Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Recent Comments

Comments 17601 to 17650:

wili at 14:32 PM on 5 October 2017

Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung

"One scenario to think through could thus be a major eruption occurring during a La Niña this coming winter." Should probably be "...coming north hemisphere winter."

And "global temperature" near the beginning of the last paragraph should probably be "global atmospheric temperature" since this is later contrasted with global ocean temperature.

Those interested in the possibility that large volcanic eruptions may be able to actually trigger El Nino conditions might be interested in the physorg article linked here: phys.org/news/2017-10-large-volcanic-eruptions-tropics-trigger.html

bozzza at 13:08 PM on 5 October 2017

Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper

addendum..

..but now the world is literally out to get all of us at once!

(You don't have to believe me- it's a mass consciousness sort of thing!)

bozzza at 13:05 PM on 5 October 2017

Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper

Richard, the world is a market place and if it weren't legal to lie then Governments would not be able to garner enough entrepreneurial spirit to build it's military complexes.

Fraud is all part of the back-slapping game: the only way the average punter can win is to unite and change th emarketpalce through demand.... because Governments follow: the people lead.

Think of it this way: the world literally is out to get you!

nigelj at 13:04 PM on 5 October 2017

Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung

Driving by @5

"They will do that regardless. A political position does not change based on physical evidence."

This is so true with a lot of people. Political tribalism is strong and people hold beliefs passionately, even when the evidence against is overwhelming, and you also have the pluralistic ignorance effect somebody mentioned. Sigh.

But thats no excuse. People need to work a bit harder at being less "political". I'm one of those swing voters and I just refuse point blank to be too partisan.

Glenn Tamblyn at 12:08 PM on 5 October 2017

Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung

' more meat, refrigerators, cars, houses, wives.'

LOL. I'm pretty sure that around half of that 7.5 billion don't want wives, more or otherwise. :-)

DrivingBy at 11:42 AM on 5 October 2017

Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung

@Nigelj - 2

If it's any comfort, the majority of the world already acknowledges AGW. Even US-based oil companies all do so privately, and some publicly (which is against their own interests). The biggest players are the likes of Saudi Aramco and Venezula, which both own the oil and oil production companies. It would be interesting to find their official statments on the matter.

I believe (mmm, can't remember where I saw the figures) that a majority of the US population considers AGW to be real. Most also have other things on their mind, such as why their school will not discipline the two kids who disrupt every class, etc. We may know that it is on track to be a huge problem somewhere in the future, but people don't live somewhere in the future. There are now 7.5 billion humans, and outside of a relative handful they all want more: more meat, refrigerators, cars, houses, wives.

Them's the breaks.

DrivingBy at 11:27 AM on 5 October 2017

Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung

@Nigelj

They will do that regardless. A political position does not change based on physical evidence.

Mal Adapted at 11:20 AM on 5 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Tom13:

#38 - The broader point on the fossil fuel subsidies - is that most of what is labeled as subsidies by various advocacy groups, etc are simply not subsidies by any economic definition. Many of the so-called "tax subsidies" are tax deductions for the cost of doing business. Additionally many of the so-called "tax subsidies" are deductions which are allowable to all industries and are not subsidies carved out to benefit the fossil fuel industries.

Huh. Oil Change International, the advocacy site you dismissed, defines 'fossil fuel subsidy' as follows:

A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers, or lowers the price paid by energy consumers. Essentially, it’s anything that rigs the game in favor of fossil fuels compared to other energy sources.

That seem succinct and even self-evident to me. OTOH, while I'll never claim to be an expert, the energy economics I once studied enroute to an multidisciplinary MS in Environmental Science may give me an advantage. The history of the Seven Sisters was especially edifying.

Tom13:

A) you cited an article from an advocacy website, even individuals without expertise should be able to recognize the bias.

B) The errors are readily apparant to anyone with a basic level of taxation
C) my explanations, coupled with a basic knowledge of accounting, should be sufficient for most individuals to quickly grasp the errors.

With due deference, your errors are readily apparent to anyone who grasps the implications of the Keeling Curve. For you to apprehend them, it will be necessary to acknowledge that some people, conventionally regarded as climate scientists, may know more about this stuff than you do. Failing that, you'll need to become a working climate scientist yourself. While you're putting the time in on that, you can trust that SkS contributors recognize the bias on priceofoil.com. Regardless, the site attempts to document the electoral influence trading, in all its protean guises, that distorts the 'free' market in fossil carbon's favor.

Note, lastly, that priceofoil.com's definition of subsidy does not include the political freedom to privatize the full marginal benefit of the energy in fossil fuels, while socializing the marginal climate-change costs right out our private tailpipes.

Bob Loblaw at 11:00 AM on 5 October 2017

Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung

This is a timely and useful article. If Mt. Agung erupts and there is temporary cooling, the denialista will regard any such explanations as "making up excuses after the fact". The fact that this very same volcano has been studied in the past shows that pre-bunked argument for what it is.

I remember Mt. Agung being discussed in climatology classes back in the 1970s and 1980s, when I was at university. One of the references listed here is from 1978, fer christ's sake.

Bob Loblaw at 10:54 AM on 5 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM: "Tom13 is discussing the US tax situation regarding subsidies under the US tax code."

That may be what he wants to discuss, but from my perspective he is dodging the discussion on carbon taxes. He's claimed that they are just a wealth transfer, He's now gone "Look! Squirrel!" and started talking about subsidies. You've fallen for it.

...but while we are on the subject of subsidies, the list at the web page given by nijelj@56 does not mention royalty reductions (AFAICT). When I lived in Alberta, one of the favourite government actions to promote oil and gas activity was royalty reduction programs such as this one. To put it simply, the people of Alberta, who own the gas and oil, sell it more cheaply than at regular market rate. As this is run through government, it sounds an awful lot like a subsidy to me. The government isn't feeding money into gas and oil, but it is taking out less than it would normally. Gas and oil are on sale.

In fact, such reduced-rate subsidies are at the heart of the never-ending US-Canada softwood lumber dispute that has reared its head again. One of the frequent US claims is that Canada's low stumpage fees (payments to government for cutting timber on Crown land) constitute a subsidy that the US considers unfair, and the US places tariffs on wood products as an anti-dumping action.

As to your claim of an IPCC carbon cost of only $18/tonne - that seems awfully low to me. This Environment Canada site gives estimated costs of $34/t in 2010 rising to $75/t in 2050 as central estimates, with 95th percentile estimates going from $131/t to $320/t.

..but you used the phrase "...the IPCC ballparks this former cost at ..." [bolding mine]. Why did you use the word "former"? What are you implying? Is this only the cost of damage so far, for what has been emitted so far? Does your estimate ignore the future costs of previously-emitted carbon?

Please provide a source for your $18/t number. Your "understanding" isn't a very strong argument. And what Lomborg says isn't worth an ounce of spit.

scaddenp at 10:34 AM on 5 October 2017

Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung

A respite from warming is good news. Really. However, if emissions continue unabated there will be even more GHG when the aerosols abate and we will rapidly warm again. One can hope that time will be used wisely rather than listening to idiots who are going to deny no matter what.

Esop at 07:12 AM on 5 October 2017

Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung

I had exactly the same thoughts, nigelj.

Just wait.... and the press will lap it up.

nigelj at 06:57 AM on 5 October 2017

Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung

So in other words we could get a combination of a volcanic eruption, and a la nina, thus two or three years of quite low temperatues, and the climate sceptics will start chanting "global warming has stopped" and "liberal scam" and "greenhouse effect falsified" all over again. It's enough to make you weep.

scaddenp at 06:37 AM on 5 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Michael, yes, and contrary to what Tom13 has stated, it seems that FF get some special support:

"The largest source of support to the oil and gas industry that we quantify in our analysis is the practice of expensing intangible drilling costs (IDCs). Only items with no salvage value can be claimed as IDCs, such as wages, fuel, and repairs, relating to well drilling.

Large capital assets always have a mixture of tangible and intangible investments, and in most other sectors these are all capitalized into the cost basis that is written down over time. In contrast, producers are allowed to deduct from taxable income IDCs associated with investments in domestic oil and gas wells. These costs include a fraction of exploration and capital expenses for a given well up to the installation of a wellhead. Independent oil and gas operators are able to expense all IDCs immediately, while integrated oil companies may expense 70% of IDCs. The remaining 30% of integrated producers’ IDCs still receive special tax treatment, as operators can depreciate IDCs over five years instead of recovering these costs through depletion."

nigelj at 06:28 AM on 5 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Norris M @53, you claim the only fossil fuel subsidy in Canada is a very small tax deduction on oil and gas exploration. Looks mistaken to me. The following research says Canada have 6 separate subsidies on fossil fuels, totalling about 3 billion dollars per year. Other research has much the same.They itemise each subsidy and its recent information.

www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies/

There is nothing speculative and about sea level rise. Models are not speculation. At the very least even if you just project the last 20 years linear trend forwards, you get significant sea level rise, and only a fool believes the rate over the last 20 years would stop or slow. Its only really a question of which model simulation of accelerating sea level rise proves most accurate, but none are looking good for humanity. Its important to also remember small changes to rates of sea level rise add up significantly analogous to compound interest.

jja at 05:57 AM on 5 October 2017

Inside the Experiment: Abrupt Change and Ice Cores

one of the potential kinds of abrupt changes in atmospheric circulation patterns could be the observed water vapor and heat transport into the arctic beginning with the December 2015 Event and lasting through the winter of 2016

nigelj at 05:39 AM on 5 October 2017

Inside the Experiment: Abrupt Change and Ice Cores

MA Rodger, thanks for the links. I agree prediction is not the best word.

There still seem to be many unknowns about exactly what caused rapid temperature fluctautions during the ice ages. The article says essentially that one 'possible' cause is due to the extensive land based ice caps melting and in turn affecting temperatures, and of course theres less ice now to trigger the same things. Hopefully then that was the cause. But there are still unknowns about what really caused the abrupt fluctuations, so we cant be entirely sure such things could not occur in our future.

No criticism of anyone intended. The research work that has been done is mindboggling and people should read some of it explained in popular science types of articles.

michael sweet at 03:02 AM on 5 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM,

This New York Times article documents current damage from sea level rise and the decline in sales of real estate threatened by sea level rise. These are not "speculative" damages, they are already realized damages. Since the sea continues to rise, these damages must increase. The issue is how much the damages will increase to. Miami Beach is currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars in a futile attempt to hold back the sea.

Articles speculating on a collapse of real estate values threatened by sea level rise are becoming common. Just the possibility of a collapse is damaging to the economy and costs everyone else money. The fossil fuel industry should pay for the damage they currently cause.

michael sweet at 02:27 AM on 5 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Here is a link to a free copy of the article Scaddenp refers to at 51. The supplemental information (free) documents how they calculate subsidies to oil production. They do not include environmental damage as a subsidy of the oil industry.

Dcrickett at 00:43 AM on 5 October 2017

Why the 97% climate consensus is important

"Pluralistic Ignorance" is a helpful concept here. The great contribution by Frank Luntz to Denialism's staying power was straight from Gen'l Nathan Bedford Forest's alleged dictum: "Get there fustes' with the mostes'." The part about the credibility of scientists and their concensus is important but fairly obvious.

Thus, propagandize that there is no concensus first, then "everybody" will believe that "everybody else" believes it. "The rest is commentary."

Separately, I love that comic strip linked in #4.

RickG at 00:21 AM on 5 October 2017

Why the 97% climate consensus is important

Scaddenp @4

Absolutely, I agree.

One approach I would like to see taken "full throttle" is to use one of the skeptics own tactics against them, and yes skeptical science does an excellent job of that by showing what is being said and pointing out what is wrong and showing why. However, my suggested approach is to address the sources specifically. Who they are, a list of their deliberate falsehoods and how easy it is to show that such claims are false. And I think those falsehoods in particular should be the ones that accuse scientists and climate organizations of manipulating data. True, there is a lot of confirmation bias performed by the skeptics, but in all honesty, I think the ones that cause the most public doubt are the ones who "deliberately" accuse scientists and organizations (NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, etc., of misdeeds, when it is they who are the ones engaged in misdeeds.

MA Rodger at 19:52 PM on 4 October 2017

Inside the Experiment: Abrupt Change and Ice Cores

nigelj @1,

Climate science is not unaware of the potential for abrupt change. Of course, back in the ice-ages there was more ice sat on more bits of land available to inject fresh water into northern oceans. So, even though their cause is not understood, the chances of a Dansgaard–Oeschger event or a Heinrich event happening today is not a serious consideration. Yet there remains the melt-event described in Hansen et al (2016) which would see this coming century's warming replaced by rapid sea level rise and superstorms. Hansen et al acknowledge they are at variance with IPCC ARs, stating:-

"These predictions, especially the cooling in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic with markedly reduced warming or even cooling in Europe, differ fundamentally from existing climate change assessments. We discuss observations and modeling studies needed to refute or clarify these assertions."

Myself, I would say "prediction" is the wrong word to use.

NorrisM at 18:29 PM on 4 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Bob Loblaw @ 25

Tom13 is discussing the US tax situation regarding subsidies under the US tax code. I am in Canada and can only reference the Canadian situation. In that I am involved in the Canadian oil and gas business, I can certainly say that the only "subsidy" that the oil and gas industry receives is by receiving a "deduction" for exploration and development expenditures which, in accounting terms" is on capital account and not ordinarily deducted from income in calculating same for accounting purposes. But, in accounting, capital ultimately gets deducted from the calculation of income from deductions for depreciation (buildings) and resources (depletion).

So the only "subsidy" is the accelerated deduction received from deducting depletion at a faster rate under the Income Tax Act in Canada through deductions of oil and gas expenditures (CEE, CDE, COGPE). With the exception of dry hole drilling expenditures (CEE), these have to be deducted over a number of years, usually on a 30% per year on a declining balance basis.

Therefore, the only "subsidy" is the difference in the "time value of money" which certainly is not irrelevant. But logically, deducting dry holde expenditures, as and when expended, seems to be the right thing. In Canada, the Trudeau government is gradually whittling down the 100% CEE deductions, but retaining the 30% per year CDE deductions.

As for Bob Loblaw's point, when it comes to a carbon tax on fossil fuels, I think you have to make a distinction between the costs of fossil fuels in harming the environment from a pollution standpoint from those unkown and speculative calculations of rising sea levels etc. My understanding is that the IPCC ballparks this former cost at something around $18 per tonne. Even Bjorn Lomborg agrees with a carbon tax at this level.

Carbon taxes beyond this level are proposed for an entirely different purpose. They are imposed to discourage the use of fossil fuels. Whether this is the proper approach is an entirely different issue. Lomborg and others suggest that it is not.

One Planet Only Forever at 14:15 PM on 4 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Based on my experience as a Professional Engineer with an MBA, I offer the following more specific response to Tom13's Econ 101 'efficiency' promotion.

Professional Engineering 101 is the pursuit and application of constantly improved awareness and understanding to develop new things, governed by Ethics 101 which is to protect the public interests from the potential harm of competitors in Econ 101 and PoliSci 101 (particularly when those competitors try to temporarily be perceived to be the Winners by abusing Marketing 101).

The constraints on Engineering 101 by Ethics 101 include ensuring that only the options that do not impede or harm the achievement of public interests, including all of the interests presented in the Sustainable Development Goals, get to compete in evaluations to determine the 'best option'. An unsustainable or harmful activity would not pass that Ethics 101 screening in Engineering 101 no matter how much cheaper or quicker it was (no matter what the Econ 101 and PoliSci 101 want to believe or what popular support they can develop through the abuse of Marketing 101). And any already developed item/activity that is discovered to be unsustainable or harmful would be taken out of service or repaired.

Econ 101 has to be Ethically externally constrained because it is understood that the competitors and consumers (the players in the game) in Econ/PoliSci/Marketing 101 can be expected to push to get the most competitive advantage they can, including pushing to benefit from behaving as unethically as they think they can get away with.

The global effort to figure out how to develop a lasting constantly improving future for humanity has its origins many decades ago.

In 1965 the Scientific Advisory Panel to US President L.B. Johnson formally warned about the global warming/climate change impacts of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
The 1972 UN Stockholm Conference formalized the global effort to better understand the required restrictions on the results of competition in Econ 101 and PoliSci 101, including restricting CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
The 1987 UN report "Our Common Future" included the blunt statement that "... We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions".
The most comprehensive presentation of that pursuit of increased awareness and better understanding is the Sustainable Development Goals established by the UN in 2015.

All of that robustly developed better understanding has still failed to stop the unjustified damaging Winning in the games of Econ/PoliSci/Marketing 101 because of the lack of constraint of those activities by Ethics 101.

The real problem is how far things have been allowed to develop in the wrong direction in many of the supposedly 'most advanced regions of the planet - the perceived Winners'. Further development in the wrong direction only makes the required responsible correction larger and more rapid, understandably perceived to be more of a Loss, but incorrectly perceived that way because 'the starting point for the correction' was an increasingly unsustainable and damaging delusion of prosperity and opportunity.

scaddenp at 13:30 PM on 4 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Hmm, just noticed this paper in Nature energy on whether US new oil could survive without subsidies. Definitely considers subsidies that arent specific to FF, but interesting study nonetheless.

One Planet Only Forever at 11:16 AM on 4 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

A fee and dividend plan would indeed be unpopular. And undeniably it alone will not bring about the required rapid termination of excess CO2 creation. But it is undeniably a helpful action.

My MBA training in the 1980s, and life experience as a Professional Engineer, leads me to understand that people trying to be the biggest winners in the competition to benefit from the burning of fossil fuels have developed a massive mistaken perception about burning fossil fuels, incuding the mistaken claims of 'efficiency' based on 'measures of profitability', and including mistaken perceptions of personal prosperity and opportunity.

The future of humanity requires a correction of human activity so thta all of it is truly justifiably sustainable. The 2015 Sustainable Development Goals are undeniably what needs to be achieved for humanity to have a better future.

Fossil fuels are a finite resource that will only get more difficult to decently benefit from. And ultimately it will not be practical for anyone to benefit from the activity.

A new understanding that solidified in the 1960s, and has strengthened since then (with the 2015 SDGs being the latest compilation of the developed awareness and understanding), is that competitions for popularity and profit can be damagingly successfully, being won/misdirected in many ways including through the abuse of deliberately deceptive marketing that exploits triggering anxiety and knowing that many people will 'believe an unjustified claim they emotionally/anxiously respond to' more readily than they will 'accept a better understanding that is contrary to their developed desires/interests'.

nigelj at 09:18 AM on 4 October 2017

Why the 97% climate consensus is important

Scaddenp @4

Agreed. Debates are often won on inflammatory slogans, appeals to emotion, generalisations, cherrypicking,and plain falsehoods, sadly to say, as opposed to facts and reasoned argument. This is particularly the case with talk back radio. Another debating tactic is sophistry.

The frustrating thing is real scientists cannot afford to engage in inflammatory rhetoric or anything that could be interpreted as dishonest, or their jobs could be under threat. And shouldnt anyway of course goes without saying.

In contrast you get certain sceptics who get away with the most incredible falsehoods and inflammatory rhetoric, because they are assured of a job or funding from think tanks lurking in the background. Not naming names or the moderator will have a fit.

Its a most unfair pack of cards, and I dont know the answer, although I think the general public are mostly aware of this, and do make some allowances. Anyway scientists should stick to sound fact based debate I think or it will be chaos. The truth wins in the end.

People do seek out places that confirm their views and yes we are all vulnerable. The internet has amplified this, however I make an effort to look at all sides of debates and find it interesting to explore this.

The internet bubble phenomenon is also now generating fake news, and a real distortion of reality, and the answer is indeed elusive, but I can see most people getting heartily sick of this confusion, nonsense, conspiracy twaddle and and the lack of a solid base of facts, and things may swing back to the centre like the pendulum of a clock. Dont understimate the basic sanity of the silent majority. It can't happen soon enough.

scaddenp at 08:15 AM on 4 October 2017

Why the 97% climate consensus is important

Debates tend to be won by the best debater not the best argument and even if not, you "win" if you make points that appeal to your target audience and can throw doubt on your opponent even if with blatent lies. The problematic bit of our current world is that people choose media sources which give them a reality tailored to their prejudices and a symbiotic relationship sets in which polarizes views. Left and right are equally at fault. Internet makes it worse. I wish I knew the answer. The problem is that reality is not actually a consumer choice and treating it as such bites us.

And I think this comic makes courageously true statements about the problem. Well worth a read.

nigelj at 06:49 AM on 4 October 2017

Inside the Experiment: Abrupt Change and Ice Cores

So the future could bring abrupt climate change. I have a bad feeling that it could. The whole climate system is complex, and hard to fully predict beyond the fact that considerable warming and sea level rise is certain.

But getting beyond feelings, this abrupt change is apparently based on the evidence that ice ages lead to abrupt changes and ice ages are associated with various feedbacks, so warming could lead to abrupt change through feedbacks as well. The nature of the feedbacks is different, but the big thing changing is the direction of travel. Its hard to see why only ice age feedbacks would cause abrupt change but not warming feedbacks. Why would only ice age feedbacks cause instability and abrupt changes?

It's interesting that the sub prime crisis was partly caused by poor application of some statistical distribution functions related to risk and stability (gaussian copulas but im not familiar with these whatever they are). Climate scientists are very meticulous, careful, dedicated people but could there be a mistake in the climate modelling equations somewhere that has missed something related to feedbacks, and potential for abrupt change?

John Hartz at 04:37 AM on 4 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Because the Trump Administration and the US Congress are now discussing possible revisions to the US Tax Code, the isue of fossil fuel subsidies is now a very hot topic. Two more articles of interest were posted today:

Dirty Energy Dominance: Dependent on Denial – How the U.S. Fossil Fuel Industry Depends on Subsidies and Climate Denial by Janet Redman, Oil Change International, Oct 3, 2017

High Oil Subsidies Ensure Profit for Nearly Half New U.S. Investments, Study Shows by Neela Banarjee, InsideClimate News, Oct 3, 2017

Johnboy at 01:35 AM on 4 October 2017

Why the 97% climate consensus is important

I read that as many as 10 times more people watch the network evening news than cable evening news. Particularly the age 50+ demographic, including myself. Cable has more viewing overall because it's there 24/7. FOX gets the biggest share but the others have a fair share to.

Point is, can't there be a way to get some of what we see in these postings and others more regularly out to these audiences, obviously geared to a generally uninformed public. The "it's natural", "climates always changing", "humans couldn't possibly affect nature", etc., etc. needs to be countered, especially for this group of more senior folks. I think it's essential to address the disturbingly low recognition or acceptance of the conscensus. How about the red/blue debate on prime time TV, or is that bridge too far?

John Hartz at 00:00 AM on 4 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Must reading for everyone participating in this discussion of fossil fuel subsidies...

Explainer: The challenge of defining fossil fuel subsidies by Jocelyn Timperley, Carbon Brief, Jun 12, 2017

scaddenp at 13:17 PM on 3 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Bob makes a good case. Perhaps Tom13 could clarify his position by answering:

1/ Does he accept that burning FF creates externalities not included in current price? (ie moving your infrastructure because of sealevel rise is a cost FF is not currently paying). Ie if Tom13 is full on AGW-denier then this discussion is moot.

2/ Does he accept that relative economic efficiency of FF versus renewables could be better assessed if no government subsidies were in play for either?

John Hartz at 12:05 PM on 3 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Another recent article about fossil fuel subsidies...

European countries spend billions a year on fossil fuel subsidies, survey shows by Fiona Harvey, Guardian, Sep 28, 2017

Bob Loblaw at 12:02 PM on 3 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

All of this discussion of what is and is not a subsidy under any particular country's tax law ignores Tom13's unwillingness to acknowledge that a carbon tax corrects for the failure of the economic system to account for externalities.

nigelj at 10:08 AM on 3 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Tom13 @40

Thanks for the details.

" The broader point on the fossil fuel subsidies - is that most of what is labeled as subsidies by various advocacy groups, etc are simply not subsidies by any economic definition. "

No thats not the broader point, that is a narrow point of how subsidies are made up. The broader point is fossil fuels are subsidised, and that it doesn't make much sense economically, and / or in relation to climate change.

"Many of the so-called "tax subsidies" are tax deductions for the cost of doing business. Additionally many of the so-called "tax subsidies" are deductions which are allowable to all industries and are not subsidies carved out to benefit the fossil fuel industries."

So what tom? Some are not, so we are left with tax subsidies specific to the fossil fuel industry at some level.

But fair comment that some of the tax deducations apply to many industries. Its not sensible to include those particular ones.

"There being two exceptions.... "

Thanks for the detail, but I would need to see full souce material to be aure its only two exceptions.

"In summary, most of what the advocates characterize as subsidies are non existent or greatly stretch the true economic definition of a subsidy."

Remember some of the comments made above by various people refer to America which you are describing, and some are considering the global picture. And granted it can be confusing. However I know for a fact some developing countries have big subsidies by any definition of a subsidy, and also some European countries. You appear to be referring to America, and the subsidies in America are complicated to untangle. Thanks for trying to clairfy it. And I agree its absurd to include business tax deductions all business receive.

However a simple search on the internet and in America fossil fuels are subsidised with a combination of essentially direct cash grants and also tax subsidies specific to the fossil fuel industry (as opposed to general business deductions) as follows:

"A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[28] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars)"

Subsidies and tax concessions specific to fossil fuels (not just general business deductions) are certainly around 4 billion each year from the source material.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

Anyway the wider point is the use of subsidies in principle, and not nit picking too much about the exact figure. A bad subsidy is a bad subsidy, regardless of the ammount.

Tom13 at 09:48 AM on 3 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

41 - John

From the citation you provided

Item 1 - IDC - The current year expenses vs capitalization and recovery via cost depletion - Repeal of section 263c is only a timing issue, the so colled subsidy reverses itself in the subsequent years, ie a negative subsidy.

Item 2 percentage depletion in excess of costs basis - this is an actual subsidy which only applies to royalty owners and independent producers, It does no apply to the majors

Item 3 Domestic production deduction - This deduction applies to all manufacturing. It is not unique to the oil and gas industry

Item 4 - 2year amortization of geological and geophysical costs - this like IDC is only a timing issue, It only accellerates the collection of tax, it does not increase or decrease the total tax.

Item 5 6 7 dont work in that area, so I cant comment

Item 8 expensing tertiary costs - This is an operating cost, - calling it a subsidy is absurd.

Item 9 Passive loss limitation - Again - this is only a timing issue. It does not increase or decrease the total tax revenue

Item 10 & 11 are not applicable in the current economic enviroment

Item 12 as previously noted, MLP's have as a rule been losing money since 2014. Due to operating losses, the lost tax revenue is zero.

nigelj at 09:17 AM on 3 October 2017

Why the 97% climate consensus is important

Good article thanks. Consensus is vitally importantant, and we need to know about the consensus. Clearly over 90% of scientists agree we are altering the climate from various studies, and this alone is obviously important, and at least in that it should be getting our strong attention or we are idiots.

Nothing good comes from hiding information, at least not from adults.

This is partly why consensus is important as follows. Consensus at least gives us an indication of where the general thinking is going, and what is most likely to be the correct answer. The general public often struggle with scientific detail and obviously dont have the time to read the detailed science. As a result the first question many people ask is what do the experts think? The general public do this, politicians do this. As part of this process its important to be sure we get the thoughts of a wide range of scientists, and particularly the consensus view. We don't want to be listening to just one dissenting sceptical voice, not realising that voice may be in a minority. We need context, and dont want to get fooled into thinking opinion is divided if it isnt.

If the majority of scientists agree on something, that is cause to at the very least pay attention, while a 50 / 50 split would suggest more work is needed. But it also depends on how serious the threat is, because a very serious threat (like an asteroid heading our way) might suggest even a 50 / 50 split of opinion on the matter should still suggest precautionary action is desirable.

I disagree with the view by Pearce in the Guardian that publicising the consensus view is counter productive. Only had time for a quick scan through the article, but straight away he bases his view that we don't need to publicise the consensus because reasonably good numbers already think climate is changing, its a problem, and we should do renewable energy . Those are correct figures, but omit the fact that only low numbers in America think humans are causing climate change. This is very significant, because this line of thinking will colour the totality of our response to climate change. And the consensus goes right into causation.

However Pearce makes a good point that arguing too much about the exact level of consensus is a waste of time. Ideally we want more awareness of the consensus in the general media, but to avoid getting bogged down to debating exact numbers too much, etc etc.

There are indeed a whole lot of other things to focus on as well as others point out. I agree with JW Rebel the challenge is around dealing with responses and uncertaity of outcomes etc. One thing that may help is much more specific information on how much transitions to renewable energy will cost the averagre person per year in dollar terms (and the data suggests not actually very much). Right now the numbers on this are not front and centre of debate, and are quoted in terms of gdp, which half the population don't even understand or find hard to visualise. Lack of clear, simple information creates uncertainty and fear.

Ian Forrester at 08:28 AM on 3 October 2017

The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change

NorrisM @53

"It just confuses the people you are trying to convince."

It only confuses people who do not want to be convinced. Anyone who even reads a little bit of the accurate and honest information out there, not the dishonest stuff from well known AGW denier sites, will not be cofused with the things you claim to be confused about.

Postkey at 08:13 AM on 3 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

“Energy subsidies are projected at US$5.3 trillion in 2015, or 6.5 percent of global GDP, according to a recent IMF study. Most of this arises from countries setting energy taxes below levels that fully reflect the environmental damage associated with energy consumption. “
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

John Hartz at 07:27 AM on 3 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments