“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

The workings of a market are simple. When the renewables industry can deliver power 24 hours per day, 365 days per year at lower costs than the existing then the fossil fuel folks will be unable to compete and go out of business. When electric vehicles are sold at prices competitive with the gas and diesel and provide similar ranges and rapid refills the internal combustion engined vehicles will fall out of use and the auto manufacturers will either change production or go broke.

It's the genius of the market, you want to out compete your competitors you provide your customers with a better or cheaper product.It's a very democratic system, the individual chooses what to buy.

You don't have a properly operating market when one or more factors are out of whack. Such as absurdly low energy prices from one source. And the fact that one energy source is more likely to kill you than another.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

That's like accusing you of hating poor people because you want to raise their cost of living through higher taxes on the gas they put in their car to go to work. Who, over the age of 15 anyway, talks like this in the midst of an otherwise interesting & worthwhile adult discussion? What I, you, or anyone else personally "wants" is irrelevant. It's not what we may want, but rather what is realistically possible given the consequences.

The price of gas fluctuates more in a year than the few percent from a carbon tax. So when a carbon tax is proposed you're all "you're hurting the poors!" but when other factors kick the price 15+% you're silent, or it's the invisible hand, supply/demand, and the poors will just have to bear it. Nice.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You don't have a properly operating market when one or more factors are out of whack. Such as absurdly low energy prices from one source. And the fact that one energy source is more likely to kill you than another.

There is no currently viable "another." Have you looked into just the real estate requirements to expand solar & wind to the levels required? Wishing it so won't help make it happen, nor will deriding others' good faith efforts to point out reality for you.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Exile

Yes, all in the nature of tax deductions which differ little from other industries. Actually, L-E's Forbes article explains this quite well, summarizes the list of tax deductions & credits that you outlined, distinguishes between such tax-related breaks and actual "subsidies" as commonly understood in the world of business, politics & economics, and makes the case that the oil & gas industry "subsidies" that are commonly bandied about are "myths." Here's the link again. Finally, the article states what the top 2 corps. (ExxonMobil & Chevron) together paid in federal taxes, namely $45.2 billion, and how the average rate of tax paid by the overall industry compares to the health care & pharma industries as follows:

"On average, the [oil & gas] industry pays a 45% tax rate when all state, federal, and foreign taxes are totaled up. By comparison the Healthcare Industry pays a total rate of 35% and the Pharmaceuticals pay an estimated rate of 21%. Based upon these numbers it’s hard to believe which business sector is criticized the most for 'subsidies'."

The Forbes article was written in 2016. It's a quick & worthwhile read.

Remember that the NRDC articles -- as do most sources promoting this meme -- specifically discusses "subsidies" & "tax breaks." Forbes cites Dictionary.com in defining subsidies as essentially direct pecuniary sums. But there are none that meet the common defn. according to the two sources you listed as well the list provided by Forbes. As for "tax breaks," I don't understand how they can be treated as "breaks" when every other industry is allowed to avail themselves of what mostly comes down to deductions for business expenses and depreciation for capitalized assets. The entire premise of the meme, after all, is to convince us that the price of fossil fuel based energy is not adequately reflected in its "actual cost" because the industry is being singled out for favorable treatment on account of the industry's "stooges in public office." (from L-E's Rolling Stone article, the publication known for its economic expertise ).

Of course, if you conveniently start using the word "incentive" in lieu of "subsidy" and "tax break," it expands the potential to mislead by another factor. L-E -- the 200 or so lawyers working at the NRDC could really use your skill-set. But thanks for finding us the Forbes article. Prior to that I was genuinely uncertain whether or not this particular meme I've been hearing for years was only partial or complete bulls**t. Now I know.

Yayy, you nailed it mate.

One of the reasons that the liquid fuels industry is heavily taxed is that it's very easy to do and to justify in the court of public opinion. The industry has developed with very few players who very accurately measure flows and volumes of liquids and gasses. You don't really need an accountant to do the taxing, you just read the meter, multiply by the dollars per barrel, cubic foot or metre of tax and demand the cheque.

You justify it by waiting for a wallet shock at the bowser, getting up on breakfast TV and claiming Robin Hood status because you are putting it to the big oil companies to punish them for their greed and you are going to spend all the money raised on X, Y, or Z social program. Works in the short term every time.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The price of gas fluctuates more in a year than the few percent from a carbon tax. So when a carbon tax is proposed you're all "you're hurting the poors!" but when other factors kick the price 15+% you're silent, or it's the invisible hand, supply/demand, and the poors will just have to bear it. Nice.

Once again, you're providing another reason against the viability of carbon taxes. If "[t]he price of gas fluctuates more in a year than the few percent from a carbon tax," then why do you believe artificially inflating it by those same few percentage points will have any impact on demand? You'll need a pretty comprehensive supply/demand chart going back awhile to be convincing on this one. It's more likely that a change of 0.01% in China's GDP over the course of a month has more of an impact on demand than any additional tax on US or Canadian consumers at the gas pump.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

It's possible you held your breath too long the last time you scraped the bottom of your hull.

please explain your point of view and associated supporting datum without the personal attacks please .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

You justify it by waiting for a wallet shock at the bowser, getting up on breakfast TV and claiming Robin Hood status because you are putting it to the big oil companies to punish them for their greed and you are going to spend all the money raised on X, Y, or Z social program. Works in the short term every time.

Goes right back to Singularity's excellent post (#188) along with the article cited therein about how our human brains deal with "moral violations," disgust & anger.

Link

We seem to be particularly susceptible to misinformation, distortions & untruths, all compounded by the internet age, unfortunately.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Goes right back to Singularity's excellent post (#188) along with the article cited therein about how our human brains deal with "moral violations," disgust & anger.

Link

We seem to be particularly susceptible to misinformation, distortions & untruths, all compounded by the internet age, unfortunately.

that and packaging has evolved as well

They rarely say climate change anymore its climate catastrophe . Or other such words that capture the mind with the doom and gloom schitck

[newhaul]

Now back to the topic of this thread
Is this study right or wrong?
https://www.greencarcongress.com/201...0512-noaa.html

Please provide evidentiary for your views if they are contrary to the study findings.

[SailOar]

Unexpected future boost of methane possible from Arctic permafrost

New NASA-funded research has discovered that Arctic permafrost’s expected gradual thawing and the associated release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere may actually be sped up by instances of a relatively little known process called abrupt thawing. Abrupt thawing takes place under a certain type of Arctic lake, known as a thermokarst lake that forms as permafrost thaws....

...an international team of U.S. and German researchers found that abrupt thawing more than doubles previous estimates of permafrost-derived greenhouse warming. They found that the abrupt thaw process increases the release of ancient carbon stored in the soil 125 to 190 percent compared to gradual thawing alone. What's more, they found that in future warming scenarios defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, abrupt thawing was as important under the moderate reduction of emissions scenario as it was under the extreme business-as-usual scenario. This means that even in the scenario where humans reduced their global carbon emissions, large methane releases from abrupt thawing are still likely to occur.....

Originally Posted by newhaul

...Is this study right or wrong?

Please provide evidentiary for your views if they are contrary to the study findings.

[Singularity]

One person posts a study that says "the medicine that's worsening your disease doesn't have the negative side effects some people worried about" and to disprove this another person posts a study that says "your worsening disease will probably get worse no matter what you do."

Looks like we have consensus on this topic.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Once again, you're providing another reason against the viability of carbon taxes. If "[t]he price of gas fluctuates more in a year than the few percent from a carbon tax," then why do you believe artificially inflating it by those same few percentage points will have any impact on demand?

What? If you review historical gas sales figures, price spikes DO affect consumption. People ARE responsive to price changes. Companies even more so. Why would you think they aren't?


Economists seem convinced.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What? If you review historical gas sales figures, price spikes DO affect consumption. People ARE responsive to price changes. Companies even more so. Why would you think they aren't?

Recall that in the US...maybe 2008-2010?...gasoline spiked to something like $4.20 per gallon. This had immediate/massive repercussions. All types of ersthwhile discretionary household spending was redirected to filling up the gas tank. The other markets (vacation destinations, going out to eat, etc) all noted immediate impact.

Today ~80% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. While the basic price goes up/demand goes down relationship exists...there's really no room for movement on the household-level demand side when it comes to further taxes...at least no significant changes. Raise the tax on gasoline...a McDonalds and electronics store will have to close (kind of thing).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Unexpected future boost of methane possible from Arctic permafrost

except that the study is not correct the arctic is not warming any faster than any other place on the planet you should look at the numbers then reevaluate your assumptions .

New study shows that the carbon is not being released in sufficient quantity to have any effect.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0211114222.htm

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-diffus...ifference.html

This study says that natural methane release all across the planet is not an issue they point to man released methane .
And my posted study shows no increase in man caused release.

Edit I even had to go all the way back to 2008 to even find days that in the summer were above the multi decadal average .

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Recall that in the US...maybe 2008-2010?...gasoline spiked to something like $4.20 per gallon. This had immediate/massive repercussions. All types of ersthwhile discretionary household spending was redirected to filling up the gas tank. The other markets (vacation destinations, going out to eat, etc) all noted immediate impact.

Today ~80% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. While the basic price goes up/demand goes down relationship exists...there's really no room for movement on the household-level demand side when it comes to further taxes...at least no significant changes. Raise the tax on gasoline...a McDonalds and electronics store will have to close (kind of thing).

diesel spiked to just over 5 bucks and I was considering shutting down till it went back down and many small companies did shut down which caused prices for the products to go up not to mention the fuel surcharges that the shipper was forced to pay to get his goods moved