Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 Next
Comments 18201 to 18250:
-
newairly at 14:12 PM on 18 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
Meanwhile emissions in Australia continue to rise, 1.6% in the last quarter and 1% in the past year.
-
nigelj at 14:11 PM on 18 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
Singleton engineer
I agree use of Hydro has probably been constant recently, or more likely dropping. Still its strange that they left an obvious significant source of power out.
I wasnt speculating about the future except to note hydro as pumped storage is an interesting idea. This is storage not an energy source so would never be in the tables and graphs above.
-
SingletonEngineer at 11:45 AM on 18 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
@nigelj and JohnS:
This analysis is about the effects of things that have happened, not what might happen. It is also focuissed on change from the historical trend.
My guess is that hydro in USA has been pretty much constant during the study period, neither adding nor subtracting emissions from the BAU case. Discussion of whether or not additional dams are possible or even probable is not relevant - the fact is that the possibles and probables haven't happened and therefore have had no effect on emissions.
If the same analysis was done for China, the Three Gorges Dam would have an effect, thus would earn a coloured wedge.
The same applies to possible future tidal, wave, geothermal and other sources. Until their contribution is real and significant, it won't show up.
-
nigelj at 08:42 AM on 18 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
John S
Yes it's peculiar why they didn't include information on hydro power. Its certainly low emissions and cost competitive long term.
Perhaps they left it out because most rivers than can be easily used in america are probably already used. The growth areas seem to be wind and solar, as these have lower initial construction costs, and probably less difficulties getting consents. Large dams can be pretty contentious issues environmentally.
Still its not obvious why they left it out.
But pumped storage hydro power has potential.
-
John S at 06:43 AM on 18 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
what about hydroelectricity ..according to Wikipedia it accounted for 282 TWh in 2008?
-
Larry E at 18:42 PM on 17 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
This analysis considers only domestic emissions. Of course there are also embedded emissions in goods we import, and part of the reason for emissions reductions is that a lot of US manufacturing has been moved offshore (also entailing transport emissions for getting goods from there to here). Carbon Brief also published a study on that in July. "Mapped - The world’s largest CO2 importers and exporters," https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-importers-exporters.
-
Swayseeker at 22:43 PM on 16 August 2017In defense of not being serious in climate communication
I see the latest series is on persuading people to cut emissions. This reminded me of a recent "discovery" I made. With more emissions the sky is going to radiate more strongly and I wonder if the modified Swinbank model of night time downward thermal radiation to estimate sky temperature (Tsky) for a clear night sky is not going to have to be adjusted.
Here I would like an opinion on what I have discovered (it could alter perceptions on dew formation and drought in forests): The mechanism is this: Radiation to the sky on cold clear nights and thus radiative cooling of the ground, "dew machines", etc. When the ground, etc, is cooler (from radiating) than the dew point, dew forms. if the sky temperature is less than the temperature of the ground, then the net radiation is to the sky (objects lose heat and temperature declines). If the sky temperature is greater than the ground temperature, then objects heat up at ground level.
I used the modified Swinbank model of night time downward thermal radiation to estimate sky temperature (Tsky) for a clear night sky and also calculated dew point temperature. If Tsky is below dew point temperature (Tdew), then objects can cool below Tdew by radiating to the sky and dew can form. Now look at my graph drawn from my calculations. With air temperature (Tair) and ground below about 7 deg C, objects can radiate to the sky effectively until they have temperature below Tdew. If Tair is greater than about 7 deg C then it seems dew will not readily form because Tsky is greater than Tdew (usually). All the calculations were done for a relative humidity of 95%. The above might be complicated by having a warm cloud or warm rocks, etc, nearby. Now dew forms on clear nights (no cloud). From this site you can check my calculations, using the formula for a cloudless sky: http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut37%20Radiative%20Cooling.pdf I believe you will find what I found - at about 7 deg C net radiation from ground to sky becomes nearly zero. If temperatures increase with global warming, less dew will form in arid areas (if I am correct). The graph is on my Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/Swayseeker -
chriskoz at 09:08 AM on 16 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #32
As if by confirmation of my earlier post about super-warm southern winter:
NASA shocker: Last month was hottest July, and hottest month, on record
-
chriskoz at 08:28 AM on 16 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #32
I've never seen Earth being prtrayed as sexy warrior woman as in today's poster and don't know what to think of it.
I think it feels accurate because the planet is remarkably resilient (far more resilient than the civilisation that wants to destroy its ecosystems) and its long term negative feedbacks (rock weathering) will prevent runaway climate change.
But I don't know what effect that image will have on an average selfish person, especially a silly denier.
Moderator Response:[JH] The woman in the Poster of the Week is Wonder Woman, a famous US comic book hero who has also been portrayed on TV and in movies. It's a good thing to have super heroes defending the Earth.
-
chriskoz at 08:21 AM on 16 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #32
SYD temp 20|C warmer than average, so absurd temps are coming not only to arctic but also elsewhere, in this case even to my backyard.
Deniers will of course say that it's fine to have a warm suthern winter, no matter what the arguments. The arguments being: such anomaly can bring ecological disaster, e.g. vectors of tropical diseases.
-
gws at 06:55 AM on 16 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #30
Here is an article from that week, 28 July, that was missed:
-
nigelj at 06:50 AM on 16 August 2017In defense of not being serious in climate communication
I think humour and a light touch is a good communication tool. We all like a good laugh, so its a point of commonality. Humour unites people and reduces tension.
However playing devils advocate, its frustrating how we have to bend over backwards to get the climate message across, when it can be simply stated that greenhouses gases are causing temperatures to increase, and we know this for reasons a), b) and c). And its already altering global weather patterns, generally for the worse.
How many forms of delivery mechanism does the message need, for goodness sake?
Getting off fossil fuels has something in common with breaking an addiction. Its going to be hard work.
-
Innovater at 07:13 AM on 15 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #29
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
I forgot to add the links to my previous comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qUxjDBY0i0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiLBbBy8BEY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64bWsVUPjo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RBzlyOCdcQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gps8YwlX8Lc&spfreload=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObn2Sk7tVg&spfreload=10 The Little Ice Age
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEzAC89dzgs
Moderator Response:[PS] Please read and abide by comments policy. Especially note the rule on link-only comments. We have no idea what you are trying to say and certainly are not going to waste time looking at videos to find out. I would warn you that if your intention is a gish-gallop of long-debunked myths in video form, then your comment is unacceptable. Make your point on a relevant thread (use search function to find threads) and read the article first. Stick only that point. Certainly provide supporting evidence but peer-reviewed papers are better than videos. use the Link button in the editor to create links - dont expect pasted html to work.
-
knaugle at 04:08 AM on 15 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #29
#1
The 13.3% decline comes from the NSIDC Arctic Sea ice reports for sea ice extent with (I think) at least 15% coverage. So it's area.
NSIDC Report For September 2016
It's in the note to the graph for "September 2016 compared to previous years"
-
Larry E at 03:52 AM on 15 August 2017Citizens’ Climate Lobby - Pushing for a price on carbon globally
sauerj,
Your faith in how the CCL proposal would work in the marketplace continues to be magical thinking.
Also, you asked: "Lastly, if I wanted to help support a cap-only policy, where would I go to help build support? Is there any organized groups that are advocating such a policy so to rally behind? Are there any active lobby groups, or grass-root or grass-top groups that are building coalition for this? Are there any studies to describe its follow-up economic & political impact? ... What gives you a personal sense of confidence that a cap-only policy would practically have any political "legs" both in the now & after implementation?"
I will answer in reverse order. I suggest you read "Any way you slice it: The past, present and future of rationing," a book by Stan Cox (2013). Rationing was supported during WW-II by the populous in both the US and UK because it was necessary and fair. For some materials it was done to limit consumption, and for others to contain prices. So it was fair both in distributing supply and in maintaining broad access through reasonable prices, and by adaptations to avoid black markets. (In the UK such rationing existed into the mid-1950s, as well as other places in Europe.) As far as having "legs," any scheme is going to require a shock in order to be enacted, and we are getting those not infrequently with climate tragedies (Sandy, Katrina, killer heat waves and floods), so the thing is to have an EFFECTIVE plan ready to push to enactment.
Check out The Climate Mobilization (http://www.theclimatemobilization.org/). They have a well thought out plan that includes rationing. All it needs is to build momentum, with more people behind it, and be ready for triggering events to build yet more momentum until it reaches a tipping point for implementation. I suggest humanity's future it would be best for you and other CCL supports to instead put a shoulder into pushing this effort.
Best regards; as you said we both seek the same outcome.
-
wili at 02:21 AM on 15 August 2017Yale Climate Connections: America's beacon of climate science awareness
Thanks for highlighting this excellent group. So far, I have been impressed with pretty much everything I have seen from them and about them.
-
wili at 02:20 AM on 15 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #32
Another horror to add to the next news roundup:
Hundreds buried alive in massive Sierra Leone mudslides and floods
-
nigelj at 18:24 PM on 14 August 2017Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: If I just explain the facts, they'll get it, right?
Tunnely @ 6
All your points make sense.
Heres something I read today posted on another website:
"The reason people dismiss it (climate change) as a problem is because from their perspective they cannot see a problem (or the problem is way off in the future or someone else will cop it), therefore why should they, as they see it, take cuts to their quality of life for no perceptible gain to themselves. Human cognition is terrible at visualising seemingly inivisible threats as a problem, and giving the future any significant value compared to the here and now. This last point is a key issue, people want to enjoy the benefits of capitalism now, and any consequences in the future are of much lower value.
No different to people refusing to give up smoking or excessive drinking, the pleasure they get now outweighs the health consequences (which may or may not happen) in the future. Similar in a way to when drivers pull off dangerous manoevres around cyclists, the driver externalises the risk without consequence, the cyclist takes the consequence if it goes wrong, if an accident does happen the driver will often use any excuse to blame the victim. The climate change and consequences issue is just like that but on a global scale and orders of magnitude more severe."
My comment: You could add some other reasons why people dismiss the science and / or emissions cuts:
1) Worries about job security. Surveys of employees of fossil fuel companies show this.
2) Fear of so called big government.
3) Climate change is a big issue, more mentally challenging than say the ozone hole thing. Some people are probably overwhelmed by it.
4) Fear that emissions cuts could be difficult and economically expensive. Fear of the unknown.
I could go on for pages of reasons. There are as many reasons for climate change scepticism as there are sceptics.
However numbers of these subsets of cynics are slowly declining. Its following other debates like tobacco and evolution.
Pew polls show over 75% of people want more done about climate change in many countries. The trouble is getting the politicians to move, as they are captive to various lobby groups. Perhaps more people should lobby their local politicians directly more, and it would be good if more wealthy philanthropists sympathetic to climate science funded politicians.
-
wili at 15:14 PM on 14 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #32
depending on what values you prefer for methane gw potential, the figure for CO2 equivalence is either a bit below or above 500 ppm. In the latter case, you probably have to go back to some time in the Eocene.
-
scaddenp at 11:46 AM on 14 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
Tom13 - you need to provide some references to support many of your assertions. It is very unclear what is informing your argument.
-
scaddenp at 11:41 AM on 14 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
While the life expectancy argument is suspect, it is undoubtedly true that fossil fuels have benefited the western world in particular over the last two hundred years.
It does not follow however that they should be subsidized or even used rather than alternatives. Should horse-breeding and lively stables been subsidized and protected when petroleum arrived because horses had undoubtly benefited those that used them for thousands of years?
One major problem with climate change is that benefits are largely to the more developed nations whereas vunerability to climate change is highest for those that have used them least.
-
Tunnelly at 10:58 AM on 14 August 2017Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: If I just explain the facts, they'll get it, right?
nigelj @ 1.
You're absolutely right. The key descriptor here is rational sceptic. Those are the people who can be persuaded by methodical sciences. Easy-peasy.
Sometimes though, the really tough nuts to crack, the kind that you described as maybe having a "political reaction" are actually cynics that doubt motives, not sceptics who question methods.
I've had numerous conversations with individuals who could easily come around to admitting the reality of climate change. But they would still refuse to take any action to help combat it.
They would seem to be greatly discomforted by a perception that either:
A) certain interested parties like solar/wind industries, EV car makers, left-wing politicians, etc stood to gain from their contribution and should not be "abetted" (cynical questioning of motives)
or
B) they would somehow disadvantage themselves or be out-competed by those who stuck to business-as-usual ( a kind of social dominance thought structure https://medium.com/@qwertie/psychology-of-climate-denial-276967f179c )
And then beyond the cynics are the straight-up pessimists. They accept the science but simply refuse to think enough can be done about it and to try would be to disadvantage themselves.
However, I do think polling trends throughout the years show that these subsets of cynics and pessimists are a shrinking minority, at best.
-
nigelj at 10:56 AM on 14 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
"Life expectancy increase dramatically from the early 1900's until today for 3 primary reasons, improvements in sanitation, massive leaps in crop yields due primarily from the shift to mechanized farming due in part from the availability of fossil fuels, and a distant third reason is the improvements in health care."
Nonsense. No sources given. I agree with comments at 27. The principal reasons are medical advances, antibiotics, sanitation, hygene, education and housing as below. Crop yields would be a secondary reason, and fossil fuels in last place.
www.nature.com/scitable/content/life-expectancy-around-the-world-has-increased-19786
Who wants to live forever? - Why are people living longer?
Moderator Response:[BW] Edited the 2nd link as it was breaking the page format. Please use the "Insert" tab of the comments box to properly embed links. Thanks!
-
nigelj at 10:27 AM on 14 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
Tom13 @125
"Not sure where to how to respond to your response. I simply commented on why the consumer is the beneficiary of these subsidies, not the FF companies. There is no additional payment to the FF in excess of the revenue from the sale of the product."
Can you please provide some proof of this? A quick look at "energy subsidies" on wikipedia indicates energy companies appear to be in direct recept of payments from the tax payer over and above revenue. In 2013 fossil fuel companies received 3.2 billion in direct subsidies and 0.5 billion for research and development.
I understand some form of tax rebate system also operates. Has this replaced direct subsidies? However while this is not a payment as such, it deprives the tax payer of money that could be spent elsewhere. It is "effectively" still a cost on the public purse and a payment to the fossil fuel company by offsetting their tax bill. So fossil fuel companies benefit and the consumer doesn't benefit.
If you are talking about fossil fuel prices being kept "artificially low", then that is a separate additional form of subsidy. Yes the consumer benefits and producers don't benefit. However such schemes are silly schemes as I discussed above.
Its very hard deciphering what your posts mean.
"There may or may not be merit to assessing costs to the FF companies for the externalities. If such a cost is assessed, then those costs will be passed through to the consumers in the form of higher prices. In either case. the consumer pays those costs on the front end or the back end. Its just not a subsidy to the FF. "
There is plenty of merit. We have already established that, and you have given me no information to make me change my mind.
And only some of the costs would be passed on to consumers as I have already explained. Any carbon tax, or cap and trade scheme, or rule imposed on fossil fuels companies (and any other company) will force them to consider innovating, reducing their emissions, or branching into renewable energy etc. Passing on costs is not easy and could loose them business, so they will consider other options first. If they still decide to try to pass some costs on, the price signal will make consumers reduce reliance on fossil fuels and this is a good outcome.
However a carbon tax on petrol at the pump might required as well. This wont directly hurt producers as much, and the revenue could be returned to the motorist or put into subsidising electric cars etc. It seems a bit more practical to me. Of course its worth considering having both schemes.
I never claimed an externality it was a subsidy to the fossil fuel producer. We are clearly talking different things. Thank.s for the civil discussion.
-
scaddenp at 10:26 AM on 14 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #32
Pliocene - see here for more.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:53 AM on 14 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
I take exception to the "distant 3rd reason" for improved life expectancy being "health care." I have lived on 3 continents and an island, and been in this world for over 50 years. That gave me the opportunity to be vaccinated against small pox, as well as a host of other diseases more commonly immunized against in the Western World.
I would consider public health to include "health care" as it may be understood by Tom 13. I certainly would argue that, in Africa, immunizations and antibiotics are among the very top reasons for increased health expectancy, more so than diet and sanitation. I had a discussion on this very site with a vaccine skeptic, in which I showed that countries that had experienced virtually no improvement in sanitation still benefited from disease eradication with appropriate vaccination campaigns.
Worldwide, life expectancy has increased more from 1950 to the present than it has between 1900 and 1950. I think it suggests also that public health, and its newer tools has played a large role. The major factor in increased health expectancy is the tremendous decrease in infant mortality that has happened across the World. Even in the middle ages in Europe, those who managed to live to age 20 had a life expectancy of up to 60 depending on the period considered (the plague took it down a few notches).
I happen to work in critical care, and the immense majority of the patients I see would die in short order without antibiotics. I argue that the enormous increase in world population we saw since 1950 owes more to vaccines and antibiotics than possibly any other factor, including diet. The industrialization of agriculture has, among other things, made possible an epidemic of type2 diabetes, that is now on its way to become global.
Nonetheless, Tom13's argument almost sounds as suggesting that, because some improvements to our condition were accomplished because of fossil fuels, we should be thankful to them by not phasing them out. This would of course be a completely ridiculous argument. Improvements were made because of fossil fuels. There are now alternative that are not perfect but better and fossil fuels are not a sustainable option by any means. They remain economically attractive only because their full cost is not attached to their consumer price. They must be phased out as quickly as possible to prevent increased cumulative negative effects, some of which have already materialized and are bound to get worse even if we were to phase them out now. There is no rational argument to prevent or delay fossil fuel phase out.
-
william5331 at 08:46 AM on 14 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #32
Surly the present Carbon dioxide levels are greater than for a period far longer than 800,000 years. This implies that at, say 900,000 years they were up to today's levels. 800,000 years doesn't even go back to the beginning of our present ice age(3+m years) during which Carbon dioxide varied from about 185 to 275ppm. The 800,000 year figure is simply the longest ice cores we have. When was the last time that it is believed that atmospheric Carbon dioxide was around 400ppm?
-
scaddenp at 08:10 AM on 14 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
At least you are acknowledging that it is the consumer that is receiving the subsidy, not the fossil fuel companies.
No, even if you established (which you have not), that subsidy is transferred, I was pointing out that no net benefit is established for consumer. You so far seem to be employing convoluted logic in defense of subsidies for reasons I cannot fathom.
-
Tom13 at 07:54 AM on 14 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
#24 - Scaddenp - At least you are acknowledging that it is the consumer that is receiving the subsidy, not the fossil fuel companies.
Whether the fossil fuel should be assessed an additional tax to compensate for the externalities, which would be passed on to the consumers is a different subject. Just pointing out who is actually the beneficiary of these subsidies.
#23 - Nigel - Not sure where to how to respond to your response. I simply commented on why the consumer is the beneficiary of these subsidies, not the FF companies. There is no additional payment to the FF in excess of the revenue from the sale of the product. There may or may not be merit to assessing costs to the FF companies for the externalities. If such a cost is assessed, then those costs will be passed through to the consumers in the form of higher prices. In either case. the consumer pays those costs on the front end or the back end. Its just not a subsidy to the FF.
-
scaddenp at 07:31 AM on 14 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
If the consumers are also "paying" for the subsidies in various way (directly or in poorer health incomes) then that sounds like zero-sum. Except that fossil fuel companies get to compete unfairly against other energy sources. NZ is a place where subsidies are a dirty word for governments of either right or left. Renewable compete easily against FF in such a market.
-
nigelj at 06:56 AM on 14 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
Tom13 @21
"The consumers are the ones receiving the benefit of the subsidies related to the externalities."
You dont know that. You provide no objective study or where subsidies go The benefits of subsidies could equally flow to executive salaries and shareholders pockets, or go into new plant and equipment. In reality its most probably going to be some combination.
For all we know most of them could flow into building the ceo's new swimming pool. Its certainly very unlikely to all benefit consumers in the wider sense of the word.
Either way we should not be encouraging fossil fuels so subsidies make precisely no sense at all.
You would at the very least have to show some cost benefit to the general public from subsidies and that would be very unlikely given the companies have no trouble getting finance in conventional ways, and it would be very hard to ever prove a cost benefit. You have certainly not provided an independent authoritative assessment. This is why sensible countries only subsidise things where theres a commonsense, definable reason as I outlined above, such as helping new businesses that might struggle to get finance.
"If the Fossil fuel companies were assessed the costs of the externalities, then those costs would be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices."
What an incredible assumption. You provide no evidence. Just remember theres a lot of competition in the fossil fuel industry, so passing on costs is not so easy. At the very least its far more probable that a large proportion of the prices would be absorbed internally, and some may be passed on.
However I would agree dumping the problem entirely on fossil fuel companies as a simple tax is not ideal, as at least some will be passed on to consumers. However this is not entirely a problem, as it sends a clear price signal to consumers anyway.
There are many ways of dealing with negative externalities. It may be appropriate for a simple carbon tax on consumers to modify behaviour. The revenue can either go into renewable energy or be revenue neutral.
Cap and trade is another option where it would be harder to pass on costs, but not impossible of course. Simple rule based schemes are better still, as its very hard to pass on costs directly, although scarcity will ultimately push up prices, but again this will modify consumption which is a desired goal.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:24 AM on 14 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
Tom13@21m
You are correct. Not having all externalities fully included in the price of things leads to the development of popularity and profitability for damaging unsustainable activity 'because the less acceptably something can be gotten away with the cheaper or more profitable it is for as long as consumers want to get away with it'.
However, there is actually no way to properly price an activity that has to be completely curtailed before a marketplace developed extinction of the opportunity occurs, other than continuing to increase the price until the activity is ended. The marketplace does not really 'manage resources', it exploits opportunities until the virtual extinction of the opportunity to benefit from the activity (until something cheaper is developed, which is likely to be just another damaging unsustainable way of personally benefiting).
That is a fatal flaw of the economic games. It is why the economic games need rules, restrictions and effective enforcement by people who base acceptability on rational consideration of how to keep people from pusuing personal benefit in ways that can harm other people.
Similar to sports competitions, it is important to 'restrict the freedom of participants who may wish to do as they please and believe what they want regarding acceptable behaviour'. Rules/Restrictions are required to ensure a reasonably decent result, making it more likely that the more deserving competitors/participants are the Winners. And as in sports there is a constant need for new rules and restrictions as the cheaters come up with mew ways of behaving that the existing laws/rules do not address or when, as in the case of climate science, improved understanding is developed regarding what is unacceptable, unsustainable or harmful.
-
Tom13 at 04:26 AM on 14 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
The consumers are the ones receiving the benefit of the subsidies related to the externalities. If the Fossil fuel companies were assessed the costs of the externalities, then those costs would be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
This is no different than food. If the food producers were assessed the cost of disposal, then the food producers would simply add those costs to the price of food.
In essence, it is the consumer that receives the benefit of the subsidies.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:41 AM on 14 August 2017The year Trump was elected was so hot, it was one-in-a-million
citizenschallenge@1,
I blame the ease of impressing people who are tempted to like to hear support for their desired beliefs regarding the actions they want to personally benefit from.
And I think that people who call 'other people who govern themselves by rational consideration of how their actions may negatively impact others, and try to get others to also be more sensibly reason-based considerate people' lefty-liberals are a part of the problem, part of the groups of people that need to have their minds changed or be disappointed by being kept from believeing what they want and doing as they please (and the history of action by groups claiming to be Uniting the Right or Conservatives are clearly more unhelpful than the Left or Liberal groups - the many actions of the current winners of leadership in the USA regarding assistance to the least fortunate and action to reduce the harm done to future generations by climate change caused by allowing careless-carefree people to believe and do as they please are more than ample proof of that.)
-
Digby Scorgie at 09:20 AM on 13 August 2017Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: If I just explain the facts, they'll get it, right?
BBHY @4
You're assuming that your very simple and neat explanation will persuade the deniers, but the point of Dr Hayhoe's presentation is that it won't.
So I suggest you conduct an experiment. Find some deniers and try out your explanation on them. And please let us know the outcome.
-
michael sweet at 07:16 AM on 13 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
Tom13,
The fossil fuel industry tries to defend their pollution by claiming positive benefits. They get supporters to write white papers that make that claim, but they do not submit them to peer review. Presumably they know that their claims will not withstand critical review. I have not seen a peer reviewed study making that claim. All the studies I have seen show very large negative externalities for fossil fuels. Each one seems to add more negatives to previous studies. Please link to peer reviewed studies to support your wild claim that positive benefits of fossil fuels offset a significant fraction of thier negative externalities. I note that you have not linked to any studies that support your claims. Unsupported claims are not convincing. The OP links to substantial peer reviewed data.
Nuclear proponents claim that nuclear kills less people than fossil fuels so it is possible to make a claim of benefits. I have seen several studies by nuclear proponents that claimed externalities for wind and solar so it is possible to do (those studies did not gain much traction).
Your estimate of life lost to fossil fuel pollution is much smaller than those I have seen. Please provide references for your claim.
Wind and solar have very low externalities. It has been shown that wind and solar can power the entire USA at a lower overall cost than fossil fuels when externalities are considered (Jacobson et al and the Solutions Project). Fossil fuels need to show that their benefits exceed the benefits of power from renewable sources.
-
nigelj at 06:57 AM on 13 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
Tom @13
"A few other points regarding these subsidies First - virtually every human activity has externalities. To assign high externalities to fossil fuels but not to other activities is illogical."
Virtually every other human activity does not have externalities. Just google a dictionary definition of "externality" and you get "a consequence of an industrial or commercial activity which affects other parties without this being reflected in market prices, such as the pollination of surrounding crops by bees kept for honey"
Clearly pollution is a classic externality or tragedy of the commons scenario. Air pollution from motor vehicles is an example of a negative externality. The costs of the air pollution for the rest of society is not compensated for by either the producers or users of motorized transport. You therefore need some form of legislation, or resorting to the courts etc but this is not really practical. Legislation requiring appropriate emissions controls is preferable. Sometimes taxes are a solution as well, to pay for costs and encourage desired outcomes.
High externalities are not just assigned to greenhouse gas problems. For example coal power stations have to limit sulphur emissions, automobiles have catalytic converters to filter out various toxic substances. Limits should be put on greenhouse gases, and polluters should also pay with carbon taxes.
"Secondly, it ignores the benefits that fossil fuels provide, lower transpotation costs which translate into lower costs for virtually all goods and services. Renewable energy, while promising remains, much more expensive at this time."
Transportation costs between petrol cars and electric cars are now not that much different. The petrol driven toyota corolla is about $25,000 in America, while an all electric nissan leaf is about $35,000 (without subsidies) but it is much cheaper to run and would pay for itself after about 5 years.
Renewable energy is not "much more expensive". Wheres your eviidence of that?
Wind and solar electricity is now approximately the same cost as coal and gas, and cheaper in some countries. Refer "Cost of electricity by source" on wikipedia. The article documents all source material. Alternatively if you dont like wikipedia, Forbes Magazine, a business publication, has articles finding the same results.
"Third - Life expectancy increase dramatically from the early 1900's until today for 3 primary reasons, improvements in sanitation, massive leaps in crop yields due primarily from the shift to mechanized farming due in part from the availability of fossil fuels, and a distant third reason is the improvements in health care."
Where is your proof of those claims? I dont think improvements in health care would be a 'distant' third reason. Think antibiotics for a start.
But you are just giving a history lessen, and history does not become a permanent template for how society goes into the future. We have substitutes for fossil fuels.
"The study assigns a large subsidized cost to increase in premature mortality to the increase in fossil fuel pollution. While this is very difficult to quantify, most studies estimate the range is somewhere between 23 days to 6 months shorter life due to fossil fuel pollution. However, it should be noted the shorter life expectancy due to pollution pales in comparison the benefits that inexpensive energy has provided to increase life expactancy."
"The main point is that if a study is attempting to quantify "subsidies" from externalities, it needs to include benefits received."Maybe it should. But the science and economics community is basically finding that the risks of fossil fuels to the planet outweigh the benefits. There is an economic literature on this.
In any event your discussion seems beside the point to me. The question is what justification would there be to subsidise fossil fuels? As already explained the arguments are weak. The industry is strong, mature and profitable without subsidies, so has no need of producer subsidies.
Remember subsidies are tax payer money, yours and mine. Every business would love subsidies but it would bankrupt the tax payer. Free markets are supposed to stand on their own feet, and get finance from shareholders and banks etc, this is how capitalism is supposed to work! This is economics 101.
Subsidies should therefore be limited in number and for special cases where theres a genuine "market failure" and this is the general view of the economics profession. In other words things where private enterprise is inherently weak or insufficient. This might include research and development in some cases, war time emergency situations, helping new small businessess get started, or high risk businesses that are essential to the economy. Its hard to see how any of that would apply to wealthy fossil fuel producers.
However subsidies are justifiedd for renewable energy on numerous counts. Clearly it is helping new business get started, and in some cases there is risk, so the subsidies fit the definition of where subsidies should be applied. However wind power is now profitable in many cases even without subsidies so they may not need to be permanent. As a general rule I think subsidies should be time limited, as is common in the countries of south east asia.
Subsidies have their place, if applied to the right things and with some sort of time limits.
-
Tom13 at 05:16 AM on 13 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
A few other points regarding these subsidies
First - virtually every human activity has externalities. To assign high externalities to fossil fuels but not to other activities is illogical.
Secondly, it ignores the benefits that fossil fuels provide, lower transpotation costs which translate into lower costs for virtually all goods and services. Renewable energy, while promising remains, much more expensive at this time.
Third - Life expectancy increase dramatically from the early 1900's until today for 3 primary reasons, improvements in sanitation, massive leaps in crop yields due primarily from the shift to mechanized farming due in part from the availability of fossil fuels, and a distant third reason is the improvements in health care.
The study assigns a large subsidized cost to increase in premature mortality to the increase in fossil fuel pollution. While this is very difficult to quantify, most studies estimate the range is somewhere between 23 days to 6 months shorter life due to fossil fuel pollution. However, it should be noted the shorter life expectancy due to pollution pales in comparison the benefits that inexpensive energy has provided to increase life expactancy.
The main point is that if a study is attempting to quantify "subsidies" from externalities, it needs to include benefits received.
-
LazerBeam at 04:08 AM on 13 August 2017The year Trump was elected was so hot, it was one-in-a-million
If the climate models are rerun with the nonlinear forcing function for carbon dioxide with the centennial resonance obtained by the harmonic sensitivity analysis of climate model output, do the individual probabilities that 2014, 2015 and 2016 would be the hottest on record increase or decrease? ... those three years consecutively?
"Slow climate mode reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate sensitivity
Cristian Proistosescu* and Peter J. Huybers
Science Advances 05 Jul 2017:
Vol. 3, no. 7, e1602821
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1602821
Abstract
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report widened the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) range from 2° to 4.5°C to an updated range of 1.5° to 4.5°C in order to account for the lack of consensus between estimates based on models and historical observations. The historical ECS estimates range from 1.5° to 3°C and are derived assuming a linear radiative response to warming. A Bayesian methodology applied to 24 models, however, documents curvature in the radiative response to warming from an evolving contribution of interannual to centennial modes of radiative response. Centennial modes display stronger amplifying feedbacks and ultimately contribute 28 to 68% (90% credible interval) of equilibrium warming, yet they comprise only 1 to 7% of current warming. Accounting for these unresolved centennial contributions brings historical records into agreement with model-derived ECS estimates."Moderator Response:[PS] See a realclimate write up here.
-
LazerBeam at 01:53 AM on 13 August 2017The year Trump was elected was so hot, it was one-in-a-million
I would rephrase this statement:
"There’s a 0.1%–0.2% chance of 2016 being the hottest on record."
to clarify that the likelihood or probability that the year was the hottest on record could occur as a result of extremes in natural variation is very low, i.e., 1- or 2-in-1000 or 0.1 or 0.2X%. Otherwise, the statement reads like there is only a low percentage that 2016 was the hottest year on record. -
citizenschallenge at 00:15 AM on 13 August 2017The year Trump was elected was so hot, it was one-in-a-million
"Unfortunately, scientific censorship is no longer our main concern."
Agreed, I would suggest general apathy and passivity among the leftie liberal types, and a faith-based determination not to hear a thing or learn a dang thing among the angry right wingers - our our main problem.
It even seems that SkS comments are not near as active and vibrant as they were not too long ago. Burn out and preoccupation with one's own life - does not bode well for our future. I cry for our children.
-
BBHY at 23:05 PM on 12 August 2017Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: If I just explain the facts, they'll get it, right?
I find it's best to express the science in the simpliest possible terms.
CO2 aborbs infrared heat energy. We have known this since John Tyndall did experiments in the 1850's and every experiment since has shown the same thing.
Adding black ink to white paint makes the paint darker. Adding sugar to water makes the water sweeter. Adding stuff that absorbs heat to the air makes the air absorb more heat. When the air absorbs heat, it gets warmer.
This is not some very abstract, hard to grasp concept. It is very similar to things that we see every day, that we are familiar with and understand at an intuitive level.
-
mark15915 at 07:19 AM on 12 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
I just read today (11 August) that the governor of West Virginia has proposed that the federal government subsidize the purchase of Wet Virginia coal. According to theWall Street Journal via the Washington Post:
Jim Justice, the born-again Republican governor of West Virginia, is floating a federal proposal to bail out the struggling Appalachian coal industry at a cost to taxpayers of up to $4.5 billion a year.
As Justice described it to the Wall Street Journal, under the proposal, the federal government would pay out $15 to eastern power companies for each ton of Appalachian coal they purchase.
-
Daniel Bailey at 03:28 AM on 12 August 2017They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
To follow up on MA Rodger's sage point, the impacts of the burning of fossil fuels, including the usage of the phrase climate change, were discussed in a report to the President of the US as far back as...
...(drumroll please)...
...1965 (page 113).
-
MA Rodger at 01:54 AM on 12 August 2017They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
Doradus @20,
You have hit on a very interesting piece of evidence by considering the frequency of google searches. But I fail to see why you consider this points to a switch in 2014 in the media? Firstly, the myth is far older than 2014. Note that this SkS OP dates from January 2011. And secondly, if you extend your google search data back to the start of the data (2004), the evidence shows the term "Global Warming" was by far the more popular term used in searches but began to slowly decline from that dominant position from 2007, while the term "Climate Change" has been the subject of increasing use in google searches from the start of the data in 2004. Note the two terms when used in the search "What is ..." still gives "Global Warming" the edge in popularity.
-
Doradus at 22:08 PM on 11 August 2017They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
I feel like you may be letting your skepticism get in the way of providing a useful answer here.
If you assume "they" refers to news media, it's hard to miss the fact that they switched around 2014 from the term "global warming" to "climate change" to mean roughly the same thing. I couldn't find any direct evidence of this, but you can see the effect in people's Google searches over the last five years:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=global%20warming,climate%20change
I think this is an interesting phenomenon and would like to understand why the news media swtiched to "climate change".
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:01 AM on 11 August 2017It's methane
Now let's examine the literature on Arctic seabed clathrate/methane emissions:
"the observed increase in temperature does not lead to a destabilization of methane-bearing subsea permafrost or to an increase in methane emission. The CH4 supersaturation, recently reported from the eastern Siberian shelf, is believed to be the result of the degradation of subsea permafrost that is due to the long-lasting warming initiated by permafrost submergence about 8000 years ago rather than from those triggered by recent Arctic climate changes"
And
"A significant degradation of subsea permafrost is expected to be detectable at the beginning of the next millennium. Until that time, the simulated permafrost table shows a deepening down to ~70 m below the seafloor that is considered to be important for the stability of the subsea permafrost and the permafrost-related gas hydrate stability zone"
Berndt et al 2014 - Temporal Constraints on Hydrate-Controlled Methane Seepage off Svalbard
"Strong emissions of methane have recently been observed from shallow sediments in Arctic seas...such emissions have been present for at least 3000 years, the result of normal seasonal fluctuations of bottom waters"
"We find that, at present, fluxes of dissolved methane are significantly moderated by anaerobic and aerobic oxidation of methane"
And
"Our review reveals that increased observations around especially the anaerobic and aerobic oxidation of methane, bubble transport, and the effects of ice cover, are required to fully understand the linkages andfeedback pathways between climate warming and release of methane from marine sediments"
And
"a recent study [the earlier mentioned paper by Dmitrenko et al in 2011] suggests that degradation of subsea permafrost is primarily related to warming initiated by permafrost submergence about 8000 yr ago, rather than recent Arctic warming"
"Methane gas released from the Arctic seabed during the summermonths leads to an increased methane concentration in the ocean. But surprisingly, very little of the climate gas rising up through the sea reaches the atmosphere.
As of today, three independent models employing the marine and atmospheric measurements show that the methane emissions from the sea bed in the area did not significantly affect the atmosphere."
Ruppel and Kessler 2017 - The interaction of climate change and methane hydrates
"The breakdown of methane hydrates due to warming climate is unlikely to lead to massive amounts of methane being released to the atmosphere"
And
"not only are the annual emissions of methane to the ocean from degrading gas hydrates far smaller than greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere from human activities, but most of the methane released by gas hydrates never reaches the atmosphere"
To sum, the vast majority of warming land-based permafrost GHG emissions are in the form of carbon dioxide, due to natural factors that help break down any methane releases into various components plus carbon dioxide (methane is much less stable than carbon dioxide).
Similarly, the vast majority of gases expelled from degrading seabed methane clathrates are oxidized in the water column and do not reach the surface. Further, much of what we do measure in the form of existing releases are traced to the much longer warming present earlier in the Holocene. And that these same clathrates survived earlier interglacials, wherein global temperatures exceeded those of today...for millennia. So they are actually pretty stable.
-
Daniel Bailey at 05:55 AM on 11 August 2017It's methane
The remainder can be split into 2 buckets: Terrestrial (land-based) carbon sources and Marine (maritime-based) carbon sources.
Land-based permafrost is indeed melting, reducing in both area and volume. However, the vast majority of carbon emissions from those land-based melting permafrost areas are in the form of carbon dioxide, not methane.
There is an extensive amount of published research on the subject of GHG emissions from warming land-based permafrost and the possible releases from seabed methane clathrates in the Arctic. Let's look at land-based warming permafrost GHG emissions first...
"Climate change and permafrost thaw have been suggested to increase high latitude methane emissions that could potentially represent a strong feedback to the climate system. Using an integrated earth-system model framework, we examine the degradation of near-surface permafrost, temporal dynamics of inundation (lakes and wetlands) induced by hydro-climatic change, subsequent methane emission, and potential climate feedback.
We find that increases in atmospheric CH4 and its radiative forcing, which result from the thawed, inundated emission sources, are small, particularly when weighed against human emissions. The additional warming, across the range of climate policy and uncertainties in the climate-system response, would be no greater than 0.1° C by 2100.
Further, for this temperature feedback to be doubled (to approximately 0.2° C) by 2100, at least a 25-fold increase in the methane emission that results from the estimated permafrost degradation would be required.
Overall, this biogeochemical global climate-warming feedback is relatively small whether or not humans choose to constrain global emissions."
And, as the Gao et al paper I linked to notes, CH4 from permafrost will drive an expected temperature increase by 2100 of about 0.1 C. Schaefer et al 2014 now calculates a total temperature rise contribution from ALL permafrost carbon stocks (CO2 AND CH4) by 2100 of about 0.29 ± 0.21 (0.08-0.5 C).
Schaefer et al 2014 - The impact of the permafrost carbon feedback on global climate
Per Schuur et al 2015, an abrupt permafrost climate feedback is unlikely, according to the experts, but the bad news is that the already difficult task of keeping warming under 2°C becomes much harder once we face up to the consequences of Arctic permafrost feedbacks.
"Data show no sign of methane boost from thawing permafrost"
And
"Decades of atmospheric measurements from a site in northern Alaska show that rapidly rising temperatures there have not significantly increased methane emissions from the neighboring permafrost-covered landscape"
-
Daniel Bailey at 05:47 AM on 11 August 2017It's methane
"more data on arctic methane releases, including the Siberian methane explosions"
Here you go:
-
DennisMyers at 03:42 AM on 11 August 2017It's methane
I would like to see this updated with more data on arctic methane releases, including the Siberian methane explosions, as well as the methan hydrate outgassing from the ocean floor. I want to know how soon we might reach the point where the amount of methane already released would cause enough warming to ensure the release of all the frozen sources.
Prev 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 Next
