There is no Planet B

[Redreuben]

Budawang I’m in Perth, so yes exactly, the chaos in the power industry is because of the political uncertainty, I believe the power industry knows well and good coals time is up but they can’t invest without some direction or policy from government which isn’t going to happen until after the election at least. But I’m not counting on that as a certainty either.
The recklessness shown to energy policy borders on treason.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Yeah, oil will never run out. There are trillions of barrels still in the ground. We haven’t burned even 10% of what is there.

Yep, that's why they're mining coal sands and drilling in ever more remote, inhospitable places and scrambling to find ever more sources of 'cheap' energy.

Fracking has been around since at least the 50's.


Of course all this talk of renewables vs fossil fuels vs nuclear is moot. The real problem is temporal and has to do with GHGs', primarily CO2s', heat absorptive qualities. Heat is produced by all three of the technologies listed above, and a percentage of that heat will be trapped by the GHGs in the atmosphere (remember, life as we know it wouldn't be possible without this 'feature'), so until we generate enough heat to offset that produced by the heating effect of the GHGs in the atmosphere, GHGs will remain a necessary.

But eventually the ultimate problem will be how to re-radiate the excess heat produced by a population run wild, no matter how that heat is produced. That other 'waste products' might 'get us' (and, perhaps, most other what we call, arrogantly, 'higher' life forms) first, is irrelevant. Extinction in 1000 years (my guesstimate of how long it would take the non-fossil fuel generated heat problem to become a problem similar in size to that of the one caused by the use of fossil fuels) is extinction nonetheless...


Not to mention that all earth-bound life forms are carbon-based.


So, as even most of the deniers on these pages admit, the problem is one of (any number of types of) balance. Real wealth/population size. Species diversity/biosphere sustainability. Ethics/individual 'freedom'. Natural/technological.

At this particular moment in the evolution of Earth, the ultimate problem is a direct (predictable) result of the eusociality inherent in the human race.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Yep, that's why they're mining coal sands...

Oops, tar sands.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Yeah, oil will never run out. There are trillions of barrels still in the ground. We haven’t burned even 10% of what is there.

According to B.P., “... Global proved oil reserves, in 2017, fell slightly by 0.5 billion barrels (-0.03%) to 1696.6 billion barrels, which would be sufficient to meet 50.2 years of global production at 2017 levels ...”
➥ https://www.bp.com/en/global/corpora...l#oil-reserves

“World Oil Review 2018"
➥ https://www.eni.com/docs/it_IT/eni-c...8-Volume-1.pdf

Page 14 "... World Oil Reserves (2017) 1,680,004 million barrels as at 31st December ..."

Page 25 “... Reserves/Production Ratio (2017) World: 50years ...”

Originally Posted by newhaul

yes it did but its not revenue neutral anymore is it ? And why is that?
Politicians got involved

Politicians were involved, from the very outset. Who do you think, proposed, passed, and implemented the carbon tax legislation?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Exactly. The politicization of any issue distorts it. The money, prestige, and notoriety in climate science comes from trying to increase the level of certainty between fossil fuel emissions and global warming. The more alarmist the conclusions are, the better it sells for the media, and the more it benefits politicians. On its own, it doesn't prove that scientists are corrupt, conspiratorial, or greedy, or that AGW is more or less certain, only that the preponderance of the evidence that is being produced supports the AGW position. This imbalance doesn't on its own prove the evidence suspect, but it does distort what the public is hearing.

There's a simpler explanation for why the preponderance of evidence continues to support AGW; it's because that's what's happening. Occam's razor...
The public (including you) are hearing distorted and conflicting information because powerful industries have a vested interest in keeping the confusion alive. And of course, the partisanship of the right in following their leaders' strategic rejection of all green initiatives, AGW being just the flagship and most prominent target.

[oldjags]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan
Yeah, oil will never run out. There are trillions of barrels still in the ground. We haven’t burned even 10% of what is there.

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

But at what price?

$59 to $64 a barrel right now. I'm sure you can get a quantity discount if you want to buy it all. :-)

[oldjags]

Ok, this is interesting. It could be just like all those devices that promise to deliver 100 MPG for your car, or maybe it has some promise.

https://newatlas.com/hydrogen-panel-...iciency/58645/

[GordMay]

Climate change will reshape the global economy, and not for the better.
If you're against "big government", then now is the time to act on climate change, before we get to the point where draconian measures are required.


If rising temperature negatively affects economic growth rates, and the social cost of carbon is higher, society could face much larger climate damages than previously thought, and this would justify more stringent mitigation policy, because many more mitigation measures will pass a cost-benefit analysis.

A 2015 analysis in Nature, projected that the effects of unmitigated climate change will reduce the average person’s income by 23 percent, by the end of the century [1]. The findings indicate climate change will widen global inequality, perhaps dramatically, because warming is good for cold countries, which tend to be richer, and more harmful for hot countries, which tend to be poorer. In the researchers’ benchmark estimate, climate change will reduce average income, in the poorest 40 percent of countries, by 75 percent in 2100, while the richest 20 percent may experience slight gains. The Nature paper focuses on effects of climate change via temperature, and does not include impacts via other consequences of climate change, such as hurricanes or sea level rise.


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency predicts that unmitigated global warming could cost the American economy $200 billion this century.
Some climate researchers think the EPA undercounts these estimates. [2]

“Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production” ~ by Marshall Burke et al.
1. ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15725

And 1. ➥ Climate Change and Economic Production by Country

See also:
“Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict” ~ by Solomon M. Hsiang et al.
➥ Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict | Science

“Estimated social cost of climate change not accurate, Stanford scientists say” ~ by Ker Than
“The "social cost" of carbon dioxide emissions may not be $37 per ton, as estimated by a recent U.S. government study, but $220 per ton ...”
2. ➥ https://news.stanford.edu/2015/01/12...-costs-011215/

“Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy” ~ by Frances C. Moore et al.
2. ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2481

[oldjags]

The fundamental problem I have with carbon taxes is that it raises the cost of energy for everyone, and hits the poor and underdeveloped countries the hardest.

That naturally leads to government subsidies to the poor to help them pay their electric and heating bills, and now we have yet another layer of government entitlements, and another shackle that keeps us dependent on the people who rule us. 'Vote for me or those nasty capitalists will take away your subsidy and leave you to freeze to death.' will be added to the trumped-up fears of losing your Social Security, your welfare check and your public housing. It's another tool for keeping poor people on the plantation.

Germany has already seen it's electricity prices almost triple as it implements solar and wind generation. Add a carbon tax, and the squeeze is on.

Unfortunately, I think that was part of the plan all along. As the head of the IPCC once said, it's not really about climate, it's about income redistribution.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Climate change will reshape the global economy, and not for the better.
If you're against "big government", then now is the time to act on climate change, before we get to the point where draconian measures are required.


If rising temperature negatively affects economic growth rates, and the social cost of carbon is higher, society could face much larger climate damages than previously thought, and this would justify more stringent mitigation policy, because many more mitigation measures will pass a cost-benefit analysis.

A 2015 analysis in Nature, projected that the effects of unmitigated climate change will reduce the average person’s income by 23 percent, by the end of the century [1]. The findings indicate climate change will widen global inequality, perhaps dramatically, because warming is good for cold countries, which tend to be richer, and more harmful for hot countries, which tend to be poorer. In the researchers’ benchmark estimate, climate change will reduce average income, in the poorest 40 percent of countries, by 75 percent in 2100, while the richest 20 percent may experience slight gains. The Nature paper focuses on effects of climate change via temperature, and does not include impacts via other consequences of climate change, such as hurricanes or sea level rise.


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency predicts that unmitigated global warming could cost the American economy $200 billion this century.
Some climate researchers think the EPA undercounts these estimates. [2]

“Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production” ~ by Marshall Burke et al.
1. ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15725

And 1. ➥ Climate Change and Economic Production by Country

See also:
“Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict” ~ by Solomon M. Hsiang et al.
➥ Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict | Science

“Estimated social cost of climate change not accurate, Stanford scientists say” ~ by Ker Than
“The "social cost" of carbon dioxide emissions may not be $37 per ton, as estimated by a recent U.S. government study, but $220 per ton ...”
2. ➥ https://news.stanford.edu/2015/01/12...-costs-011215/

“Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy” ~ by Frances C. Moore et al.
2. ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2481

I read recently that anyone making economic forecasts even 10 years into the future is considered an idiot by most actual real world economists. Yet climate scientists seem to spend more time on future economics than actual climate sciencing.


And when we're all riding around on bicycles and running everything we own off a single solar panel whilst singing kumbaya and giving ourselves great big pats on the back whilst counting our 200 billion in savings (which actually equates to 200 billion removed from the economy), sooner or later a wannabe world power will probably seek to take nefarious advantage of the situation.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by oldjags

The fundamental problem I have with carbon taxes is that it raises the cost of energy for everyone, and hits the poor and underdeveloped countries the hardest.

That naturally leads to government subsidies to the poor to help them pay their electric and heating bills, and now we have yet another layer of government entitlements, and another shackle that keeps us dependent on the people who rule us. 'Vote for me or those nasty capitalists will take away your subsidy and leave you to freeze to death.' will be added to the trumped-up fears of losing your Social Security, your welfare check and your public housing. It's another tool for keeping poor people on the plantation.

Germany has already seen it's electricity prices almost triple as it implements solar and wind generation. Add a carbon tax, and the squeeze is on.

Unfortunately, I think that was part of the plan all along. As the head of the IPCC once said, it's not really about climate, it's about income redistribution.

• Some countries have underpriced fossil-fuel energy as a matter of policy. Often these prices don't come close to paying for the actual cost of its extraction and consumption, let alone for any mitigation of AGW. So yeah, in some cases a more realistic price for energy is advisable.
• The poor are poor, and 'kept on the plantation' for other reasons besides carbon taxes, even with subsidized energy. If you actually care about the poor, fix that.
• Carbon credits, trading or taxation are among the few possible levers in a capitalist economy that lets the market determine the way to achieve the goal of reduced carbon emissions. If you think that's a worthy goal but dislike carbon schemes, propose something else. If you have no interest in reducing carbon emissions, at least own it.
• It's a soshulist conspiraceh! Ok yeah, you got us. And it would have worked too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids...

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I read recently that anyone making economic forecasts even 10 years into the future is considered an idiot by most actual real world economists...

As legendary New York Yankees catcher Yogi Berra once put it: "It's tough making predictions, especially about the future."

One of the fundamental tenets, underpinning modern economic theory, is that we all act rationally, and we act to further our own interests. The tragic history of human behaviour is littered with examples to the contrary.
Unfortunately, Bertrand Russell’s observation about life in general applies with unusual force in the political world: “Most men would rather die than think. Many do.”
But, as Warren Buffett once said: “Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago.”
Perhaps we should begin to think about planting a tree now (act rationally in further of our own interests), that we may enjoy some shade tomorrow.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

As legendary New York Yankees catcher Yogi Berra once put it: "It's tough making predictions, especially about the future."

One of the fundamental tenets, underpinning modern economic theory, is that we all act rationally, and we act to further our own interests. The tragic history of human behaviour is littered with examples to the contrary.
Unfortunately, Bertrand Russell’s observation about life in general applies with unusual force in the political world: “Most men would rather die than think. Many do.”
But, as Warren Buffett once said: “Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago.”
Perhaps we should begin to think about planting a tree now (act rationally in further of our own interests), that we may enjoy some shade tomorrow.

Warren Buffets needs to step out of his ivory tower once in a while. The vast majority of trees haven't been planted by anyone and they do just fine at providing shade.

[oldjags]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

• Some countries have underpriced fossil-fuel energy as a matter of policy. Often these prices don't come close to paying for the actual cost of its extraction and consumption, let alone for any mitigation of AGW. So yeah, in some cases a more realistic price for energy is advisable.
• The poor are poor, and 'kept on the plantation' for other reasons besides carbon taxes, even with subsidized energy. If you actually care about the poor, fix that.
• Carbon credits, trading or taxation are among the few possible levers in a capitalist economy that lets the market determine the way to achieve the goal of reduced carbon emissions. If you think that's a worthy goal but dislike carbon schemes, propose something else. If you have no interest in reducing carbon emissions, at least own it.
• It's a soshulist conspiraceh! Ok yeah, you got us. And it would have worked too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids...

Ah, bitter sarcasm! That's what I was looking for, thanks!.

If you read my previous posts, it's pretty clear I have nooo interest in reducing carbon emissions. They are not what is causing global warming, except to a tiny degree. The great bulk of global warming is either natural or caused by other man-made effects like deforestation and urbanization. CO2 is good for the environment, and the overall beneficial effects far outweigh any negative ones, if there even are any.

Decarbonizing the economy is a cure that is far, far worse than the disease.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by oldjags

Ah, bitter sarcasm! That's what I was looking for, thanks!.

If you read my previous posts, it's pretty clear I have nooo interest in reducing carbon emissions. They are not what is causing global warming, except to a tiny degree. The great bulk of global warming is either natural or caused by other man-made effects like deforestation and urbanization. CO2 is good for the environment, and the overall beneficial effects far outweigh any negative ones, if there even are any.

Decarbonizing the economy is a cure that is far, far worse than the disease.

the reason for co2 being the bad guy is they can tax it .