Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 Next
Comments 18451 to 18500:
-
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.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:29 AM on 11 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
Splitting hairs on what is or is not a subsidy distracts from the important stuff. The only reason fossil fuels are as profitable as they are is their externalized costs. If even only the current total costs of climate change and fossil fuel exploitation were to be attached to their cause, fossil fuel extraction, transformation and burning would all have to make serious adjustments, the kind that can prompt investors to take their bucket and shovel and go play in another sandbox.
The invasion of the New York subway by salt water, the toppled levees in New Orleans, the defenses now necessary in Miami, the increased frequency of extreme dry and wet events, all these are externalized costs of fossil fuel burning. Then of course, there is the complete destruction of the landscape in Athabasca, filling valleys with toxic sludge in West Virginia, spills, respiratory illnesses, etc. Even when courts attribute responsibility in catastrophic events, the consequences for the responsible corporations are very small, delayed, diluted; the consequences for the individuals who were instrumental in the decisions leading to catastrophic events are non existent. All these costs, however, do not go away; in fact they tend to pile up; they will become more and more apparent, more expensive, and more varied as time goes by.
The fact that any subsidy of any kind would be granted to an industry that is beyond mature, and generates such enormous profits, has no rational explanation.
Meanwhile, the mass extinction marches on. The reality is quite simple: there is no long term future for humans on this planet that does not include the eradication of global, industrial scale fossil fuel burning, one way or another. Even if we were to take all the coal, gas and oil out of the ground, it would run out after a few hundred years, a thousand at most, a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. How painful the transition away from fossil fuels is depends to a large extent on how long we wait to start.
-
MA Rodger at 07:04 AM on 10 August 2017Medieval Warm Period was warmer
It might be worth pointing out to commenter J Doug Swallow that while he may feel he is justified @243 in accusing Mann of falsifying work, the authors he cites in support of an such egregious accusation are not in any way supportive of the J Doug Swallow position. Four of the five authors of the paper he cites Viau et al (2002) are also the authors of Viau et al (2006) which considers the Mann 'hockey-stick' compatable with its own findings, stating "The results are remarkably similar, in spite of the different methods and proxies employed in these studies (Figure 6). This provides further evidence that our North American temperature reconstruction is reasonable and also representative of a large region of the Northern Hemisphere."
More recently two of the authors published Viau et al (2012) which surely supports the contention of this SkS OP as it kicks off its conclusions stating "The pollen-based paleoclimate reconstructions show that warmer conditions during the MWP and cooler in the LIA were all nevertheless cooler than the 1961–1990 base period, and this result emerges even without comparing the results to the instrumental record."
The other two papers cited by commenter J Doug Swallow are similarly inappropriate as support for his contentions.
Moderator Response:[PS] I strongly doubt Swallow is reading the material he is citing - more likely just repeating something from a denier site somewhere. I'd guess Co2Science.org given the sites perchance for claiming papers says opposite to what they really do, confident that their readership will not check. They have misrepresented Viau in the past.
-
nigelj at 06:22 AM on 10 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
Tom @13,
"The paper never identifies a direct subsidy, nor does it quantify any direct subsidy nor does provide any data to support the computation of the direct subsidy[ies] the study claims the fossil fuel industry receives."
Perhaps the paper didnt "identify" any direct fossil fuel subsidies because this information is easy enough to find, and they are not in the business of providing a long list of data. For example look up "energy subsidies" on wikipedia, under the entry for America, and you will see a highly detailed breakdown from Terry M Dinnan, senior advisor to the congressional budget office, for 2013. Yes I know its wikipedia, but original references are provided for this information.
The article covers some other countries including Russia and Europe. One suspects in some other cases it would have to be estimates as governments can be secretive at times.
However the point is it took me literally seconds to find this information, and quickly scan through it, just the first google hit that came up, and there were plenty of reputable looking articles on fossil fuel subsidies. On that basis I have no real reason to doubt the methods and numbers in the original article. Clearly some is likely to be estimates for some countries, but the information for the USA appears easilly accessible.
-
J Doug Swallow at 02:11 AM on 10 August 2017Medieval Warm Period was warmer
From recent experience on this site and dealing with this topic "How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?" I'm sure that neither Daniel Bailey & doug_bostrom will believe that this information below pertains to the Medieval Warm Period and, if not, they should tell me why it does not.
Since Michael Mann felt that he could get away with using falsified tree ring observations from two trees in Siberia to make his hockey stick graph when pollen records show something very different.
Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
Abstract: "Times of major transitions identified in pollen records occurred at 600, 1650, 2850, 4030, 6700, 8100, 10 190, 12 900, and 13 800 cal yr B.P., consistent with ice and marine records. We suggest that North Atlantic millennial-scale climate variability is associated with rearrangements of the atmospheric circulation with far-reaching influences on the climate."
<http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/5/455>Climate Change Froze the Vikings Out of Greenland, Say Scientists
''What’s the News: Climate change may have sparked the demise of early Viking settlements in Greenland, according to a new study published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, when temperatures cooled rapidly over several decades. Around the time the Vikings disappear from the island’s archaeological record, temperature appears to have plunged. Nor were the Vikings the only people in Greenland whose fortunes rose and fell with the average temperature, the study suggests. Earlier cold spells may have played a role in the collapse of two previous groups on the island.''
<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/05/31/climate-change-froze-the-vikings-out-of-greenland-say-scientists/>
While we are dealing with the Vikings, may be either Daniel Bailey & doug_bostrom can inform me of how this information is off topic.
The farm under the sand
Researcher challenges conventional thinking on disappearance of Viking community
"The Norse arrived in Greenland 1,000 years ago and became very well established," says Schweger, describing the Viking farms and settlements that crowded the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland for almost 400 years.
"The Greenland settlements were the most distant of all European medieval sites in the world," said Schweger. "Then the Norse disappear, and the question has always been: what happened?"Cross-sections of the GUS soil show the Vikings began their settlement by burning off Birch brush to form a meadow. Over the next 300 to 400 years, the meadow soil steadily improved its nutritional qualities, showing that the Greenland Vikings weren't poor farmers, as McGovern and others have suggested. "At GUS, the amount of organic matter and the quality of soil increased and sustained farming for 400 years," says Schweger. "If they were poor farmers, then virtually all the farming in North America is poor farming."
<https://sites.ualberta.ca/~publicas/folio/38/16/03.html>''We find that major temperature changes in the past 4,500 y occurred abruptly (within decades), and were coeval in timing with the archaeological records of settlement and abandonment of the Saqqaq, Dorset, and Norse cultures, which suggests that abrupt temperature changes profoundly impacted human civilization in the region. Temperature variations in West Greenland display an antiphased relationship to temperature changes in Ireland over centennial to millennial timescales, resembling the interannual to multidecadal temperature seesaw associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation. ''
<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/23/1101708108.abstract>Moderator Response:[JH] Antogonisitc sloganeering snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
[PS] Just for further clarity, simply repeating long-debunked myths, especially those dealt with in the main article, without providing supporting new evidence is sloganeering. At the moment, it seems you have simply skimmed (at best) the article rather than studying the arguments and source material, then launched in with already debunked arguments. If you are going to make any sensible contribution here, then spend some time understanding the evidence and science.
-
J Doug Swallow at 01:48 AM on 10 August 2017Medieval Warm Period was warmer
"[DB] One would think that in the 5 years since your last participation here that you'd have learned to comport your comments better with this venue's Comments Policy. Simply copy/pasting up a paper from years ago selected at seeming random with no cogent context of your own added is just sloganeering (snipped)."
I became aware 5 years ago that unless a comment comported without a doubt with the message that you were trying to push, it would end up like this one that I sent your way.This is what I have found and if it doesn't meet your standards that is because you have no interest in discovering what the truth is if it contradicts your forgone, unsubstituted conclusions. It appears from your uninformative reason why my comment didn't "comport" to your very dodgy Comments Policy, that in your mind, when you say; "a paper from years ago", that you are now saying that valid scientific evidence backed up by the Earth Sciences department at Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, The American Geophysical Union & Harvard University has a shelf life and if it exceeds a certain time frame it is deemed invalid.
After going over more of the comments I now see what type of comment "comports" to your rigorous standards.
MrN9 at 00:23 AM on 26 April, 2015 "Glenn Tamblyn and DSL. What my point is that what is being discussed here is the wrong "myth". It's not about people thinking: "The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made." ... People think something more like... "Oh look, people who talk about global warming pick and choose the data which they tell us about, and omit that which does not support their view so as to make their own view sound more convincing". Exactly how warm or not the MWP may or may not have been is irrelevant. Most will never understand the complexities of the issues, this is about trust…"
The wealth of information to be derived from the above comment is truly astounding, wouldn't you say, [DB]?
Now for one of my comments that did not comport.
SAO/NASA ADS Physics Abstract Service
An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula
Lu, Z.; Rickaby, R. E.; Kennedy, H.; Pancost, R. D.; Shaw, S.; Lennie, A. R.; Wellner, J. S.; Anderson, J. B.
That this report has Affiliation with (I will not show the long list of scientific organizations affiliated with this study, Skeptical Science, for obvious reasons, is not mentioned)
Publication Date: 12/2011
"Our interpretation, based on ikaite isotopes, provides additional qualitative evidence that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were extended to the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic Peninsula."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFMPP51A1819L
This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.
<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012E%26PSL.325..108L>I'm not sure if in this case who [DB] is. I am guessing that it is doug_bostrom. I like it in these kinds of discussions when people have enough confidence in their believes to use their real names.
Moderator Response:[JH] Moderation complaint & sloaganeering snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
John S at 01:44 AM on 10 August 2017Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: If I just explain the facts, they'll get it, right?
whereas having being explained the science may not be sufficient it may nevertheless be necessary because I've heard many say something like "no-one has ever given me any evidence that .." and that could well be true .. there is a lot about climate change in the media but rarely do you see a simple explanation along the lines of the videos at How Global Warming Workshttps://gse.berkeley.edu/less-minute which I used to good effect (I think) in my Toastmasters Club
-
michael sweet at 01:20 AM on 10 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
Tom13,
All the IPCC projections are completely reasonable. The recently released US climate assessment (draft) says that scientists (that is the IPCC) are more likely to underestimate warming than to overestimate it. Trump is trying to get other countries to use more oil. That cannot help reduce CO2 emissions. CO2 concentrations are currently a little higher than the 8.5 scenario. The 4.5 scenario is looking like a best case analysis.
To answer your question: A projected temperature that relies on an IPCC projection is by defination a reasonable estimate. In contrast, a posting on the internet usupported by any evidence is unreasonable.
You are denying the reality of the situation. You have provided no data to support your wild claims (as usual). It is sloganeering to repeat arguments without any supporting evidence.
-
Tom13 at 22:49 PM on 9 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #31
#11 Michael - you post the graph from rcp 8.5 in support of the defense of a rate of warming 2x (or more ) than the current rate of warming.
Isnt rcp 4.5 far more reasonable and likely projection. Rcp 8.5 is the ICcp high end assumption which has its share of problematic assumptions, population growth on the high end, increased use of coal, virtually no technological advances, etc, all of which are contrary to global trends.
Back to my original question
Are either of those projected rates of warming even close to a reasonable estimate."
Try to answer without resorting to the most unlikey iccp projection
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory tone snipped.
-
Tom13 at 22:36 PM on 9 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
First - thanks to Ian above for providing an actual link to the paper. (vs guardian article). With access to the actual paper, we can review the assumptions/computations etc in the study.
From #13 Stevecarson
William,
I've already given this number, back in comment 6. It's from the paper. Globally $18bn, or 0.4% of the headline number.
I have to go with William on this one - doing a word search for subsidy, subsidies, direct, direct subsidies, etc, The paper never identifies a direct subsidy, nor does it quantify any direct subsidy nor does provide any data to support the computation of the direct subsidy[ies] the study claims the fossil fuel industry receives.
-
stevecarsonr at 21:08 PM on 9 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
William,
I've already given this number, back in comment 6. It's from the paper. Globally $18bn, or 0.4% of the headline number.
-
william5331 at 19:32 PM on 9 August 2017Underground magma triggered Earth’s worst mass extinction with greenhouse gases
This would seem to fit with the dinosaur extinction event. Apparently the asteroid crashed through layers of limestone and gypsum which not only released Carbon dioxide but oxides of sulphur which would have shaded the earth for a while adding a double whammy. Once more the effect of a primary cause effecting carbon rich layers.
-
william5331 at 19:15 PM on 9 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
Ignoring for the moment externalities, I wonder what the direct subsidies are. That is to say tax relief direct grants and allowances and so forth. Attacking these would be a good way to start as they are more blatant and easier to identify. Externalities such as health costs would come next. A shame to spread the effort too thinly. Find one direct subsidy and go for that one.
-
nigelj at 12:46 PM on 9 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
J Doug Swallow @9
The five trillion is for global subsidies, not just America. America spends about one trillion anually on energy in total, so it could not possibly be for america.
Fossil fuels in America get various subsidies including direct subsidies not apparent in your chart. Renewable energy is subsidised in America with some sort of tax rebate scheme. Yes Warren Buffet will invest in whatevers profitable. Thats what investors do, so theres nothing negative in him doing this, its supply and demand at work.
Just imagine if oil and coal subsidies were spent to subsidise renewable energy. How much sensible that would be.
In fact things have changed in America the last couple of years and wind power is almost the same cost as gas and coal even without subsidies as below.
-
michael sweet at 09:56 AM on 9 August 2017Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
To those above who doubt that fossil fuels are subsidied as much as the OP claims:
This Forbes article claims that 15,000 people in the USA and 500,000 are killed every year from coal pollution alone. What is the vlaue of their lives? That is a subsidy of the coal industry. It costs $300-800 billion to treat the health issues caused coal (the hosptalizations of the people who eventually and the medical care of the people who survive). These include lung issues from particulate pollution, lung issues from sulfate aerosols, mercury poisoning, miners killed and many others. (I have seen lower estimates of health costs of only $100 billion per year elsewhere). Metal roofs that last 40-50 years in Florida only last 15 years near coal burning power plants.
Virtually all of the freshwater lakes in the USA are polluted with mercury from coal plants. This lowers the value of fishing tourist visits. Coal pays nothing to the businesses it bankrupts from their pollution. That is a subsidy to fossil fuels. The list goes on and on if you read the reports.
If you want to challenge the OP you need to cite a reference that supports your wild claims. I note that the doubters have not cited a source of data to support their argument, they just argue from incredulity because they do not know the facts. It appears to me that the people who are making those claims have not bothered to do thier homework and are only counting direct monetart subsidies when the OP clearly states that the majrity of subsidies are issues like pollution damage and health affects. Any analysis that does not include the health cost of fossil fuel pollution is not a serious evaluation of the subsidy given to fossil fuels.
How much is your life worth if you are one of the people who dies 10 years early from exposure to fossil fuel pollution? I count my life as worth a lot more than the current value which is zero dollars. Renewable energy does not have this issue, they are essentially non-polluting.
Prev 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 Next
