Recent Comments

Prev  343  344  345  346  347  348  349  350  351  352  353  354  355  356  357  358  Next

Comments 17501 to 17550:

17501. Bob Loblaw at 02:25 AM on 22 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Note:

       In #135, where I refer to the Copenhagan Accord, I think I actually mean the Paris Agreement (most recent).

17502. Bob Loblaw at 02:22 AM on 22 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Lomborg using Richard Tol as a source? Bad idea. Tol is an outlier in these sorts of studies, and he's had to issue multiple corrections to gremlin-filled papers he's written (and refused to acknowledge the impact of other errors in them).

       [Andrew Gelman Critque of Tol's work]

       [Retraction Watch comments on Tol paper]

       Using Tol's lowball estimate is another case of hoping all the uncertainties fall in your favour.

       You are continuing to rely on some very unreliable sources, NorrisM.

17503. Bob Loblaw at 02:12 AM on 22 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       NorrisM:

       Thank you for answering the questions I posed. They were not, however, rhetorical questions ("asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer."), buth rather genuine questions asked as a sequence in an attempt to focus the discussion. Think of them more as the Socratic Method, searching for areas of agreement and areas of disagreement.

       First point (minor) - I think you missed a question. There were 8, and you answered 7. I think that you missed one somewhere in 3-6, as your answers 6 and 7 look more like answers to my questions 7 and 8.

       Second point: Koonin's statements about sea level rise. I linked to the full IPCC report chapter 13 in comment 122, In the table of contents, it lists the following sections:

       13.4 Projected Contributions to Global Mean Sea Level

       13.4.1 Ocean Heat Uptake and Thermal Expansion

       13.4.2 Glaciers

       13.4.3 Greenland Ice Sheet

       13.4.4 Antarctic Ice Sheet

       13.4.5 Anthropogenic Intervention in Water Storage on Land

       13.5 Projections of Global Mean Sea Level Rise

       13.5.1 Process-Based Projections for the 21st Century.

       13.5.2 Semi-Empirical Projections for the 21st Century.

       13.5.3 Confidence in Likely Ranges and Bounds

       13.5.4 Long-Term Scenarios.

       Your statement that "The IPCC report does not reconcile how they get to 1m if Koonin is asking the question" is simply wrong. The IPCC does give an extensive discussion of the literature regarding where these estimates come from. That leaves two possibiities, in my mind:

       1. Koonin is ignorant on this subject.
       2. Koonin is intentionally selecting certain forms of evidence and avoiding others in order to present a particular case.

       Regardless of which of 1 or 2 is correct, Koonin has no credibility as an honest reviewer on this issue. #1 can be fixed by learning (on Koonin's part). #2 is much more difficult to change. You can, however, learn that some of the sources you are using are not trustworthy.

       On question 2: yes, the IPCC may be wrong. Sea level rise by 2100 may be less than stated by the IPCC. It also may be more. There are people studying sea level rise that think the IPCC summary is too conservative - that there is a real risk of large ice sheet destabilisation by 2100 that will lead to 2-3m or more of sea level rise.

       I will state again: a risk management plan that assumes all uncertainties will fall in my favour is a Bad Plan.

       On answers 6 and 7:

       • You say "another consideration is that this is going to occur gradually over a period of a few generations." . It is already happening now. It is going to get worse. Although it is impossible to say "this extreme weather event was caused by global warming", the number and frequency of such events is increasing according to many measures and attribution studies. What used to be rare events are now becoming common. Insurance costs are rising, and government emergency bailout funds are running deep in the red.
       • Yes, Florida's real estate values may go down. People may rebuild elsewhere. People also may convince politicians to provide federal dollars and rebuild. That is what the current US habit is: federally-funded flood "insurance", which takes money from all tax-payers and gives it to the rich along the coasts.That transfer is a subsidy to those on the coast. The current market is already distorted.
       • Now, what do we do about Bangladesh? Can they afford to move, and where to? You mention Lomborg: he might have an ounce of credibility if he actually was making an effort to improve lives through those other methods. He is not. He is a terrible role model, and he distorts many, many facts in presenting his arguments. He is not a credible source of information.
       • You admit that the problem is global. It needs global solutions, and agreements such as the Copenhagen Accord are a step in the right direction. The U.S. has backed out, and the U.S. is risking being left behind. If the rest of the world decarbonizes and the U.S. ends up isolated, it may become the "developing world".
       • On paying other countries to help them  adapt vs. letting them move wherever they want. Refusing to pay, and refusing to let them move is basically telling them "I don't care what I've done to you, and I won't help in any way". If things get bad enough, you simply won't be able to stop them moving,and refugee problems will become far worse. We'll be faced with mass migrations, mass deaths, etc. Look at how many people already die trying to get from Cuba to the U.S. or across the Mediterranean Sea to Europe.
       • You seem to focus on costs of dealing with the mess. Wouldn't it be nice if we could find a way to prevent the problem?

       Nigelj resonds to you with the statement "Then you follow up with skeptical climate statements ". Here are some specific examples (quotes in italics), with my comments in []:

       • "vague future costs."
       • [Failure on your part to accept uncertainty and properly Risk Manage]
       • "...based upon predictions of future temperature increases which are largely based upon models."
       • [Failure on your part to understand how science makes predictions. Usually the skeptical myth  "based on models" implies based on computer models, which is not our only source of information. If it means based on any sort of model, then unfortunately all of science uses models of one sort or another, so rejected models writ large means rejecting science.]
       • "distorting our economy with a very large carbon tax.",
       • [Failure on your part to understand that externailities are already a distortion. A carbon tax tries to remove that distortion.]
       • " I do NOT think that a large carbon tax beyond the costs of pollution"
       • [Failure on your part to understand that releasing CO2 and causing sea level rise, increased drought, increased heavy rainfall, etc. is a form of pollution.]

       Throw in a few "China is a problem and China should pay" arguments, and you are reading from the Climate Denier's Playbook - although I'm sure it doesn't seem that way to you. You have trusted a lot of very unreliable sources of information, and it is affecting your view.

        

17504. NorrisM at 01:58 AM on 22 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       nigelj @ 130

       My main point is that I do not think the politicians of the world, not just the United States, are really going to impose carbon taxes beyond what is politically acceptable so it is wasted time talking about imposing carbon taxes based upon theoretical calculations of SCC.  And they are theoretical when there is so much disagreement on what and what should not be put into the calculation.  If you want an IPCC statement which effectively acknowledges this I can point to the section of Chapter 10 of the IPCC 2014 Report which I have read in its entirety.

       Beyond the US, look what has been happening in the UK with Brexit and with the rise of ultra right wing parties throughout mainland Europe.  Suggesting that carbon taxes will be imposed on these nations to compensate for future SCC in other parts of the world is close to fantasy. The Paris Agreement is the perfect example of how politicians operate.  All the real cuts are after 2030 when these politicians are long gone.  Meanwhile they get reelected based upon grandiose statements that do not cost their electorate in the pocket book. 

       So my principal point is that you do what is politically feasible.  Impose a carbon tax on the cost of pollution.  Of course China is onboard for this.  If the Communist Party does not do something about pollution they will lose their grip on power.  They know this.   

       The other thing to do is convince the public that wind and solar power (for now I am leaving alone nuclear power) can viably compete with FF, using FF as a back up source of base load power.  Replace coal plants with natural gas which emits one-half the CO2 into the atmosphere.  I appreciate that this last point is somewhat problematic with Trump in power but I do not think the Republicans are all in favour of coal.

       One final point, ensure that the carbon tax is dividended back to the people.  If you keep it to distort the economy by investing it in RE then you lose half the electorate.  I reread section of the Lomborg book where he asks Richard Tol (I think he is an IPCC contributor) as to the "pollution cost" of carbon.  I thought the range was $14 to $20/t.  In fact, Tol uses the range $2/t to $14/t.  I appreciate the low range of the IPCC for (I assume) pollution costs only is$18/t so I may be high on my suggested $30/t.  My sense is that our economy can handle $30/t so I am not retracting that figure but I think that is the high end.   

17505. NorrisM at 01:29 AM on 22 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       MA Rodger @ 31

       Hit the wrong button, here is full quote:

       "The IPCC projected rise of up to 1m by the end of this century (depending upon the emissions scenario) would require an average rate of up to 12 mm/yr for the rest of this century, some four times the current rate, and an order of magnitude larger than implied by the 20th century acceleration of .01 mm/yr2 found in some studies (AR WG1 Report Section 3.7.4).  What drives the projected sea level rise?  To what extent is it dependent upon a continued rise in GMST?"

       These were the questions provided to the participants prior to the oral hearing.  Not all of the questions included in the Workshop Framing Document were dealt with in the oral hearing.

       Obviously my calculation of 3 mm/yr came from the reference to "four times the current rate".

       My point is that whatever you think of Koonin, you have to agree that this is probably factually correct as to what the AR5 WG1 report has to say about sea level rises.

17506. NorrisM at 01:20 AM on 22 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       MA Rodger @ 131

       The question is posed in the APS Workshop Framing Document which is also posted on the APS.org website.  After showing the AR5 WG1 Figure 3.14 graph indicating sea level rises, the following question is posed:

       "The IPCC projected rise of up to 1m by the end of this century (depending upon the emissions scenario) would require an average rate of up to 12 mm/yr for the rest of this century, some four times the current rate,

17507. MA Rodger at 20:00 PM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       NorrisM @128,

       In your replies to questioning set you up-thread, you appear to be presenting an interpretation of IPCC AR5 findings on SLR as set out by Steve Koonin at the "APS panel". Your actual comment was:-

       "Based upon the questions posed in the APS panel conducted by Koonin from information extracted from the IPCC 2013 assessment sea levels are rising at a rate of 3 mm/yr which translates to 9.8 inches on a "linear basis". The IPCC report does not reconcile how they get to 1m if Koonin is asking the question"

       I assume from this you are referring to something within the 2014 APS Climate Change Statement Workshop [transcript] but I see nothing in this workshop that provides a basis for your comment.

       Can you point to the source of this?

       I would add that the Executive Summary of IPCC AR5 Chapter 13 sets out quite clearly the size of the projected SLR by 2100 under RCP8.5, this being 30% already occurred (as illustrated in fig 13.27 already shown in-thread @122) thus a 1m rise would require an average SLR of 9mm/yr for the remainder of this century. Thus I don't see much chance of this Koonin character and his questioning providing any coherent assessment. (Note the 1m SLR excludes certain contributions which AR5 assesses would probably not exceed "several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century" were they to occur.)

17508. nigelj at 10:32 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       NorrisM @128

       This may be of value to you. It's the last IPCC report on the section on sea level rise.

       www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdf

       It describes evidence for historic rise over the last hundred years approx., and also future projections to 2100, and also the basis for these projections. Simply put, more warming is calculated to cause higher rates of ice melt in Greenland etc, and thus an accelerating curve leading to possibly 1 metre at the higher end of expectations.

       They say for example :"High confidence in projections of increasing Greenland surface mass loss."

       In my opinion any cost on carbon or carbon tax has to factor in an evaluation of problems of sea level rise along with all other impacts of climate change. It may not be building sea walls, but there has to be some sort of evaluation of costs, and it would be arbitrary to pick and choose which impacts of climate change to include. You simply have to consider all impacts but obviously acknowledging they are estimates plus or minus.

       Of course nobody would say impose that cost immediately tomorrow as it would cause too much disruption and problems, and as you say would be politically hard work, so you would phase it in. But given the limited carbon budget remaining it needs to be ramped up reasonably quickly.

       You say how do we convince the public? Then you follow up with skeptical climate  statements and make that job harder.

       I dont see why you are turning the issue into something about helping the poor. Im a believer we should help the poor but climate change is a cost on everyone, not just the poor. There is also nothing to suggest money that would have gone into climate change emissions reductions, would somehow go into helping the poor and pardon my cynicism but I doubt it would.

       Likewise talking about the politics of immigration gets away from, the issue and is verging on a straw man as well. The most likely pathway is countries will have limits on immigration. Such market's cant be completely open as the results are too jarring. However immigration is also healthy and should be as open as possible with reasonable numbers, provided it is regulated in regard so total numbers. dont get out of control too fast. Really the question of developed countries somehow compensating less developed countries over emissions and climate change issues has to be done more based on who is the biggest emitter and who is economically struggling just from a humanitarian and social conscience viewpoint. Neither should we pay for other countries foolishness or laziness, so it is always a balancing act.

17509. Eclectic at 09:56 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       NorrisM @127 , thanks for the link about Michael Miersch.

       Yes that is the Miersch, and he is quite the nutcase — so we needn't dwell on him, in this thread.

       I just wished to clear up [your] point on the quotation: "Germany's green energy transition is destroying vast swathes of nature ... [etc]"

       It is evident that the quote is not a factual statement whatsoever, but is the title of an upcoming talk [Oct 24th 2017] by Miersch.

       The talk is being organized by the GWPF — the title is inflammatory and erroneous (as usual with the GWPF!).

       Internal evidence, namely the un-Germanic word "swathes", indicates that the title was probably concocted by the GWPF rather than by Miersch.  Also, the GWPF likes to have something inflammatory, to attract its own nutcases to the talk.

       Still when you have time, NorrisM (and perhaps on another thread) it would be interesting to discuss why the Anglophone court system entirely fails to protect the public from the fake news and false information disseminated by the likes of journalist Miersch.

17510. NorrisM at 09:52 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Bob Loblaw @ 115

       You have posed a number of questions for which you have asked my views.  Although I will give you my personal views, you seem to miss my main point that it is the American public which you have to convince to the rhetorical questions you have posed.  If you do not get the American public onside, then for sure you will not get Mr. Trump and the Republicans onside. 

       But I am happy to give you my personal views for whatever value that is:

       1.  Agree that AGW is causing increased sea levels.  I agree that the IPCC has predicted a best estimate of 1m by 2100.  Based upon the questions posed in the APS panel conducted by Koonin from information extracted from the IPCC 2013 assessment sea levels are rising at a rate of 3 mm/yr which translates to 9.8 inches on a "linear basis".  The IPCC report does not reconcile how they get to 1m if Koonin is asking the question.  If the answer were in IPCC 2013 assessment then Koonin would not have suggested that it would take a rise of 12 mm/yr from 2014 to 2100 to reach 1m.

       2. Completely agree with this statement IF the IPCC is right.  If the rise in the next 83 years is only at 3 mm/yr I do not agree with this statement.

       3. Completely agree with this statement.

       4.  Completely agree with this statement.

       5.  Completely agree with this statement.

       6.  In a previous reply to you I have said that SCC gets "complicated" once you step past actual health costs related to pollution.  This statement is an example of that.  Poor countries clearly need help.  And one question is who should help them (see below).  But another consideration is that this is going to occur gradually over a period of a few generations.  People will adjust by moving away from the rising waters.  This is not Noah's flood (metaphor only).  If there is less land and therefore there are less children born, that will be a natural effect.  By the way, the same goes for Florida and its $1 Trillion of real estate.   Too bad Florida.  You have had a great run but we do not have any obligation to build a massive wall for you.  If it makes sense for you to do so then fine but do not expect Federal money to do so.  Over the next 100 years the gradual value of that real estate will go down (is that a "cost" you would like to include in SCC - I doubt it).  Perhaps wealthy people will now retire to Florida will invest and spend their time in Mexico.  The Mexicans will welcome them with open arms.  They could use the development.  But back to the poor countries.  I actually think like Bjorn Lomborg that there are many other ways of improving the lives of the poor in many more efficient ways than building dikes or distorting our economy with a very large carbon tax.  These are just my views on this comment.  Whether you can get the American public onside to do so which is the real relevant issue is entirely another question.  I personally think there is not a chance in the world of doing so even with a Democratic government.  Many Americans are not even ready to agree that all of their fellow Americans should have a basic level of medical coverage guaranteed.  Are they going to spend billions of dollars on others when they will not even protect their own?  There is not a President past or future who will go where the American public do not want to go unless something like the bombing of Pearl Harbor occurs.

       7.  Completely agree. But again this is where it gets "complicated".  If you want to say that Americans in Chicago should pay for costs on each coast (leaving aside the wealthy Floridians) then fine.  But if you are saying that the US or Canada should pay for building dikes around some South Pacific island that would otherwise disappear, I am out.   These are very difficult philosophical issues dealing with suffering around the world.  Are you in favour of the right of the poor of the world to immigrate to whatever country they can make it to?  There is an "argument" that this should be so.  But as soon as you say there have to be limits to immigration, then you are recognizing that the boundaries of a nation state mean something.  Part of that is how much that nation state will pay to other nations based upon vague future costs based upon predictions of future temperature increases which are largely based upon models.

       Although since I have got "hooked" as a climate junkie I do not read as many books, I have recently read a book by Charles Kupchan entitled "No One's World".  Kupchan is a Professor at Georgetown University and is a fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations (Foreign Affairs journal).  His premise is that our future world will be one where there is no one or two nations that have hegemony in the world. 

       On page 81 thereof (citations are at the back of the book) he comes up with some astounding figures on the comparisons of steel production (read "big" GWGs) of the US, China and India since 1980.  In 1980 the US produced about 100 MM tons of steel that after 2008 dropped to about 80 MM tons and has stayed stable at that rate.  Over the same period Chinese production rose from around 40 MM tons/yr to 600 MM tons/yr.  India went from 10 to 65 MM tons/yr.

       It is not a coincidence as to why CO2 emissions massively increased over this period.  Most of it came from the "developing countries" and the IPCC expects this to be the case in the future.

       So who pays for the "poor"?  Is China still part of the "poor".  On a per capital basis, probably it is.   Do we write a cheque to China?  Or should China be writing a cheque? 

       When it comes to calculating the SCC of carbon these are some of the "complicated" issues that I personally do not think will ever get resolved.

       So if you want to say that Nero fiddled while Rome burned, you may be right but I do NOT think that a large carbon tax beyond the costs of pollution is the way to go.       

17511. Daniel Bailey at 09:45 AM on 21 October 2017
       The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
       

       "increased heat flow into the oceans"

       The oceans are warming, top-down.  If increased heat flow into the oceans from subaerial volcanoes were the cause, we'd expect to not only see warming more botton-up, but we'd have to invent a whole new branch of physics to explain why rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 aren't warming the oceans.
       
       Per Cheng et al 2017:

       "OHC has increased fairly steadily and, since 1990, has increasingly involved deeper layers of the ocean. In addition, OHC changes in six major oceans are reliable on decadal timescales.

       All ocean basins examined have experienced significant warming since 1998, with the greatest warming in the southern oceans, the tropical/subtropical Pacific Ocean, and the tropical/subtropical Atlantic Ocean."

       And:

       "The new result (Fig. 6) suggests a total full-depth ocean warming of 33.5 ± 7.0 × 1022 J (equal to a net heating of 0.37 ± 0.08W/m2 over the global surface and over the 56-year period) from 1960 to 2015, with 36.5, 20.4, 30.3, and 12.8% contributions from the 0- to 300-m, 300-to 700-m, 700- to 2000-m, and below 2000-m layers, respectively."

       

       Larger image HERE.

17512. nigelj at 08:24 AM on 21 October 2017
       The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
       

       Derek, I live in New Zealand, right on a techtonic plate boundary, with significant volcanic and geothermal activity. Plus we recently had a big earthquake in Christchurch (but dont panic, very nice place overall).

       Global warming is about 1 degree so in the middle of the range. We get a lot of electricity from geothermal energy, and theres no evidence of increasing trend of geothermal and / or volcanic activity that I'm aware of over the last 150 years.

       Of course one country and anecdotal, but you have to start somewhere and its interesting.The whole idea that geothermal or undersea volcanic activity is driving climate change is invalid, because its contribution to warming is small, and theres no evidence of increases globally over the last century as a trend, and its hard to see why there would be. I also did some physical geography at university, so take an interest in what the earths crust is getting up to.

17513. NorrisM at 06:36 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       eclectic

       Here is the url from the website of the World Council for Nature which is a website dedicated to the protection of nature.  I can see from this website that they are not a fan of windfarms.

       I also see from some research that Michael Miersch is more than the Director of Communications for the German Wildlife Foundation.  He clearly is what with website would describe as a "climate skeptic".  In other words, he is in the camp of those who do not question the "97% consensus" portion but rather the questions that follow. 

       I personally have decided to focus my attention on an assumption that AGW is the major factor causing our temperature to rise so I have decided to focus more on what is the best approach to deal with it given the political realities not only in the US but other parts of the world.

        

       https://wcfn.org/2017/10/19/london-conference-oct-24th/

17514. michael sweet at 06:36 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Philippe Chantreau,

       I wanted to reply to you but it is too off topic.  I think we agree.

17515. michael sweet at 06:24 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Here is a free copy of the McDonald Clack paper.  I found it using Google Scholar.

       The Connolly link I provided at 105 is for a free copy. Here is another paper, I only read the abstract.  An article by BudIschak et al looks at only electricity for about 1/4 of the USA.  It is a little old now.

       I do not have time to read the rest of the other 115 papers for you.  Read the titles to see which sound interesting.  Often the free copy is listed to the right in Google Scholar.  I frequently only read the abstract, which is usually free.

17516. Bob Loblaw at 06:09 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       NorrisM:

       As to where the image added @ comment 70 by the moderator came from, you can determine the web location by right-clicking on the image and copying the URL somewhere where you can look at it (or just opening it in another browser window). The image was loaded from here:

       https://i1.wp.com/climateadaptation.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Brief-1-Figure-4.png

17517. MA Rodger at 06:01 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       NorrisM @119.
       You enquire about the graphic presented within the Moderator Response @70, a comment which also referenced Slangen et al (2016).
       You are correct that the graphic does not originate from the referenced paper. It appears to originate as Figure 1 in this web page which uses the graphic to illustrate the acceleration of twentieth century SLR in turn referencing Hay et al (2015) which provides its own graphics.
       It is not clear why you would wish to discuss the origin of this graphic. The point you were making @70 was that SLR had been on-going for 150 to 200 years and was in your view an acceptable price to pay for all the benefits that FF has brought humanity, suggesting also that the rise in global temperature resulting from FF use cannot sensibly precipitate a quick abandonment of FF, you suggesting no more than "one "small incremental" step (which) would be better than throwing the baby out with the bath water." The Moderator comment specifically addressed the SLR aspect of your comment and was pointing out that SLR was accelerating and was the result of AGW. In this I think you got off lightly.

17518. Bob Loblaw at 05:59 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       NorrisM:

       Here is a graph of sea level rise predictions from the 2013 IPCC report, chapter 13, on sea level rise (copy obtained from here).

       Under RCP 8.5, 1m by 2100 is the central estimate. RCP 8.5 is the highest of their RCPs. The graph also includes RCP 2.6, which IIRC is the lowest. Central estimate in that case is about 0.7m.

       Feel free to pick either number if responding to the questions I posed in comment 115.

       

       With respect to examiniation of past and current rates of sea level rise, and whether a linear exptrapolation is appropriate, you can refer to this post over at Tamino's.

17519. nigelj at 05:51 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Norris @112

       You copied annd pasted this quote : "Germany's green energy transition is destroying vast swathes of nature, agricultural lands and forests. In the name of climate policy, rare birds and endangered species are being killed while much of the countryside is transformed into industrial parks."

       These are inflammatory, unproven claims, provided without a shred of evidence.

       The following article discusses space taken up by windfarms in Germany. To quote "it finds that Germany could install 125 gigawatts of wind turbines on only 1.7 percent of the country – on land, not including offshore wind farms. Likewise, 143 gigawatts of PV could be installed on 0.9 percent of the country." This is a staggering quantity of generation on a very small area.

       And "To put these numbers into perspective, a recent study by Fraunhofer IWES investigating a 100 percent renewable supply of electricity found the need for only 87 gigawatts of onshore wind along with 40 gigawatts offshore. For PV, IWES estimated that 134 gigawatts would be needed, slightly less than what the BBR found to be feasible."

       energytransition.org/2015/10/does-germany-even-have-enough-space-for-renewables/

       The following article shows how false and exaggerated the claims are regarding birds.

       You will firstly note that most people in Germany support wind farms and solar farms from a poll taken, and its small local groups protesting, so the "nimby affect" (not in my back yard) and a few bird enthusiasts.
       Regarding just the bird question. There is debate claim and counter claim, but no overall good evidence rare birds are killed,or even significant numbers of other birds. So the claims in the quote are complete nonsense and hyperbole.

       energytransition.org/2016/05/pushback-against-onshore-wind-power-in-germany-gets-real/

       The following article from wikipedia looks at general impacts of windfarms on the environment globally in all respects, including birds, aesthetics etc. It provides evidence for and against, and links to many research papers and articles. Its balanced with a good look at all sides of the debate, as best as you will ever get.

       The bottom line is impacts on birds are not nearly as large as  special interest groups in the media claim. And it points out that many people fail to consider negative effects of fossil fuels on wildlife in their calculations

       en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Birds

17520. paulgrace at 05:33 AM on 21 October 2017
       The F13 files, part 2 - the content analysis
       

       What criteria was used to categorize issues as "minor"?
       
       

       it seems to me that "outdated discussion" and "poor methodology" are the only issues that could rank as "minor", and then only if they do not arrive at counterfactual conclusions.  The purpose of any paper is to improve our understanding of the natural world, and any elements that are counterfactual are indeed serious lapses.

17521. NorrisM at 04:37 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Eclectic

       I am under some time constraints so I will get back to you.  Are you sure this is the Director of the German Wildlife Federation that you are referring to? 

17522. NorrisM at 04:35 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Moderator

       Before I continue my dialogue with Bob Loblaw, could you provide the reference for the graph you provided to me earlier relating to sea level rises?  I did not see that graph in the paper you cited and the only graph in that paper seemed to show a lower level of sea level rise that the one you provided.   Was able to open up and read that paper without paying for it as long as I did not try to print it.

17523. NorrisM at 04:31 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       michael sweet @ 105

       Have now read the MacDonald, Clack paper which I found interesting.  But this gets expensive downloading these papers.  I know you have suggested the Connolly paper.  Of the 115 you referenced, if you had to point to one more on the US could you suggest one?

17524. Philippe Chantreau at 03:57 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Michael Sweet at 113,

       France certainly has expertise and experience among the highest in the World on nuclear power, and a long history of operatng without any large scale incident. And yet the Finnish Okiluoto EPR reactor is coming out at almost 3 times the original contracted price and will not be ready until May 2019, almost 14 years after construction started. It would not be surprising at all if it takes in fact 15 years to have the plant fully operational and delivering as intended. That is rather amusing (although perhaps not for the Finns), consdering that the projected useful life of the plant will be 60 years.

       However, the biggest problem with Nuclear plants in the US, as with all other utilities, is the fact that a private company uses public money to finance the construction of their production unit, then operates as a private company as if they owned the darn thing entirely. Utilities are local private monopolies. When it comes to Nuclear plants, we're talking some very big money. The only good way to do it for the consumer is the cooperative utility model.

       en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant

        

17525. John Hartz at 03:34 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Recommended supplemental reading:

       Renewables will give more people access to electricity than coal, says IEA by Simon Evans, Carbon Brief, Oct 19, 2017

17526. Bob Loblaw at 02:16 AM on 21 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       NorrisM:

       I think we disagree on a lot more than you are letting on.

       "Theoretical issues" is a very poor alternate phrasing for "uncertainties". I think our difference is that I want to include a larger range of SSC in planning, because I do not want to restrict our plans to hoping that costs will be on the low side. You appear to only want to deal with the "high probability, high impact" part of the risk management matrix, so please explain what you see as our differences a little more clearly.

       As for who pays for the costs of rising sea levels, which of the following do you disagree with?

       1. Global warming from fossil fuel burning causes increased sea levels - best estimate is about 1m by 2100 (might be less, might be a lot more) under the IPCC moderate CO2 emissions scenarios.
       2. Rising sea level of that quantity represents a major impact with high costs for a very large population around the world.
       3. Benefits of burning fossil fuels largely accumulate with those that produce or burn them, whether they live close to sea level or not.
       4. Impacts of sea level rise affect people/places close to sea level, whether they burn fossil fuels or not.
       5. Rich countries can mitigate some impacts through expensive construction or protection measures.
       6. Poor countries can't do much but run away.
       7. Costs borne by people at sea level that did not benefit from the consumption of fossil fuels elsewhere represents an economic externality in the use of fossil fuels.
       8. Saying "tough $#!^; I don't care about other people that live in poor counties near sea level. I just want cheap gas for my Hummer" is not playing nice in the global sandbox.

       The US is only part of the world. And people can avoid paying large amounts in carbon taxes by choosing alternatives - and alternatives are growing rapidly. You seem to want to appease the people that think like #8 on my list (well, they often actually start their denial with #1, but that is another story).

       The ideal situation with a carbon tax, is that eventually everyone mostly avoids it because they can choose to not use fossil fuels - because by removing the economic externalities we have properly included the Total Cost of Ownership, and people will make the lower-cost choice and industry will find a way to provide it.

       The taxes that go to relief efforts in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico eventually have to be paid. The post that we are commenting on (well, the moderators haven't told us to go elsewhere yet) is pointing out that people in the US are slowing shifting to realizing that this shift in economic priorities is valuable.

17527. Bob Loblaw at 01:37 AM on 21 October 2017
       The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
       

       Derek:

       Geothermal heat flow is, on average, pretty small. It is tiny compared to the radiative forcing from added CO2. To quote this Wikipedia page:

       Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust. This is 0.087 watt/square meter on average (0.03 percent of solar power absorbed by the Earth[15] ), but is much more concentrated in areas where thermal energy is transported toward the crust by convection such as along mid-ocean ridges and mantle plumes.

       To contribute to global warming, you would have to have a significant increase in this quantity - like 10x more globally-averaged, which means probably 1000s time more in local areas. It ain't happening.

       [I would try to defend classifying "geographers", as that is my background, buit "geographer" varies an awful lot and some of them are awfully ignorant on climate - such as TIm Ball.]

17528. Eclectic at 00:46 AM on 21 October 2017
       The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
       

       Derek @10 , yes , thanks , and your point is an important one about cost-effective use of that finite resource [time].  And it very likely is correct that your own time is better spent in "raising" the younger cohorts to be more resistant to the BS which is swallowed by that substantial minority of oldies we know as Denialists — and more resistant through better critical thinking as well as through greater insight into their own tendencies toward motivated reasoning (etc).

       Still, there are millions of scientific-minded citizens — and with a great diversity of interests . . . so it is not unreasonable for some percentage of them to give part of their time to "wrestle with the alligators" right now, while teachers such as yourself tackle the longer term plan of "swamp-drainage".  [Please excuse the currently over-used analogy!]  So I fully support Ari Jokimaki & his colleagues in their actions here.

       On a side-note, being your mention of Global Warming from mid-ocean ridge warming : I must say that even I as a non-seismologist, can see that that particular argument has more holes in it than does Swiss cheese.  Yet the Denialists will grasp at every straw they can see, despite all those straws being mutually contradictory.

       And on the pressure-temperature thing, I have a salient memory (from my childhood) of my grandfather's extensive library containing a science book [copyrighted 1893, if I recall properly] which declared that the scientists had calculated that the Sun's output of heat was produced by the mechanism of gravitational collapse.  The scientists opined that the Sun's diameter was shrinking by around 200 feet per year.  (And as has been mentioned elsewhere, the discrepancy with terrestrial geology was not addressed.)

        

       MODERATORS : I am wondering if you would consider merging the comments columns for The F13 files Parts 1-4 .   There may be enough commonality & overlap, to justify having all comments in a single thread.

17529. Derek at 23:17 PM on 20 October 2017
       The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
       

       Thanks @4 Eclectic and @5 Bob.  Eclectic, I was actually referring to a paper I read where a geographer suggested an increase in seismicity at a mid-ocean ridge meant that there was increased heat flow into the oceans, which was in turn causing the oceans and atmosphere to warm.   I'm a seismologist, and the seismology part of the paper seemed pretty poorly done.    But as the link Bob posted shows, maybe this is not the best use of my time--probably better to be teaching my students how to be better critical thinkers!

17530. Eclectic at 15:05 PM on 20 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       NorrisM @112 , your assistance please!

       A link, please — I have not managed to find the source of journalist Michael Miersch's comments that [allegedly] "Germany's green energy transition is destroying vaste swathes of nature ... while much of the countryside is transformed into industrial parks."

       And is his comment a sober & factual assessment, or the raving hyperbole by what the Germans call ein Spinner [= a nutcase] ?

       ( The latter "case" seems much more likely, if he was someone called in to address a meeting of the GWPF. )

       All I have found about journalist Miersch, is that recently a German court has decided that he has been lying to his reading public (in his advocacy of false & misleading information about climate matters — in other words he has been lying about the science of Global Warming.  It sounds like the court felt his wish for journalistic freedom of expression did not outweigh his untruthfulness. ) .

       I must say that it is a great pity that the Anglophone courts do not similarly take action against the many liars in the Anglophone press, in connection with both the Holocaust deniers and the AGW deniers.

17531. Eclectic at 12:25 PM on 20 October 2017
       The F13 files, part 4 - dealing with Elsevier
       

       A frustrating experience for Ari & co-workers.  "Whistleblowing" should not have to be this difficult, nor be met with multiple layers of resistance.

       Interesting that a tiny group of engineers (from Cyprus) should choose to publish a paper with so many and so egregious falsehoods on a highly-important topic in a field well outside their apparent area of expertise.

       As the cliched questions often go: "Was alcohol involved?"  /  "Was money involved?"

       The response from the lead author also strongly implies a lack of intellectual honesty, on top of the major falsehoods of the article itself.  But all this is in accordance with the anti-science attitude of climate-science deniers.

       More worrying is the inactivity of the Journal Editor-in-Chief, in showing an uninterest in the proper performance of his editorial duties.   Granted, he himself is an engineer rather than a climate scientist, and is doubtless busy with his engineering day job — but he has permitted this "climate science" article to be published in his Journal.  And one might reasonably suspect that he sent it to referees who were engineers rather than those with a more climatological level of appropriate knowledge.  And the upshot is that he seems almost passive-aggressive in his desire to give the "brush-off" to the well-expressed scientific complaint/critique provided to him.   He deserves censure (perhaps from the N.A.S.?   Or would that "cut no ice" with an engineer? )

       Sad also, that the Elsevier administation has seemingly shown a less-than-assiduous effort to correct the situation.   In the scientific scene, Elsevier must paint with a very broad brush, and possibly they are too big to figure they have a duty to correct a single paper, even an atrociously bad one like this case.  But not a praiseworthy attitude on their part.  Nevertheless, they are in the business of "delivering" science — not clothespegs — and they have a duty to do considerably better.

       I would be interested to hear opinions on "where to go next".

17532. michael sweet at 10:07 AM on 20 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Norrism:

       Nuclear often introduces endless debate.  Supporters of nuclear and opponents can never agree on what data to use.

       This article by Derek Abbott, a widely respected engineer, gives 13 reasons why nuclear is completely impractical.  I am not aware of any attempt by nuclear supporters to counter these arguments in a peer reviewed study.  They generally make some vague statement about Sweden and Franace (which are both switching to renewable energy and decomissioning nuclear plants) and ignore the fact that Nuclear is dying.  Since Abbotts arguments have not been countered it stands to reason that they are accepted by most scientists.  

       Nuclear is a failed technology.  Its remaining proponents are desperate to generate interest in a dead horse.  It has nothing to do with regulations, nuclear is too expensive.  Abbott suggests many additional reasons why it is a waste of money to pursue  nuclear.  Current nuclear projects under construction in the West are bankrupting the builders and have been described as "unbuildable" by the engineers supervising the build.

17533. NorrisM at 09:04 AM on 20 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Bob Loblaw @ 107 and 108

       At least I now understand your position.  In many ways it is not dissimilar to mine leaving aside the question of how much time we have to respond to AGW.

       I suspect the biggest difference between us is that is that you are dealing with theoretical issues of what should be inputted into a carbon tax and whether the developed countries should  pay for the costs of rising sea levels in the rest of the world (I completely agree on your cap and trade comments).  You are talking about what should logically be included (and who should pay) and I am talking about what is and is not politically realistic in the United States today and the foreseeable future given the existing Republican administration.   Perhaps even on this we agree because you do propose a low number to start with. 

       I am just not confident that there is any realistic chance of increasing the "low number" carbon tax (even if I agreed with increasing it beyond pollution costs) without suffering a major backlash when the American public and business finds out what a large carbon tax would mean to them in costs let alone what the brave new world looks like visually.   On that note,  Michael Miersch, the Director of the German Wildlife Foundation is now delivering that message of what it looks like in Germany to the British public in a speaking engagement.   If the GWPF website summary of his position is correct it is something like this:

       "Germany's green energy transition is destroying vast swathes of nature, agricultural lands and forests. In the name of climate policy, rare birds and endangered species are being killed while much of the countryside is transformed into industrial parks."

       These are some of the "unintended consequences" that Karl Popper talks about.  Perhaps Germany will prove to be the testing ground while the rest of the world waits for a US Democratic President and Congress.

       I think a better way to approach the American public is with a carbon tax that is rationalized based on pollution costs and then present them with a cost effective method of switching to solar and wind power.  That is why my focus has shifted to costs of implementation of such a system.   Whether there are viable storage systems for VRE (see discussion above) is obviously a critical issue. 

       I still am very suspect of whether the US public would sign on to wind farms over even 6% of the continental US but that is for another day.  A quick look at Clack suggests the wind farms would be far away from populated areas.  I want to spend more time on why nuclear is so out of the question when both Sweden and France implemented nuclear power for 80% of their power generation over a very short time.  What went wrong?  I suspect we are talking about massive delays from political interference reflected in massive regulations and time delays.  Could we see Trump start to promote nuclear power?  Those regulatory delays might start to disappear.  But again, that is for another time. 

17534. NorrisM at 08:18 AM on 20 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       michael sweet @105 and 106

       Thanks very much.  I have now printed (and paid for) the MacDonald, Clack January 2016 paper.  I thought I had got onto that website but when I searched "Clack" I only came up with other "Clacks" (no pun intended).

       I am looking forward to digesting it when I have time.  Given the cost, I have gone with the Clack paper, if only because Clack has some credibility in my mind because he and his associates were prepared to criticize a fellow scientist.  I have yet to read the criticisms of the Clack criticism but I certainly plan to do so.

       If hear your comment regarding how many of the 21 scientists actually contributed to the paper and your criticism of these others adding their names but it does tell you that they must strongly agree with the contents of the paper.   But again, thanks very much.

       Based upon your other comments above, your references to liquid electrofuel as a storage method means that you do not agree with the statement made in that paper:

       "There are no electric storage systems available today that can affordably and dependably store the vast amounts of energy needed over weeks to reliably satisfy demand using expanded wind and solar power generation alone. These facts have led many US and global energy system analyses (1–10) to recognize the importance of a broad portfolio of electricity generation technologies, including sources that can be dispatched when needed."

       That certainly that was my "layman" understanding because battery technology had not progressed as hoped.  My "battery" information is from a Foreign Affairs article perhaps 2 years ago.  There was no reference at that time to other storage methods that could replace battery storage.  Notwithstanding its name "Foreign Affairs" publishes a great number of articles beyond foreign affairs.  It has become my "go to source" for keeping up on most things in the world (even has climate change articles) since a number of times I have just given up on The Economist simply because of information overload.

17535. nigelj at 08:10 AM on 20 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       A carbon tax seems the most transparent option, and should indeed start low but be ramped up quickly. But it can always be adjusted according to circumstances. I detect the conservative (Norris)  versus liberal mindset. This is caution versus get on and do something, and both viewpoints are understandable, and its just not that hard to reconcile the differences. Its always best to do something and get started, but no tax is frozen in time and can be adjusted either up or down according to circumstances, provided its principles based and not pandering to lobby groups.

       Some predictions (google Tony Seba) have uptake of electric cars being faster than predicted and he might be at least partly right. If that proved to be the case a carbon tax on petrol could be phased down or frozen, and dividends directed away from subsidies on electric cars to other things. Its got to be an ongoing process.

17536. nigelj at 07:37 AM on 20 October 2017
       The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
       

       Bob Loblaw

       Yes lines networks are natural monopolies and this always has the risk of abuse of power and over charging for services. The only real answer is legislative oversight from a strong and ethically minded government acting for the public good.

       In Auckland NZ it works roughly like this. The lines company is Vector a normal profit making enterprise but most of its shares are owned by the AECT which is a tust that operates on behalf of consumers to get all consumers a good deal. It would be most unlikely to rort people with some fee. Dividends are returned to all electricity consumers. I believe AECT would have a code of principles on the public good, but I'm not certain.

       Theres no problem in "theory" with separate generators competing on such a network and it can work, but its hard work. Basically electricity is one big naturally integrated system, so to break it down into separate competing companies, and a separate lines network, can be problematic at all levels, and any efficiencies are  mainly at the administrative end and are somewhat limited. It  needs an awful lot of market rules, spot pricing systems, and we have had enormous problems getting the balance  right, and market operating properly. Nobody is really in charge as such and this is half the problem although, the lines companies have to kind of hold the whole ship together ultimately.

       Im still a bit scpetical of the whole thing. Our power industry seemed to work fine when it was one big integrated government agency, but it was broken up in the name of free market economics, but its been a turbulent ride.

17537. nigelj at 06:31 AM on 20 October 2017
       The F13 files, part 2 - the content analysis
       

       Good article, and we have a very long list of troubling problems. However I disagree that any are minor problems. They are all quite severe really, and they also add up. You have serious problems and very serious problems!

       I don't understand how such a study got through peer review. Various authorities say the purpose of peer review is as follows. I hasten to add I'm not a scientist, but I do have some knowledge of the issue through work etc.

       "Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility."

       "The process is designed to prevent dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. It relies on colleagues that review one another’s work and make an informed decision about whether it is legitimate, and adds to the large dialogue or findings in the field. "

       en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

        

       teachingcommons.cdl.edu/cdip/facultyresearch/Definitionandpurposeofpeerreview.html

       Surely the F13 paper is skating on thin ice? It appears to fall short of these criteria or is borderline. This makes me wonder if it got through in an attempt to at least try to be "seen" to publish sceptical studies to give the sceptics a chance, and create a sort of fake balance. Maybe its fear if no or very few sceptical studies were published, the public would be suspicious or annoyed. How far is it proper to take all this?

        

17538. Bob Loblaw at 02:03 AM on 20 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Note: in comment 107, I should be abbreviating Representative Concentration Pathways  as RCPs, not RPCs.

17539. Bob Loblaw at 01:59 AM on 20 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       In my previous comment, I referred to Risk Management. Risk Management is generally defined as the process by which you incorporate uncertainty into planning.

       • Risks are things that might happen. When a risk happens, it becomes an event, and you should have a plan for how you will react to that event.
       • Risks can be positive or negative. The risk that your house burns down is clearly negative. The risk that an unknown relative dies and leaves you $1M in her estate is positive.

       We often only think in terms of negative risks. Once a risk is identified (and climate change is definitely a barrel full of risk issues), you want to assess it on two scales:

       1. What is the probability? Almost certain? Likely? Possible? Unlikely? This will affect the resources we wish to apply to the issue.
       2. What is the potential impact? Negligible? Small? Moderate? Severe? This will affect the resources that we will have to put into it if it happens.

       Usually, Risk Management will place risks into a matrix with these two scales. Usually, any moderate to severe impact risk needs active management, even if the likelihood is small.

       Risk Management can use several techniques:

       • Reduce the risk, by taking actions that make it less likely to happen. (Emit less CO2.)
       • Reduce the potential impact. (Build sea walls, move cities away from coasts, upgrade infrastructure to mitigate damage from severe weather, breed drought-resistant crops.)
       • Transfer the risk to someone else. (Let the undeveloped world suffer while we live the high life.) Not a moral option, IMHO, and not an option at all if we consider ourselves to be part of a global community (there is no "them", just "we").
       • Just let it all happen and hope we can fix the mess later on (our current path, for the most part). Often a reasonable option for low risk, low impact issues (of which climate change is not one).

       IMHO, it is not acceptable to decide that we will only deal with risks that are almost certain or just highly likely. At the extreme high end of the IPCC possible outcomes, we are looking at events that would carry very high costs, even if these risks are unlikely to occur. We need to make sure these don't happen, if we can.

       IMHO, many of the arguments against strong action fall into three, non-exclusive, areas:

       • The risks are very low. ("It's all a hoax".)
       • The impacts are very low. ("CO2 is plant food." "Warming is beneficial").
       • The costs of taking action are extremely high ("You will destroy the economy").

       Each of these arguments consist of looking at a range of possibilities and picking a single value from one end of the range that most suits the individual's preferred course of action - Business As Usual. It is Bad Risk Management.

17540. Bob Loblaw at 01:21 AM on 20 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       NorrisM has asked @ 98 "Could you simply define what you would expect to have included in a US carbon tax? It would be helpful for you to also come up with a price per tonne of CO2."

       I have not done so, for the simple reason that I do not think that this is a problem that can be summarized using a single number. I will try to explain why.

       First of all, my background is climatology, not economics or policy. I have experience developing, using, and applying microclimate models. A general principle used in such work, which I think has broader applicabilty, is "sensitivity analysis". A model requires inputs, and these affect outputs. Sensitivity analysis say "if I alter this input, how does that change the output?". We hopefully can obtain independent measurements of the required inputs - e.g., solar radiation, heat capacity of water, etc. - but all inputs have uncertainty. Two fundament results of this are:

       1. if the uncertainty in the input has negligible effect on the output, then it is not a concern. This obviously depends on the output that I am interested in. Different applications may use different outputs, and therefore have different concerns about the uncertainty associated with different inputs.
       2. if the uncertainty in the input has a large effect on the output I am interested in, then I have two choices: try to get a better measurement of the input (reduce uncertainty), or accept that the output also has a range of uncertainty and consider that range in subsequent analysis.

       Two examples from the CO2 problem WRT climate modelling:
       

       1. As input, future atmospheric CO2 expectations depend on many non-climate issues, with a range of possible values. The IPCC handles this by looking at several Representative Concentration Pathways (RPCs) - different scenarios used in running climate models.
       2. As output, different models show different amounts of warming from the same CO2 values (RPCs). The IPCC handles this by talking about a range of warming for 2xCO2 (the "Climate Sensitivity").

       Taking any single value from a known range of probabilities is a mistake. Any value within that range may or may not be what happens, and there is a probability that the eventual output will be within a certain range.

       Handling that uncertainty is a problem in Risk Management. I will expand on that in a follow-up comment.

       Now, to the rhealm of personal opinion, I think a carbon tax in the fee-and-dividence class is a better choice than Cap-and-Trade, as it is more predictable for business (less uncertain) WRT to future costs, and it is probably harder to game (either by a business sector or government).

       I think that any carbon tax needs to start low to avoid sudden shocks on the economy, but needs to rise fairly rapidly to a level that realistically represents most, if not all, externalized carbon costs.

       There is uncertainty in the "true" SSC. There is also uncertainty in how the economy (and society) will respond to any changes such as a carbon tax. This will require monitoring and probably adjustment as time goes on.

       But it needs to start now, not decades later after we have waited to reduce uncertainty. We have already lost decades of time since the science of climate became clear, and the longer we wait, the more it is going to hurt and the faster we will have to react. (cf. the window glass example.)

17541. Bob Loblaw at 23:14 PM on 19 October 2017
       The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
       

       The process of providing the consumer with electricity has three major sources of costs:

       1. Generating the electricity and placing it on the grid.
       2. Transporting it across the grid to the consumer (generally called "transmission and distribution", or T&D)
       3. The losses during the T&D process - the difference between what the consumer's meter says came into the consumer's house or business, and what the generation company's meter says it put onto the grid. The generation company wants to get paid for everything it sent out, and the consumer wants to pay only for what comes out the end.

       In monopoly situations where the same company deals with all costs, they can shift the charges to suit their goals - e.g., increase consumption charges to subsidize connection fees in difficult-to-service areas, or crank up connection fees to get lots of money from people that found ways to minimize consumption, etc.

       T&D is a natural monopoly. Who wants 8 sets of wires running down the street so that 8 different T&D companies can compete for your business?

       As governments move to structuring the industry so that generation is a different company from T&D - hopefully creating competition in the generation sector - then gaming the system so that Someone Else has to bear the costs of your part of the business becomes an increasingly attractive business (or political) strategy.

       Add storage to the mix (generator and consumer want to produce and consume at different times), and finding a way for Someone Else to pay can be very lucrative.

17542. Ken in Oz at 19:57 PM on 19 October 2017
       CliFi – A new way to talk about climate change
       

       Jim @2 - yes, I found "The Water Knife" novel terrifying in it's plausibility and sharply pointed in it's portrayal of fellow Americans as the new wave of unwanted refugees the fences and walls and armed militias were determined to keep out. Only one criticism - his treatment of the desert wildlife as somehow well adapted and likely to survive; I think much of that wildlife already exists close to the limits of survival even before addition of higher temperatures and new extremes of drought.

17543. Eclectic at 19:33 PM on 19 October 2017
       The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
       

       BaerbelW @8 , thank you for that !

       How embarrassing.  I saw: October 17th, Part 1 of a series . . . etc etc

       I must remember that the pretty blue text can be clicked on !

       Please excuse my Kopffurz (if that's the correct word for my idiocy).

       I shall get reading.

17544. nigelj at 17:51 PM on 19 October 2017
       The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
       

       Lacklan @13, I dont think low income people will be too happy with high power prices somehow. There are probably better ways of incentivising efficiency.

       That's interesting about connection fees. By distribution companies I assume it's either the retailer or lines companies? Either way, as a government owned soe making a profit and I assume having at least a partial monopoly this is a crazy formula for rorting the consumer.

       But as you say theres a problem of investment. This is caused by poor planning in turn traced to climate denial combined with partisan political bickering and disunity. Britian has a central agency separate from government dealing with electricity, a great idea that has removed politics as much as possible and it has worked.

17545. BaerbelW at 14:23 PM on 19 October 2017
       The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
       

       Eclectic @4 - you can already read the other three articles which are linked from this one. They just don't yet show up on the homepage, but will in due course.

17546. Lachlan at 13:42 PM on 19 October 2017
       The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
       

       nigelj, the problem in Australia isn't so much the price of electricity.  A high per-kWh price at least encourages responsible consumption.

       The biggest problem is that the flat connection fee is ridiculously high, in at least some states.  That problem is particularly bad in states with government-owned for-profit distribution companies, which allowed for blame-shifting.  This particular failure has nothing to do with climate denial.

       Still, I agree that the lack of a carbon price has caused a shortfall of investment in generation too, which may bite us this summer.

17547. Lachlan at 13:37 PM on 19 October 2017
       The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
       

       Jenna, Australia's National Energy Guarantee is almost inconsequential compared with the proposed Carmichael mine that Adani is proposing for the Gallilee Basin.

       I heard someone say that the debate about a carbon price in Australia is irrelevant as long as Australia is a major coal exporter — which is about right.  (I'm not saying we should accept the NEG, just that stopping Adani is a higher priority.)

17548. Lachlan at 13:16 PM on 19 October 2017
       The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
       

       I forgot to mention: in many universities, plagiarism is grounds for explusion, not just failing.

17549. Lachlan at 13:15 PM on 19 October 2017
       The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
       

       I really like the "pressure heating" theory.  As I recall, it says that heating is due to the effect of gravity on the atmosphere — i.e., "the sky is falling".  They accuse climate "alarmists" of being Chicken Licken saying that the sky is falling, and I was tickled pink to see some deniers actually claiming that heating is literally because the sky is falling.

       (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

17550. Wol at 12:44 PM on 19 October 2017
       The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
       

       @3:cjones1 

       >>Renewables remain a viable alternative in off grid locations, but without subsidies will still have to compete on the open market.<<

       Read up about the externalities of coal - ie., the massive economic subsidies that the oil and gas industries receive that are nowhere to be seen on any balance sheet except in government departments.

       Start charging the FF industry for the costs of health, restitution of the environment, lost water catchments etc etc and the renewables' subsidies actually look quite manageable.

       Better still, cut ALL subsidies and see how it pans out.

Prev  343  344  345  346  347  348  349  350  351  352  353  354  355  356  357  358  Next