I completely agree if you mean not only "fossil" but all hydrocarbon containing fuels including biofuel. The problem is only in order of actions. It's impossible to stop burning before obtaining a sufficient amount of energy from pure sources (solar etc.).
-
RedBaron at 18:05 PM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Yes Nigelj,
That's the exact same thing Alan Savory was discussing in his famous TedTalk that got everyone all stirred up. Here are proper peer reviewed scientific studies about it:
First the laymen version so people from different specialties can read up:
Multi-paddock grazing is superior to continuous grazing
And here is a free copy of the study:
And another independant verification:
Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho
Keep in mind these guys are in pretty harsh conditions and are sequestering carbon right in the same range Dr. Jones 10 years case studies showed in Australia... Which in this case is 11 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr over standard grazing practices. (Which probably does sequester some carbon anyway)
Dr. Jones says 5-20 with a 32 outlier. Teague measured 11 which splits it right down the average. Unfortunately the Idaho study didn't measure soil carbon, but did measure soil moisture, which improves vegetative growth which means the carbon is most certainly increasing even over complete rest. And it shows desertification can be reversed like Alan Savory claims.
Now here is the issue I have with your comments and 1/2 the internet. If the livestock industry is causing all this ecological harm, (and it is) then surely we must blame the cow? Or is that exactly the opposite of reality. Cows are not harmful, it is only because they are fenced and penned improperly to their biological nature and ecosystem niche that turns a beneficial process into a harmful one. Raise them properly and they are part of a larger grassland biome that is a net sink for both CO2 and CH4. Raise them improperly and they become a net emissions source for both CO2 and CH4.
So we should not be talking about reducing meat production, we should be figuring out how to increase meat production...with the nuance that we raise it properly.
-
nigelj at 17:14 PM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Red Baron @40, yes I understand all that, and it's a real problem. Its nuts subsidising basically uneconomic crops etc. But thanks for the references, looks interesting I will have a look.
I was meaning more something related to a video I was looking at on grasslands in Australia used for cattle grazing, and how simple changes in how this is done is improving soil quality specifically in reference to carbon.
But with so much criticism of meat consumption, I wonder how long it is before those lands end up as crop lands. Thats what I was meaning. Hopefully if its crop lands, its the right crops. Here's the video :
-
RedBaron at 13:46 PM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Nigeli, again as I stated before, you can produce more food on grass than crops that get fed to animals. Your consternation is due to a false equivalence made by the exact same merchants of doubt obfuscating climate science for the exact same reasons too.
Grassland properly managed produces more yields per acre not less. It has both many many times more primary productivity, but even after a lower feed conversion rate still yields MORE per acre over corn and soy fed. Think about it. They try to state the opposite by comparing marginal land that can't even grow crops with prime arable land. Be sure that on the prime land the grass grows even thicker and taller still. It never gets beat by corn wheat or soy. It just doesn't.
The subsidies are designed to allow the far far far less efficient corn and soy to feed lot and ethanol plant production models to stand a chance even though they produce less primary productivity, less net productivity, less gross profit, less net profit, more gross polution, more net polution, less efficiency in every single category excepting labor, and there are even workarounds for that too. It is a lose lose lose for everyone and everything. There is NO winner for the industrial systems in effect now. They lead only to complete biosphere collapse and the end to worldwide human civilization. Even the people who think they are protecting themselves with this subsidized system are working off old flawed science. They just don't realize it yet.
Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues
It's EXACTLY analogous to subsidizing coal so as to save coal jobs, when actually solar produces many times more better jobs without lung cancer and at less social cost than coal and no where near the environmental harm.
Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined
Renewable Energy Is Creating Jobs 12 Times Faster Than the Rest of the Economy
Sometimes what we do is just based on tradition and not reality. And sometimes the neoluddites are simply obfuscating the same way they have with energy.
-
nigelj at 12:52 PM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Just my two cents on this freedom of speech issue. We do have some restrictions imposed on university campuses in America. I read an article recently cant recall where, may be the Economist.com, but it made some excellent observations.
1) Its not the students. Polls show quite clearly university students are far more tolerant of letting people express extreme views even hate speech, than the general population
2) Its universities imposing rules to keep the angry minority of anti free speech aggrieved lobby groups happy. Its easists and expedient
For myself I think closing down free speech would be unfortunate. People should have a right to opinions even crazy ones, provided they dont incite violence or descend to swearing and blatant threats.
However free speech is never unlimited and is also somewhat dependent on location and even the America Constitutions recognises "time and place restrictions". although this would not extend to government control of what is said on campus. Free speech concepts were really designed to strictly limit ability of governments to censor etc, not give a free pass to anything. Website do moderate comments to reduce endless personal fueds etc cluttering things up.
So free speech is not a simple thing but I feel opinions should be a strong right as a general rule.
Coming to the books, I read Ian Plimmers sceptical book heaven and hell, a load of old nonsense. Yes its hard for most people to know who to believe and the devil is in the detail. But good detective work and sharp legal minds like Norris should spot some clues. Plimmers book depended on about 10 key graphs that looked mighty suspicious to me and different to the IPCC, and nowhere did his book give sources for these graphs. It listed sources for quotes, but not the graphs.
Detail matters, and you dont need any science to spot that sort of thing. I'm sorry, but the sceptical climate books I have read are riddled with cherrypicking, out of context material, missquoting people, and a dozen logical fallacy outrages, as well as bad science.
-
nigelj at 12:28 PM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norris M @171, just echoing other comments France went nuclear ages ago. I was wondering why myself,and I suspect part of the reason is it has limited coal and hydro potential, and given the devastation of two wars Franc eprobably didn't want to be reliant on Germany for coal. I'm guessing, but politics and self reliance splays a big part sometimes, and Trump is a good example of all that.
I wouldn't suggest for a minute France go back to wind power. They might as well stay with nuclear at least for the reasonable future.
I do think aesthetics are important, and I used to be an amateur oil painter, and work in a design / technical related profession, etc. However normally there are solutions that balance aesthetics and functionality, and its always a challenge like this with anything. Wind farms dont have to be everywhere, and I have already given you engineering studies to show only about 2% of land is needed in Germany and its hard to see why France would be that much different if it did want wind farms. And for many countries a huge part of their wind farms can be offshore, and practically invisible and the UK is doing this.
Obviously it would not be acceptable to put wind farms in scenic areas. Likewise you dont want huge solar arrays planted just anywhere, but they tend to suit desert climates anyway, or dry arid areas, which are usually away from human habitation or tourist areas, so it works out quite well. A huge solar programme called Desertec has been planned in preliminary form and is capable of powering all electricity in Europe. Its planned to be located in northern africa and spain in high sunlight desert areas away from human habited areas in the main, and uses direct current transmission grid into europe.
-
nigelj at 12:04 PM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Red Baron @38,
I understand there are various soil carbon pathways, some involving soil based organisms both promoting rotting plant matter and ultimately consuming carbon containing material until an equilibrium is reached, and your root fungus mechanisms are another pathway. Is it possible to genetically engineer plants and / or organisms, so this so it all works better to increase soil carbon? Just a crazy thought, and rhetorical I dont expect an answer.
The plouged under article is interesting. It's sort of a comedy of bad ideas, corn biofuels arent a terribly convincing solution to me, subsidies tend to become embedded and hard to remove, and the insurance scheme while well intended has backfired in some ways.
I'm no "small government" ideologue, far from it, but its hard to see a case for tax payer funded crop insurance, especially in a large country like America. Its particularly hard to reconcile this with a country that promotes self reliance, capitalism and free markets.
These very large industrial farms with owners like pension funds etc are worrying. I recall reading the United Nations is questioning the efficiency and damage caused to soils, and promoting smaller farms with local owners.
The prairie grass issue is frustrating, because on the one hand I can see it maximises deep carbon rich soils, but on the other all the pressure is towards more crop lands in general, and less reliance on meat. But there may be a middle ground, where grasslands can be preserved for lower density cattle and beef and conservation areas, but less reliance is on intensive dairy farming. Dairy farming causes pretty intense environmental impacts. But farming is well ouside my area, just a few ideas.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:00 PM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM
France was already largely nuclear for electricity generation in the 1980s. My guess would be that they went heavily nuclear in the 1960s and 1970s in conjunction with early nculear development (bombs et al). Canada, the US, Britain, etc. all had nuclear power programs in that era, and I think France was just the one that bought in completely. I don't know what that means in terms of end-of-useful-life on their reactors and replacment plans. Canada's reactors from the '60s and '70s had a lot of early and costly maintenance that wasn't expected.
I do remember a big stink in 1983 about France's nuclear waste disposal program though - it consisted of encasing it in concrete or other materials, putting it on a ship, and dumping it the Marianas Trench area in the western Pacific. Deep ocean, geologic subduction zone - out of site, out of mind.
-
NorrisM at 10:50 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
nigel @ 168
I think you will understand that until I posted what I did I had never heard of Michael Miersch. It is not normal to expect that the Director of an organization called the German Wildlife Foundation would be what you refer to as a "climate denier".
In any event, I have indicated that I would like to focus on the costs of wind and solar power as it impacts the US. As much as I would like to consider nuclear power I get the message that this is not the place and I hear what you all have said about costs.
But I still find it puzzling that two very forward looking countries in France and Sweden actually converted to nuclear power for up to 80% of their power generation many years ago. Whether it was, at the time, prohibitively expensive, I do not know. I do know that they have not had any "incidents" which have come to world attention.
But I do know that France is an absolutely beautiful country and I wonder what it will look like if it in fact does convert from nuclear power to wind and solar. The wind farms in Spain are in very desolate unpopulated areas that remind you of movies like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (no pun intended). I say that having seen the windmills both near Cadiz on the Atlantic west coast and near Granada in Andalucia.
We have been to France a number of times. Two times we have stayed in the Loire Valley at the Hotel St. Michelle just beside one of the grandest of the chateaus called Chambord. Just on the other side of the hill is one of France's nuclear power stations tucked away in the hills. All we could hear from our hotel window in the evening was a low hum which was not at all offensive. I think my experiences at Chambord and my love of the French country are reasons why I ask why can we not go this direction. But, even though the arguments for nuclear power were first pointed out to me by James Hansen (thanks to a referency by one of my sisters) I will not pursue this on this website.
-
NorrisM at 10:30 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw and MA Rodger
First rule of statutory interpretation is "turn the page". The modern one is "scroll down". I just spent 5 minutes trying to find both books which I guess I have left at my office. I then scrolled down and find that MA Rodger had the two books pictured. In my first reference to these books, when I found that Mark Steyn was one of the authors of the second book, I just about did not open it up. But as it turned out I found all of the others interesting. The other "starter" book was Michael Mann's book entitled "Climate Wars".
When I first started studying the early origins of Christianity and the arguments for and against the Christian god, I read books on both sides because I found that was the only way to "test ideas".
Unfortunately in the area of climate science the area is too complex for the average layman. Furthermore, the climate scientists themselves cannot even agree on the facts let alone what those facts tell us about the future.
I definitely plan to look at the book recommended.
Not to get back into the issue of freedom of speech but I just opened my email to find that Judith Curry's website today has a discussion of the very topic we were addressing. First time I saw this was about 15 minutes ago. From the blog, it would seem "both sides" seem to agree with her take on what is happening on university campuses.
Moderator Response:[DB] Blatant lie snipped.
-
RedBaron at 10:00 AM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
36 nigelj,
Don't be too enamored by your science daily soil sink study. That study is just showing that the Roth C model that was developed to mathematically predict the movement of carbon in and out of soils is inadequate for the task. There are other models but if it is describing biomass decay then the model will not apply to the LCP which is not biomass carbon, it is derived by symbiosis from root exudates and never builds any plant tissues.
How can we tell? Because it was calculated by the biomass decay and biomass decay is not how soils are built. If biomass decay was how soils are built then the thickest richest soils in the world would be forest soils and especially forest soils like the amazon rain forest. They are some of the poorest in the world.
The best soils in the world are grassland soils and they have even less biomass, a lot less. So we know that biomass decay is not what builds those thick rich black soils. But I explained this to you before. Not sure why you couldn't spot it yourself. Mollic epipedon , Liquid carbon pathway
Yes we are on track to even less soil sequestration into the soil naturally than originally guessed. But it is NOT because soils can't absorb carbon, it's because all the primary soil sequestration biomes are plowed under worldwide and at minimum 50-80% of the remaining second best biomes for sequestering carbon are highly degraded by human activity and poor land management.
So in a way your study is right, but the conclusions being drawn from it are not correct at all.
This is why those carbon readings are so old and so low.
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:06 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
MA Rodger:
Thanks. I agree that the second book is a terrible thing to waste time on, just from the list of authors.
-
nigelj at 06:26 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM
I try to take people at face value and give them the benefit of the doubt. You seem just sincerely interested at times, but you make it hard when you persist with quoting cranks like Miersch who has no science degree, and has made no attempt to make a proper evidence based argument. His rhetoric is mostly inflammatory and sloganistic and thats no basis for anything. Some sceptics (not necessarily you) criticise Al Gore as being too emotive and histrionic, and hypocritically then support people like Miersh and Moncton who are demonstrably far more inflammatory than Gore. The denialists double standard and weak intellectual standard amuses me.
But I take you at face value that you hate the look of wind farms. I dont mind them and obviously beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
However its all so utterly academic, because offshore wind farms are now very competitive in price. The UK has just tendered a big wind farm project, and the offshore proposal came in very cost competitive with other options. So the wind farm aesthetic problem is at least likely to become a non problem, so its hard to see why you go on bringing the subject up.
You talk a lot about what is politically "realistic" and fair enough to a point. We also need aspirations as well, however on the politically realistic theme, how likely do you think it is that government would push nuclear because its more "aesthetically attractive" (perhaps) than wind power? I dont like the chances.
I'm neutral about nuclear, neither in favour or firmly against. It has its benefits and costs like anything and Im not going to get into that discussion. I grew up with various nuclear scares that made me sceptical, but have accepted you can't judge the issue entirely on that. I dont think Nuclear is the magic bullet we all thought back in the 1970s, but neither is it so flawed that it should be banned. IMO it's for individual countries to decide, but they better have a sober look at the full range of related issues. Storing the waste is a big problem, if you do some reading.
We have various possible mechanisms for deciding the make up of a renewable energy system, from top down government control of the exact make up, to a more market based approach where generators pick and choose the systems they prefer, provided they are low emissions (so wind, solar, hydro, nuclear etc) and this is not a bad approach to my mind, as it combines the power of market forces and innovation with the foundation environmental rules and boundaries coming from government. But in such a system nuclear is failing to compete on costs, and it's that simple. The clear example of all this is America.
Theres nothing to be done about costs of nuclear, because compromising safety regulation for nuclear would be insanity if you pardon my emotive term, but actually it just would be insanity.
Theres not much that can be done unless you feel the government should force nuclear power on society, which would be very big government indeed. Aesthetic appearance is unlikely to be a compelling case. Tell me if you think I'm wrong.
-
nigelj at 05:31 AM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Aleks @33, yes water vapour is a greenhouse gas and associated with combustion of fossil fuels, but you again miss the point. It mostly probably falls mostly as rain, but the simple fact is its intrinsically associated with increasing fossil fuel emissions and this water vapor is thus increasing and is another warming agent. The message: Stop burning fossil fuels.
-
nigelj at 05:19 AM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Aleks @33, the university of bolder study is 5 years old now, and not representative of all studies. Uptake of natural sinks is difficult to determine and you need to look at all the research. Many other studies are more pessimistic especially more recent studies.
For example the article below discusses research finding ocean uptake of CO2 has actually slowed since 2000 due to increasing acidity.
The following article in Science Daily discusses research that finds soil sinks wont absorb nearly as much carbon over the next century as thought.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160922085737.htm
I could go on with more. Natural sinks have their limitations and carbon dioxide draw down is basically a very slow process over millenia. This emphasises the need to cut emissions at source. We can enhance natural sinks a bit, but the potential is limited mainly by the slow process of impementation and slow uptake of CO2.
-
nigelj at 05:03 AM on 23 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
William @1, I agree. Maybe the reasons for slow uptake of basic pollution controls on sulphates etc are political. I dont think China has quite as rigorous set of environmental rules, and ability to sue in civil court like America from what I have read. People dont fit filter devices until there is some external pressure like this.
A lot of the big industrial companies are state owned enterprises very close to government, so a lot of crony capitalism and favours.
I dont have a specific source link, but this is impression from reading the Economist.com over the years. I recall reading something that theres a huge push now to clean up smog, because its at incredibly serious levels in their cities.
-
Marco at 04:57 AM on 23 October 2017The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
Sadly, bad papers are common, and getting them retracted is almost impossible. Some journals (read: Editors) react quickly to concerns, others just don't care or are too busy.
Now, I note that in part 4 it is stated "He told us that they had checked the issue with "iThenticate", which didn't show high similarity. This means that they took F13 and their earlier book chapter and compared them to each other". I don't think the second sentence follows from the first. iThenticate checks all sources that it can access. Sometimes it does take some extra steps when a paper is already published to find the plagiarism, as it may primarily highlight the same paper as the source. You then need to actively deselect that source. So, maybe the EiC just didn't do that.
I also don't think Elsevier can be blamed so much, here. It looks like it is primarily the EiC who did everything he could to evade the issue. Having had my own contact with an Elsevier representative regarding >1000 fundamentally flawed papers (that's not a typo: more than 1000) in another field, I am somewhat sympathetic to their view that the Publisher should be very hesitant in meddling with the science that they publish. This is what the Editorial Boards are for. They may make more of an issue out of the plagiarism, so you should perhaps send the plagiarism overview to the Elsevier executive, and complain that the EiC does not take any action.
-
MA Rodger at 04:53 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw @166,
The book NorrisM has mentioned as his intro to AGW was actually co-authored with Ted Parson.
The other was some nonsense edited by an Alan Moran. I say nonsense without more that spotting who is on the list of the contributing authors.
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:29 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM;
You referred to a book by Dessler upthread. Would that be this one?
https://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-Modern-Climate-Change-Dessler/dp/1107480671
Note that Dessler is a climate scientist, not a journalist.
Out of curiosity, what was the other book?
-
Evan at 04:20 AM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
aleks@33, from the paper you cited, there is the following cautionary note.
“What we are seeing is that the Earth continues to do the heavy lifting by taking up huge amounts of carbon dioxide, even while humans have done very little to reduce carbon emissions,” said Ballantyne. “How long this will continue, we don’t know.”
The fact that the earth is absorbing large quantities of our emissions is great, but it has its limits. The fact that the offset of current CO2 compared to preindustrial is 3 times higher now than in the late 1960's but the authors say the uptake has only doubled may already be a sign that the uptake is slowing down. This is the nature of systems as they become saturated.
We are digging up carbon and dumping it into the above-ground systems at a rate they are not accustomed to. The result will not be good. We need to start leaving the carbon below ground where it is, instead of trying to convince ourselves that either nature or our technology will find ways to put it back underground. Why not just leave it where it is?
-
Evan at 04:10 AM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
aleks@33 Yes, H2O is a primary combustion product together with CO2. For "clean fuels" such as CH4, twice as much H2O is emitted as CO2. But the excess H2O just falls out of the system as precipitation. So the only increase of the steady-state H2O concentration is through the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, and is not due to direct emission of H2O. That is, the only way that the steady-state concentration of H2O can increase is if there is an increase of temperature first. Direct emissions of H2O do nothing to inrease to increase steady-state concentrations of H2O.
Regarding uptake of CO2 doubling, I am not an expert in this area, but this number does not surprise me, and it does not make me feel better. Consider that for about 10,000 years during the Holocene that background CO2 concentrations were about 280 ppm. The fact that the concentration was stable means that sources and sinks were in equilibrium. Then comes the industrial revolution and we start to ramp up CO2. By the late 1960's the CO2 concetration had increased to about 325 ppm. This is an increase of 45 ppm above the steady-state value during the Holocene. The result is that the earth starts to absorb more CO2 to draw down the concentration and to try to restore balance. Now we are at about 405 ppm, or about 125 ppm above preindustrial, and about 3 times higher than the 45 ppm inbalance representative of the late 1960's. So it is not surprising that the rate of sequestration has doubled in the last 50 years, because the increase above preindustrial has tripled. Far from making us feel better, the fact that we are dumping such huge levels of carbon into the natural system represents a deviation from the steady-state balance we had for 10,000 years, and such a dramatic departure should make us worry about what effect this will have. Such as ocean acidification. We know some of the good benefits, but we may yet discover that there are other not-so-good effects lurking in the dark.
-
william5331 at 04:04 AM on 23 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
I'm puzzled by the Chinese air pollution from factories. The equipment to remove particulates and sulphur from the smoke stacks is off-the-shelf technology that America deployed decades ago to clean up her emissions. Why don't they just buy a few units, reverse engineer them and deploy them to all polluting factories. They even make money from the recovered sulphur. As for cars, they lead the world in electric cars and in installation of wind turbines and solar panels so vehicle pollution should sort itself out over time.
-
NorrisM at 03:13 AM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
michael sweet and Bob Loblaw
Thanks, I will definitely take a look at it. This whole climate change issue started from me reading two books on the subject, one for and against after my two sisters got into an argument. The "for" book was that of Dessler (if I have not said that above).
Prev 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 Next
