Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 Next
Comments 28301 to 28350:
-
macoles at 15:04 PM on 7 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
Only just noticed the "Coal-Fired Mercury Polluton" on the industrialist, so I guess that makes it 20% envionmental 80% unhelpfully divisive (5 separate issues presented). My point stands though, if I as a progressive reader misunderstood the context, then what is a conservative reader to make of it?
Moderator Response:[JH] My apologies to you for accidentallly deleting your prior comment. I will repost the text.
-
John Hartz at 14:45 PM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
@ Ryland #25:
You state:
Both China and India concentrated on providing energy via coal fired power stations. They chose coal because it was the cheapest option. In both countries coal fired power stations still provide the bulk of the energy needs.
At what cost to their respective environments, especially clean air?
At what cost to the Earth's climate system?
-
scaddenp at 14:35 PM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
" As for anecdote I have no idea what you mean" - you responded with anecdote as to your own living position as opposed to data on how to have clean coal.
Anyway, since you are keen for developing world to have cheap energy, are you then ready for developed world to ditch FF so they can?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:04 PM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
Ryland,
I have been reviewing this discussion and have a different perspective about the benefit of burning fossil fuels.
I am an avid supporter of providing assistance to the least fortunate. But the assistance must rapidly develop their ability to independently live a decent lasting lifestyle. That means the assistance is totally charitable, with no expectation of a personal return benefit for the person providing the assistance. And the person providing the assistance needs to seriously strive to rapidly 'work themselves out of that job'.
Essentially my view is that the least fortunate must be helped to rapidly transition up to a decent life that can continue to be enjoyed by all in the future generations. And they need to be helped by 'all of the already more fortunate'. And I also believe that a robust diversity of the ways of living is very important. So how the poorest develop to live should be the lasting sustainable way that best fits the location they are in (or they are allowed to, and assisted to, freely move to whatever location they wish - no borders - no barriers).
From that perspective burning fossil fuels would need to be used for a very restricted rapid transition to lasting ways of living decently. The understood harm of burning fossil fuels and the fundamental unsustainability of burning up non-renewable resources clearly mean it must only be a transition technology with the shortest possible duration (in spite of potential profitability or popularity). As has already been mentioned by others, in many cases the best assistance for the least fortunate would not even involve passing through a stage of benefiting from fossil fuels.
You are correct, popularity for the cheap and profitable ways that the most fortunate got accustomed to getting away with will make the required change of attitude a daunting task. It isn't daunting because of the inability for it to happen. It is daunting because of the lack of interest among all of the most fortunate to do what they all understand needs to be done.
Any already reasonably well off person should by now not be obtaining any further benefit from burning any fossil fuels, not even natural gas. So the pressure needs to be on 'all of them' to start behaving responsibly as a duty of being wealthy.
25 years ago what was required to be done was clearly understood by every wealthy powerful person on the planet. The efforts to discredit the understanding and to plant seeds of doubt have been ramped up by the worst among the wealthy and powerful. Many people have written about the campaigns against better understanding what is going on and have provided extensive examples of the unaccpetable efforts of those people. And it is easy to understand why moderately fortunate people immersed in entertainment or some other distraction are easlily impressed by the efforts of those wanting to discredit the developing understanding of what is going on and the required changes (or develop a misguided belief that supporting the benefiting from burning of fossil fuels by already fortunate people will help the less fortunate).
The key required change is simply the leadership by 'all of the most fortunate' to live and profit in ways that are truly totally sustainable, ways that all others can develop to match if it interests them to strive to live that way. That means that none of the already fortunate should be making any profit or be obtaining any benefit from burning fossil fuels. They have all had 25 years to work towards that. Only a few have seriously tried, and they are fighting against the competetive advantage obtained by the deliberate laggards who knowingly have changed as little as possible. And the worst among that group have deliberately abused their wealth and power as much as they thought they could get away with.
The reluctance of some wealthy powerful people to embrace the obligation and responsibility that is clearly required of them is the real problem. And lines of questioning like yours and the claims about what should be allowed to continue because it supposedly would help the poor is a poor excuse for the unacceptable inexcusable attitude of some of the wealthy and powerful. The poor do need help, and many among the most fortunate are only interested in helping in ways that they can personally profit from. And the worst among the most fortunate are not even interested in profiting from helping the poorest the best way they can be helped if it would be more profitable for them to claim to be helping the poor while doing something less helpful, or worse yet while benfiting from doing something that is actually going to be harmful to the poorest.
That is my truthful comment that I understand will be difficult for some to accept.
-
ryland at 13:51 PM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
scaddenp Whatever I write adds nothing to the debate. As for anecdote I have no idea what you mean. To truly elaborate etc etc is to truly elaborate on something I did not say. I know the provison of clean air is influenced by the amount of fossil fuel in the vicinity but I specifically did not say that.
John Hartz You write "for one more time" then proceeed to ask a completely different question. Energy should be cheap so that industries can grow and in so doing provide wealth to the nation. Both China and India concentrated on providing energy via coal fired power stations. They chose coal because it was the cheapest option. In both countries coal fired power stations still provide the bulk of the energy needs.
Whether the other items should be cheap or not is a red herring. They should be available to all and they're not. Can you not see that what we in the developed world take for granted as the most basic necessities of life would be considered by those living in many developing countries as luxury beyond the dreams of avarice? If you cannot then there is nothing further I can say to you on this.
-
John Hartz at 13:51 PM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
Here's an impressive example of an African agressively moving forward with sustainable energy...
Kenya’s New Wind Farm Will Provide Nearly One Fifth Of The Country’s Power by Ari Philips, Climate Progress, July 6, 2015
-
dvaytw at 11:58 AM on 7 July 2015In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
Thank you, Tom. Unfortunately I think the same point can be made regarding the decline in gas consumption itself (see #2 above).
And #3 above is to me the kicker, in any case. If gas consumption is back up, it suggests that people have just shrugged their shoulders and adapted to the new price regime.
-
climatesight at 10:32 AM on 7 July 2015Cracking the mystery of the corrosive ocean
The definition of "corrosive" means that calcium carbonate (CaCO3) ions are undersaturated in the ocean, so sedimentary CaCO3 will keep dissolving until saturation is achieved. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with pH.
-
John Hartz at 10:15 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
Ryland:
Let's go over this one more time. You stated:
Other luxuries are clean water, food, housing sanitation, medicines and cheap energy.
You obviously believe that the "luxury" item, energy should be "cheap."
Should the other "luxury" items you have listed also be "cheap?"
If not, why not?
-
PhilippeChantreau at 09:30 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
Incidentally Ryland, I have lived on 3 different continents (including Africa) and an island. I have a very good notion of what constitutes luxury in this world, and an acute perception of the the reality of the every day living conditions in the majority of said world. It is rather outrageous that basic necessities are such a luxury in some parts, while in others luxury means delirious extravagance. Advocates of unabated FF use do not show how things are going to in fact get better that they have been until now with the status quo. Surely nobody would suggest we continue doing eactly the same and expect different results, right?
-
scaddenp at 09:29 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
Ryland - you replied with anecdote and frankly with a contribution that adds absolutely nothing to the debate. Would France still have its clean air and water (on the whole, as opposed to in selected places) if it generated its electricity from FF?
I did misread your comment (reading "developed" for "developing"). I do agree that developing world should be allowed to continue to burn FF (but that they should kill the subsidies since it promotes unsustainable development) and that to make that possible , the western world needs to reduce FF consumption by about 85% - and I think a carbon tax is probably the best way to get that happenings.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 08:44 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
"I hope that is sufficient elaboration."
Not really. France burns FF mainly for transportation or residential heating, as its electricity generation is mostly from Nuclear. In rural areas, the burning of FF for transportation and heating remains at low concentrations and has naturally a lower adverse effect on air quality. In urban areas, the use of FF for transportation is a problem, as shown by the dismal air quality seen in Paris. Even some rural areas experience terrible air quality if the traffic is concentrated enough, as is the case in the Vallee de L'Arve, which suffer awful air quality because of the traffic caused by the Tunnel du Mt Blanc.
To truly elaborate, one would have to say that burning fossil fuels does not preclude clean air, provided the burning is limited to small scale point sources that are separated by large enough distances. In the case of large industrial sources, air quality is negatively impacted in close proximity to the source over an area much larger than the direct vicinity of the source, and air quality down wind from the source can be negatively affected over hundreds of miles. Complete elaboration would lead to the conclusion that the burning of fossil is compatible with satisfying air quality in a narrow subset of circumstances far different from real conditions.
-
ryland at 07:44 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
scaddenp Try reading what John Hartz asked me to do. I did as asked which was to explain a comment. You may not like what I wrote but it is correct as you yourself have acknowledged. Burning fossil fuels does not preclude having clean air and water. And France generates 75% of electricity by nuclear power while Australia has no nuclear capacity.
And as for my comment about the developing world I'm not saying anything about them being slow and stupid, those are your words not mine. What I was saying is what has been said by developing nations at various conferences on climate change. As you may or may not know subsidy for fossil fuels is high in the developing world (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27142377)
-
scaddenp at 06:58 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
"Similarly those in the developing world will not accept they should be denied their use of fossll fuels to generate cheap energy because it will impact on their standard of living."
So you are just saying people are stupid short term thinkers? Maybe, but hopefully we can convince enough to be better. To me, the Greeks are voting against short term painful reform in favour of purely imaginary alternative. Just like those refusing to give up FF. I suspect the Greeks are going to find what they have voted for a future which is a great deal more painful.
You keep emphasing "cheap" - but levelized costs of alternatives dont look that bad to me. A realistic carbon tax might raise electricity bills by 16% short term, but hey you get tax relief from that and killing subsidies on FF.
You are living in France - well only 8% of electricity in France is from FF. Nice isnt it? Not much FF burnt in the Indian ocean so that helps keeps air clean in Albany and Exmouth, while Albany windfarm generates enough electricity to meet 80% of Albany's needs.
-
ryland at 05:59 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
John Hartz
My apologies. In my answer regarding clean air and water I completely forgot to include deep wells which have been and still are a source of clean water in many rural communities world wide even if the countries where those wells are burn coal.
-
ryland at 05:53 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
CB Dunkerson at 22 You comment that "In short, your entire premise is built on a false assumption. Coal is no longer 'cheap energy'.
I suggest you may have misinterpreted the tense I used. This what I actually wrote "Cheap energy is just what the name implies. Coal has been for many years the cheapest and most abundant energy source available hence its widespread use globally". The tense I used is the present perfect progressive tense which is frequently used to describe an event of the recent past. That statement is perfectly correct and not at all a "false premise" as it does not indicate coal now is cheap energy.
With regard to renewable sources of energy your assertion "As adoption of renewable energy continues to grow" is not suppofrted by the facts. The percentage of global energy consumption supplied by renewables increased from 5.6% in 1965 to 8.9% in 2013. Most of this increase came from hydro power. (http://euanmearns.com/renewable-energy-growth-in-perspective/). This does not suggest the imminent demise of fossil fuels as a source of energy.
John Hartz You ask me to elaborate exactly what I mean by my statement that "Burning coal does pollute both air and water but burning coal does not preclude obtaining clean air and clean water."
I am living in the middle of rural France a country that burns fossil fuels as an energy source. The air where I live is "clean" so France burning coal does not preclude me enjoying clean air. Similarly in Australia if I stay in Albany or Exmouth or Southern Cross the air is clean. Thus despite the burning of fossil fuels in Australia does not preclude me enloying clean air. Similarly with clean water. Domestic water supplies in Frannce and Australia are treated, often by reverse osmosis and other processes to meet the exacting standards for clean water laid down by health authorities. In Perth we have also a desalination plant that produces clean water. This production is not precluded by the burning of fossil fuels.
I hope that is sufficient elaboration.
You also ask "Do you have any idea what the term, "external costs" means?" My answer is I do.
-
John Hartz at 04:14 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
@ryland #21:
You repeatedly assert that "cheap energy" is essential to econmic growth, but your explanation of what you mean by "cheap energy" is downright shallow. Do you have any idea what the term, "external costs" means?
-
John Hartz at 04:06 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
@ryland #21:
In response to a question I had posed, you answered:
Burning coal does pollute both air and water but burning coal does not preclude obtaining clean air and clean water.
Please elaborate on exactly what you mean.
-
CBDunkerson at 02:57 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
Ryland, as already noted... there is no need to 'give up' cheap energy / impact standards of living to divest from fossil fuels. Even without considering the huge environmental and health costs of fossil fuels, renewable power is now drawing even with the cost of fossil fuel power world-wide. As adoption of renewable energy continues to grow it will quickly become significantly less expensive than fossil fuels.
Indeed, your claim that the "developing world" needs 'cheap' fossil fuel power is belied by the fact that many countries which previously had very little electrical power are now developing wind and solar power... because they cost less. In short, your entire premise is built on a false assumption. Coal is no longer 'cheap energy'.
-
ryland at 02:24 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
John Hartz
I also applied clean to water but not to any of the other entities. I applied clean to water because it has been an essential prerequisite of human society for millenia. Similarly cheap energy has been a major contributor to the rise of Western society. Cheap energy is just what the name implies. Coal has been for many years the cheapest and most abundant energy source available hence its widespread use globally.
You ask if I think burning coal is not compatible with clean air and water. Burning coal does pollute both air and water but burning coal does not preclude obtaining clean air and clean water.
-
wili at 02:24 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #27B
That first-linked article, "Hard Deadline," is quite a doozy.
It just seems like almost everyone is living in some deluded fantasy.
Any ideas on how to bring production of all fossil-death-fuel machines and plants to a halt by 2018?
-
John Hartz at 01:32 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
@ryland #18:
Do you acknowlege that the burning of fossil fuels is not compatible with clean air and clean water?
-
John Hartz at 01:02 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
@ryland #18:
You state:
Other luxuries are clean water, food, housing sanitation, medicines and cheap energy.
Why do you apply the adjective "cheap" to only energy?
What is your working definition of "cheap energy"?
-
ryland at 00:26 AM on 7 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
CB Dunkerson a couple of points. Even though naturl gas produces less CO2 than coal per it is a fossil fuel so its use is still adding to CO2.
You mention the advantages you say scaddenp has it exactly backwards but your comments too indicate a lack of understanding of the situation. Greeks didn't like the way the austerity program impacted on their wages and pensions and employment and liivng standards so voted against that program continuing. Similarly those in the developing world will not accept they should be denied their use of fossll fuels to generate cheap energy because it will impact on their standard of living. No difference from the attitude of the Greeks to the austerity program.
PhilippeChantreau In today's world luxury for many is remaining alive and/or escaping from terroism. Other luxuries are clean water, food, housing sanitation, medicines and cheap energy
-
CBDunkerson at 22:13 PM on 6 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
Scaddenp, to my way of thinking you've got your analogy exactly backwards. Greece did vote for reform... rejecting the 'status quo' austerity policies which have been crippling their economy the past several years just as we should reject continued unhealthy reliance on fossil fuels. Likewise, nature has already proven far more flexible than 'euro bankers'. Greece needs to invest in growth that benefits everyone rather than clinging to a failed system that benefits only a few wealthy interests... ditto the world at large in regards to fossil fuels.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:02 PM on 6 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
Ryland, if we wanted to help the coal miners (in Kentucky/the US) we should have started ~60 years ago. Since then the number of coal miners in the US declined by about 90%... before natural gas, wind, and solar started to take off. There are now fewer coal miners than there are wind and solar power installers.
As to your view that coal miners subscribe to the belief that we should embrace cheap energy... not if they want to remain coal miners. Natural gas is cheaper than coal everywhere in the US, and wind and solar are now cheaper in many parts of the country (and will be so nearly everywhere in just a few years)... even without taking the health and environmental costs of coal into account. That's why there has been almost no new coal power deployment in the US since 2008. US coal consumption is now near 1970s levels.
In other parts of the world coal is still 'cheap' if the health and environmental costs are ignored, but even that won't be true for much longer. At this point, one of the best ways to help coal miners would be to train them on wind and solar power... so they will have jobs when coal becomes globally obsolete over the course of the next couple of decades.
-
Tom Curtis at 20:12 PM on 6 July 2015In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
davytw @34, your first reference seems to be employing that famous fallacy of argument, "post hoc, ergo propter something else intirely". Specifically, looking at the chart they produce as evidence, the largest perturbation of the BC economy in 2008 was the global financial crisis. To totally ignore that as a potentially relevant factor shows that it is indeed an article for The American [non]Thinker.
More troubling is the way the American [non]Thinker ignore the pattern clear in the first graph, of a rise from near Canadian average growth in 2003 and prior, to a peak in 2005 with a clear decline thereafter. That is, they ignore the evidence that the decline back to the Canadian average growth preceded the introduction of the carbon tax, and indeed was the consequence of a brief spurt in growth followed by a return to Canadian average growth. It would be interesting to know what happened in 2003 to cause that spurt in growth. It would also be interesting to know Canadian and BC population growth statistics where so different in the five years prior to 2008 (as evidenced by the different pattern in real GDP growth (first graph) and real per capita GDP growth (second graph), but clearly neither pattern is related to the carbon tax (unless the American [non]Thinker also claims to have discovered backward causation in time).
-
dvaytw at 19:06 PM on 6 July 2015In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
PS - when I say "the success or lack thereof" in the previous post, I mean, of BC's carbon tax.
-
dvaytw at 18:01 PM on 6 July 2015In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
I posted this in a different thread, but haven't gotten a response, so thought I'd try here (and if I may add, I still think email notifications of thread activity are the way to go in keeping threads alive!):
I've been arguing about the success or lack thereof in another forum:
Climate Change - Impacts Part 2
The opposing argument against the info I posted from SkS are as follows:
1) while BC is keeping pace with the rest of Canada, it was doing better before 2008:
2) it's unlikely that a few cents' tax had such a dramatic effect on consumption:
BC's carbon tax has had little effect on fuel consumption
3) in 2014, gas consumption in BC is back up to where it was in 2008:
No B.C. carbon tax miracle on 120th St.I'm not posting any of this because I oppose carbon pricing; I definitely favor it. But I do like to be honest about what the evidence is and what inferences can be made. Can anyone help me defend the BC tax against these critiques?
-
PhilippeChantreau at 16:58 PM on 6 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
Ryland cites an ideology ladden article above with this: "Real concern for the poor would result in an embrace of cheap energy, including fossil fuels, which, along with market capitalism and the rule of law, has been responsible for dragging more people out of the poverty and democratising luxury than any number of sympathic prayers."
What's really cheap in this article is the rethoric. The real cost of the so-called cheap energies has been stored away or externalized and is piling up to make a for an enormous bill that will be beyond the means of all mankind put together. Even the Wall Street clowns won't have funny maths to get out of that one, especially in light of their math performance that culminated in 2008. Frankly, it seems that the clergy knows every bit as much about economics than these bufoons did. At least, their prayers didn't cost trillions to the World economy.
As for how much concern for the poor happens in the free market fanatic circles, well, do we really have to stoop that low? Back in the days, free market was of course responsible for dragging out of poverty the 7 years old children working in textile mills 12 hours a day, as we all know.
"Democratize luxury." My favorite. What a load of dung. Luxury would then consist of having light, running water and heat in the winter. By 14th century standards, that's definitely luxury. Unlike, say, having your kids go to a $50k/year preschool, or debating whether or not to run your yacht as a commercial charter operation in the Caribean during these long months when you can't use it because you're too busy with that pesky thing called work and you're stuck with private jets for transportation. Luxury is such a relative notion. For some, it's a high probability of having meals lined up next week. Perhaps we'll all get back to that point one day. The way things are going now, it certainly seems we're trying. A great equalizing of sorts...
-
John Hartz at 12:02 PM on 6 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
In the context of overcoming human inertia re the mitigation of manmade climate change, the following caught my eye...
People are more likely to respond to the issue of climate change if they can see it with their own eyes, research on thermal imaging has found.
Sabine Pahl and colleagues investigated ways to motivate people to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. They tried three strategies, including a home energy audit, a text report about energy efficiency and taking photos with a thermal imaging camera.
“We found across several studies that thermal images of their own homes are really engaging to householders,” says Dr Pahl, Associate Professor in Psychology at the University of Plymouth who will be presenting at the Our Common Future Under Climate Change conference in Paris from 7-10 July.
Making heat visible: Thermal images motivate household energy efficiency, Our Common Future, June 30, 2015
-
scaddenp at 11:14 AM on 6 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
To me, voting against a carbon tax feels very like the Greek vote against reform. Okay, that is simplistic, but Greece cannot continue the way is has in the past anymore than we can continue with FF as we have. I think nature is rather more uncompromising than euro bankers.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:01 AM on 6 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
ryland @9, it is quite obvious that if it is acceptable, in 2018, to replace existing houses or to build carbon neutral houses, then it is also acceptable to replace an existing house with two 50% carbon neutral houses; or to modify an existing house to halve its carbon emissions, and build a new house with just 50% of current emissions per house, and so on. In particular, each 1% reduction in emissions from national electricity generation makes room for further economic growth.
Ergo, Stephen Leahy's formula sounds dramatic, it really represents only a formula for no more emissions growth from 2018. Rather than a cessation of emissions growth (and hence ongoing growth in CO2 concentration), what the world needs is the almost complete elimination of net anthropogenic emissions by 2050, and hence on the order of a 3% reduction in global emissions per annum. That is a doable target. Even with slow initial progression, a genuine attempt to move in that direction will allow very rapid strides in the near future. It is not, however, something on which we can delay - and each year that we delay - each year you win your struggle for inaction makes the cost of transition higher (because it must be more rapid), and the end benefit lower (because of increased global warming durring the delay).
-
scaddenp at 07:21 AM on 6 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
Ryland, I am quite sure that if the world doesnt divest of FF, then the people who will pay with be largely the poor, and largely those who not contributed to global warming nor benefited from FF. Getting off FF will very likely (without some new tech) mean paying for energy but I find the idea the the West shouldnt do so because of "damage to the economy" as immoral and repulse. Is it realistic? I dont know. How many people out there feel like you apparently do? I am heartened when talking to the younger generation who seem much more prepared to seek justice. Would they vote for a carbon tax? yes, I think they would.
-
John Hartz at 07:13 AM on 6 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
@ryland #9:
It is extremely hard for any indidvidual to get their head around the enormity of what we are doing to the climate system of our only home planet. We have stark choices to make if we are to avoid self-extinction. Time is not on our side.
-
ryland at 05:38 AM on 6 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
John Hartz @7. Do you really believe that the world will act as suggested in the article to which you refer? This statement, see below shows a staggering degree of naivety
“By 2018, no new cars, homes, schools, factories, or electrical power plants should be built anywhere in the world, ever again unless they’re either replacements for old ones or are carbon neutral? Are you sure I worked that out right?” I asked Steve Davis of the University of California, co-author of a new climate study'.
If this is what must occur then the world is doomed because it is a totally unrealistic proposition as time will certainly tell. Is the building of the houses required for the ever expanding human population going to be halted? What will be the cost of making all new homes carbon neutral? Who will bear the costs of, for example, insulation? Will these strictures apply globally?
The mind boggles.
-
bozzza at 03:21 AM on 6 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
Divestment begets Investment: mixed market economies mean a winner is always picked and if the natural oligopoly is leaning away from fossil fuels then a carbon fee it will be!
Governments simply provide and if fossil fuels aren't producing the comparative goods anymore then say hello to a new world.
(Maybe we will mine moonrock for nuclear fusion fuel afterall...)
-
John Hartz at 02:52 AM on 6 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
@ ryland #6:
What will happen if the human race cannot get its act together within three years is starkly set forth in:
A hard deadline: We must stop building new carbon infrastructure by 2018 by Stephen Leahy, The Leap, July 2, 2015
-
ryland at 02:05 AM on 6 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
I think you're right about the carbon tax Tom Curtis but will it happen? And if not, then what?
-
Tom Curtis at 23:09 PM on 5 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
Ryland, the tobacco industry proves very effectively just how well "free market economics" serves the poor. Likewise Nestle's promotion of baby formulas in the third world. Any presumption that "free markets", by which is meant unrestrained corporate search for profits, will automatically help the poor represents simply ideology in action.
In the particular case of fossil fuels, a universal carbon tax in western nations would reduce demand for fossil fuels in those nations, thereby reducing the price of fossil fuels to poor nations. At the same time it would increase research into making alternative energy sources cheaper, thereby bringing alternative energy into the price range of the poor. Likewise, divestment in fossil fuel portfolios can be coupled with investment in renewable energy with the effect of making renewable energy cheaper.
-
Tristan at 21:57 PM on 5 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
Hi Ryland
For a large fraction of the world's 'poor', they aren't on a functioning grid anyway, so coal won't help them much. localised generation like solar and wind is much easier to deploy.
It's also not an either/or scenario for the working poor in affluent nations. For instance, the carbon tax in Australia came with an energy rebate, thus avoiding the 'little old ladies dying from cold because they refuse to turn on their expensive heating" meme. There's no reason why we can't help the needy and ensure the long-term prospects of our environment.
Most of the people who tell us how we should help the poor by doing some other alternative (Lomborg etc) have no actual interest in helping the poor. It's a smokescreen.
-
ryland at 20:17 PM on 5 July 20152015 SkS News Bulletin #6: Pope Francis & Climate Change
An editorial in this weekend's Australian Financial Review (a Fairfax paper) asks this question "Should churches be saving souls or saving the planet?
The editorial then goes on to address this question as follows:
"Perhaps Australia's churches would argue they're doing both. Unfortunately, those pushing fossil fuel divestment campaigns are doing neither."
It then goes on
"At the root of the problem is a fundamental ignorance of economics among much of the clergy. Many bishops and church leaders are all too ready to engage in "lapel-pin political slogans", crying "neo-liberalism", or "fossil fuels", but without considering that without them all people, particularly the poor and downtrodden for whom the church claims particular concern, would be worse off."
and concludes:
"Real concern for the poor would result in an embrace of cheap energy, including fossil fuels, which, along with market capitalism and the rule of law, has been responsible for dragging more people out of the poverty and democratising luxury than any number of sympathic prayers."
I suspect the coal miners of Kentucky and indeed elsewhere would subscribe to this view. I certainly do but i suspect that my truthful comment might be self defeating
-
Dcrickett at 05:44 AM on 5 July 2015More evidence that global warming is intensifying extreme weather
I suspect effects related to rate of change, in addition to effects related to change. The only basis for this is that I have noticed peculiarities during change from one quasi-stable state thru a threshold of instability to a different quasi-stable state. Water coming to a boil in a pot on the stove. Fall and Spring, between Winter and Summer. These transitions are not merely a mix of the "From" and "To" quasi-stable states. (From laminar flow to turbulent flow is not an example.)
-
APT at 00:28 AM on 5 July 2015IPCC overestimate temperature rise
Tom Curtis @62
Thanks Tom, that's very clear. -
Tom Curtis at 22:32 PM on 4 July 2015IPCC overestimate temperature rise
APT @61:
1) The primary reason for the larger uncertainty for the shorter time period is that there are 43.5% fewer data points.
2) Using the Berkeley Earth global dataset, the trend from 1990 to current is 0.164 +/- 0.066 C per decade. From 2000 to current it is 0.095 +/- 0.129 C per decade. Both are "statistically indistinguishable" from the model projected 0.2 C per decade. Further, the only of the two trends long enough to be significant has a median value at 82% of the model projected trends, showing that at worst the models only mildly overestimate current temperature trends.
3) UAH v6 is very similar to RSS in its values. Using the SkS trend calculator we see that the RSS trend over the period 1979-current is 0.121 +/- 0.064 C per decade. UAH v6 is likely to have a similar error margin. The primary reasons RSS trends are lower than surface trends are, first, a greater reponsiveness to ENSO fluctuations resulting in a greater reduction in the post 1998 trend from the rapid rise in SOI values (ie trend towards more and stronger La Nina events), and second, limited reporting of Arctic values with their very high temperature trends. As to whether the UAH result is accurate, v6 has not yet been reported in peer reviewed literature so that it is not yet possible to determine if the reported values correctly report the values determined by the (as yet not formally described) v6 method. More generally, there is a significant scientific debate as to whether satellite values are more or less accurate than surface values, and as to how exactly they should be related in that they do not strictly report the same thing. For my money, I no with a fairly high degree of confidence that surface values (particularly BEST and GISS) are accurate; but think there is good reason to doubt the accuracy of the satellite values, even for the Lower Troposphere, let alone for the actual surface.
-
APT at 21:27 PM on 4 July 2015CO2 measurements are suspect
Tom Curtis @79
Thanks for the reference and explanation. Interesting and useful. -
bozzza at 21:17 PM on 4 July 2015Cracking the mystery of the corrosive ocean
@17, possibly worth knowing en masse to prevent the resource bottlenecks of panic that are predicted!
-
APT at 21:14 PM on 4 July 2015IPCC overestimate temperature rise
Hi everyone,
I have some questions:
In the intermediate version, observed data is given as 0.15 ± 0.08°C per decade from 1990 to 2012, and 0.06 ± 0.16ºC from 2000 to 2012. Why is the uncertainty so much greater for the 2000 to 2012 observed data?
The data here only goes to 2012. How do the projections compare with data up to 2015?
Looking for more up-to-date information, I found a piece on UAH 6.0 to 2015 on Dr. Roy Spencer's website:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
Is his figure of 0.114ºC per decade from 1979 to 2015 accurate? It's certainly precise, why no error margin?
In anticipation of the kind of responses I got last time I asked questions on this website, let me be clear that this is a genuine request for information, not an argument. -
bozzza at 19:41 PM on 4 July 2015Cracking the mystery of the corrosive ocean
@16,
Colourful Language is what haunts this 24-7 Hollywood-inspired world of buy-buy-buy-NOW!!
-
bozzza at 18:58 PM on 4 July 2015Cracking the mystery of the corrosive ocean
@18,
I -for one- appreciate this insight into the phenomenon!
Prev 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 Next
