Log in

View Full Version : US federal Carbon Tax is halfway home ...



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

goreantx
07-28-2009, 01:09 PM
I hadn't heard of them actually taxing animals yet, but I have read about all the studies they are doing on sheep over in New Zealand. One night, on coast to coast, there was some whack job that was preaching about how we needed to kill all the livestock and get rid of plants in order to save the planet. I can kind of see the livestock, but no plants? Really?

threlayer
07-28-2009, 01:21 PM
I hadn't heard of them actually taxing animals yet, but I have read about all the studies they are doing on sheep over in New Zealand. One night, on coast to coast, there was some whack job that was preaching about how we needed to kill all the livestock and get rid of plants in order to save the planet. I can kind of see the livestock, but no plants? Really?

Whack job is correct. Without livestock human. consumption of protein would be disastrously affected. Without plants, the CO2 problem would be a lot worse due th the absorption of CO2 as part of the photosynthesis process. Plus what would we eat. And without plants and animals, we would all die. Further who would be left to bury us? ;)

Eric Stoner
07-28-2009, 01:30 PM
So how high were the oceanic water tables? Did they have to abandon southeast Asia or the Greek islands? Also you have stated that this was the period of the "Little Ice Age." So, maybe I'm not so sure about all that effect occurring in your stated historical times.

It is possible to develop and apply average condition 'correction factors' for fixed locations which give a readings very close to an unoccupied area of that geneal region.

First, we're going to have to come to terms with selling our debt to a single credit supplier. Yeah, I know; how likely is that? It certainly would be an international effort of the countries aligned with the need to control human intervention in global warming. One tactic would be to demonstrate the effects of rising water tables and that effect on stability of the populace and economics of the country -- that those non-aligned countries would have to face ALONE. China recently has accepted a 2 degree rise limit as a goal, but they have not devised any sort of plan to achieve it. So I understand.

Personally, I don't believe we have the technology to determine how we can tie CO2 and deforestation into global warming yet, that is how much our CO2 and deforestation have to be limited to achieve any numeriical goal. We do however, can determine simpler effects like how much land will become salt-water inundated by so much loss of the polar icecaps. But we cannot surmise too accurately how much local weather will be affected (i.e., droughts, hurricanes/typhoons, tornadoes, monsoons, desert proliferation, regional crop reductions, etc.)

Like Somalia/Darfur? China's foreign relations are like a bull in a China shop. You dont know where the next damage is going to occur, but you know it surely will happen. This is becoming obvious. Furher the US has been strongly focussed elsewhere for decades.

You are DELIBERATELY mis-reading my posts and NOT bothering to do any historical research of your own. From 900 to 1100 A.D. the Earth enjoyed the HIGHEST average temperature on record i.e. 62 degrees. The Little Ice Age STARTED 200 years LATER in or about 1300 A.D. During this same time period the oceans were fine and dandy i.e. about where they are today. There have been changes in some land locations all over the globe in the 900 or so years since. I'm sure you've heard of beach erosion ? How Mother Nature uses water to take dirt from one place and put it soemwhere else ?

It's funny that you mention "correction factors" for temp. readings. That's how Hansen and other alarmists have gotten their pants pulled down as they "correct" low readings by raising them but NEVER "correct" high readings. According to Hansen, low temp. numbers have to be "corrected" but NEVER high temp. numbers. Am I the only one who sees a little "fuzzy math" being used ? Obviously not as his critics have jumped all over him for these and other novel statistical methods he has been known to employ.

You can't have it both ways on the temperature numbers. You can't say on the one hand that since many weather stations are located at airports ( for obvious reasons as aviation is highly weather dependent ) that those numbers count and that the monitoring complies with NOAA standards but when it's ponted out that in many areas the airports are often the HOTTEST places in the region ( and NOT just in the U.S. ) that those numbers have to be adjusted or "corrected". In actual point of fact, many airport monitoring stations do NOT comply with basic NOAA standards.

Nothing illustrates your penchant for wishful thinking better than your call for a singel credit supplier ? WHO ? How is that supposed to work ? Are you remotely familiar with how the bond markets work ?

Isn't it odd that with all the Polar melting that occurred in the past two decades or so that ocean water tables did not appreciably rise ?

Darfur just illustrates that China cares ONLY about China. They have accepted the goal but as you recognize, won't do anything to achieve it. And that 2 degree goal puts the Earth's average temp. BELOW it's all-time measured high.

threlayer
07-28-2009, 02:13 PM
(1) You are DELIBERATELY mis-reading my posts and NOT bothering to do any historical research of your own.

(2) From 900 to 1100 A.D. the Earth enjoyed the HIGHEST average temperature on record i.e. 62 degrees. The Little Ice Age STARTED 200 years LATER in or about 1300 A.D....

(3) It's funny that you mention "correction factors" for temp. readings. That's how Hansen and other alarmists have gotten their pants pulled down as they "correct" low readings by raising them but NEVER "correct" high readings. According to Hansen, low temp. numbers have to be "corrected' but NEVER high temp. numbers....

(4) You can't have it both ways on the temperature numbers. You can't say on the one hand that since many weather stations are located at airports...that those numbers count and that the monitoring complies with NOAA standards but when it's ponted out that in many areas that the airports are often the HOTTEST places in many areas...at those numbers have to be adjusted or "corrected".

(5) In actual point of fact, many airport monitoring stations do NOT comply with basic NOAA standards.

(6) Nothing illustrates your penchant for wishful thinking better than your call for a singel credit supplier ? WHO ? ...

(7) Isn't it odd that with all the Polar melting that occurred in the past two decades or so that ocean water tables did not appreciably rise ?

('8') Darfur just illustrates that China cares ONLY about China. They have accepted the goal but as you recognize, won't do anything to achieve it.

(9) And that 2 degree goal puts the Earth's average temp. BELOW it's all-time measured high.



Multiple points....

(1) As you can see by the hyperlinks, graphs and quotes I've included, that I've been reading "history' and responding to your points as you posted them. I could say that you misread and ignore my posts and that you probably refer to articles that only agree with the points you desire to make.

(2) I posted a graph called, 2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison which shows what you are discussing, called the Medieval Warm Period as well as the Little Ice Age. It also shows the very recent temperature spiking which you ignored, but which is crucial to the point. You'll have to note that the current temperature is within a few hundredths of that peak temperature ALREADY and just in the last 50-100 years. and we're trending upward from there VERY rapidly.

(3) Correction factors are meant, in analysis, to correct as much as possible data points so that data is put on a common ground. I have not read Hansen's analysis technique, but it may be an important point. This should be done correctly.

(4) Again, the corrections should be done correctly.

(5) NOAA standards may not be entirely necessary as this data is used for many purposes, not specifically for GW studies; other criteria for accuracy and determination of applicable corrections are. I will check into this soon.

(6) I was saying that our credit should be NOT to just China and other recalcitrant, developing countries, which have their own motivations. You did not read my point accurately.

(7) There is a lot more ice to melt. Or you actually saying that melting multi-megacubic miles of ice, which is partly above sea level, will not cause the sea to rise? EUREKA! You should read Archimedes (floating objects, displacement) and Chapter 1 of high school physical chemistry, the part about water turning into ice and the volume effect.

('8') My point about China is that China should be made to understand the effects on China which will come early in the oceanic rise effect. Unless China doesn't care about catastrophes happening to its peoples, and then maybe we all need to stave off Chinese goods, worldwide. What do bonds have to do with that?

(9) To the extent that humans have control over G.W., our temperature limits should be lower that that temperature at which global disasters occur. for one thing if we are able to hold to those limits, in terms ourour control abilities, OTHER natural factors could add additional temperature rise, thus spilling over into the disaster zone. In other words our should goal should be conservative.

Melonie
07-28-2009, 03:13 PM
I hadn't heard of them actually taxing animals yet, but I have read about all the studies they are doing on sheep over in New Zealand.

Actually a number of studies have been done in the USA, with the results showing that the highly 'greenhouseific' methane gas emitted from livestock is 25 times as responsible as the dreaded CO2 in contributing to global warming ( from ). This has been quantified by the US EPA, and pro-rated against the proposed 'carbon tax' on CO2 in terms of dollars of tax per unit of greenhouse' gas effect. Since the EPA has declared CO2 to be an air pollutant on the basis of its 'greenhouse gas' effect, the EPA will be forced to do the same for methane. And under the doctrine of 'equal treatment under the law', emissions of methane must be taxed at the same relative rate as emissions of CO2 ( i.e. 25 times as much per cubic foot or whatever).

Under those terms, the EPA is proposing the imposition of a 'Cow Fart Tax' amounting to $175 per year per dairy cow, $80 per year per beef cow, $20 per year per pig etc.



(snip)"“In a 5-4 decision in the case of Massachusetts versus the EPA,” Sensenbrenner explained, the Court “said the EPA could declare CO2 was a pollutant. Now there are several greenhouse gases. CO2 is the one that is the most common and the largest producer of CO2 in the world is the ocean, which we’re not going to be able to control.”

However, if the EPA were given the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant [ which arguably already has been by the US Supreme Court, and absolutely will be if a 'carbon tax' is passed by the US Senate - sic], it would also mean the government agency has the ability to regulate methane gas – which is primarily emitted from livestock. Sensenbrenner called this the “cow fart tax.”

“However, methane gas is much more effective in keeping warmth in the atmosphere than CO2, but has a much shorter half-life,” Sensenbrenner explained. “To show you how ridiculous this is getting, the EPA has got the proposed regulation imposing a cow fart tax of $175 a year on every head of dairy cattle in the United States and $80 for beef cattle, $20 per head of hogs.”(snip)

Obviously US farmers who will be affected by the tax are irate, since it more than cancels out the agricultural subsidies they received under Obama's stimulus package. Just as obviously, food retailers and farmers are both warning that US beef and dairy products will have to greatly increase in price in order to 'pass on' the amount of this new tax to US consumers.

(snip)"Earlier this year, the Farm Bureau told the Business & Media Institute such a tax was plausible according to the EPA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. However, Sensenbrenner speculated that such a tax could result in dairy products and beef disappearing from the shelves in supermarkets, as a British study he cited had warned."(snip)


Arguably, passage of the 'carbon tax' opens a Pandora's Box of potential new environmental taxes via the 'equal treatment under the law' principle ... many of which haven't even been thought of yet. Besides methane, other major greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide ( from internal combustion engines ), refrigerant gases etc. would potentially be automatically subject to similar new environmental taxes. One such tax could very well be a $1 per gallon additional tax on diesel fuel, based on the comparatively high nitrous oxide levels emitted by diesel engines. Ironically, biodiesel generates far more nitrous oxide than diesel refined from crude oil, meaning a $2 per gallon tax would have to apply to biodiesel fuel.

~

threlayer
07-28-2009, 07:26 PM
Consider these : (1) the EPA has not moved against methane and there are plenty of methane sources such as garbage dumps, refineries, and natural sources; (2) at one long period in Earth's history there were many more herbiforous animals than now, bigger ones too; (3) it is impractical worldwide (US Farm Bureau be damned) to pen up heretofore free-ranging herbiforous 'crop' animals and absorb (not burn) their gaseous effluents in all areas they move to during production stages; (4) it is possible to estimate the amount of methane produced and compare against human-produced CO2; (5) the final point is it is best to control the ones that are easiest to control first, because at this time we do not know how much GHG we need to control.

eagle2
07-28-2009, 07:31 PM
Your argument is supported by NASA's temperature charts which are problematic for several reasons. First, NASA has been caught revising it's own temperature numbers by adjusting pre-1970 numbers down and post 1970 numbers up. The U.K.'s Hadley Center uses the same methodology as NASA but shows that measurements since 1998 are DOWN.

Please provide references.



Tempertures NOW are about what they were in 1941 and 1878. Both NASA and the Hadley Center use a LOT of temperature measurements taken in URBAN areas. Fewer trees, less grass, a LOT more asphalt equals HIGHER temperatures. It is also important to note that thermometers NOW are much more accurate than those used in the past.
Satellite measurements from the University of Alabama at Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems both show global warming has leveled off since 1998.

Again, please provide references.



Currently the Earth's global average temperature is 59 degrees Farenheit. We are supposed to experience horrible problems if it gets to 61. Well guess what ? The Earth has been as high as 62 ! From 900 to 1100 A.D. when the Earth had record harvests worldwide and increased prosperity. Btw, it hit a record low global average temp. of 57 in 1650 during the latter half of the Little Ice Age.

What are your references for this? I doubt they could figure out yearly average temperatures to the exact degree 1,000 years ago.



Most troubling for GW proponents is the science that indicates ( not proves, for now it indicates ) that higher CO2 levels RESULT from Global Warming and do not cause it.

No it doesn't. That's misinformation from global warming deniers. It's a fact that CO2 causes the climate to warm.



The GISS numbers are highly questionable because they forgot that Russia has an October like everyone else. Their temperature numbers repeated the September temperature reading for Russia thus posting an alarming 10 degree increase. Until somebody at NASA- Watch checked their data and noticed the readings for September and October for Russia were identical.

One of the best pieces on all this ( that holds up against the usual charges ) is Steve McIntyre's 2/23/07 posting on climateaudit.org.

The supposed "debunking" of "no G.W. since 1998" on sites like skepticalscience.com are themselves bunk because they rely on the same partially discredited NASA ( HANSEN ) temperature data.

Here's a site with links correcting myths from Steve McIntyre:

http://info-pollution.com/mandm.htm

Eric,

I'm sorry to tell you, just reading a few blogs and online articles doesn't make you or Melonie an expert in climate science. There's no possible way that either of you are knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to determine the validity of Global Warming. Of those scientists who are knowledgeable of the subject and have spent years doing research in the field, they are in overwhelming agreement that the climate is warming and man is contributing.

Melonie
07-28-2009, 09:17 PM
I'm sorry to tell you, just reading a few blogs and online articles doesn't make you or Melonie an expert in climate science. There's no possible way that either of you are knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to determine the validity of Global Warming. Of those scientists who are knowledgeable of the subject and have spent years doing research in the field, they are in overwhelming agreement that the climate is warming and man is contributing.

As I have posted on many previous occasions, from an economic standpoint it really doesn't matter whether there is any scientific validity to the human caused global warming theory or not. The pertinent fact is that China, India and other 'third world' countries have adamantly refused to participate in greenhouse gas reduction efforts. And with this refusal, any efforts made by the US, Western Europe etc. to reduce their own domestic greenhouse gas emissions will NOT actually cause any net reductions on a global level because the already comparatively 'clean' US and Western European businesses which are 'strangled' by the additional costs of carbon taxes will be replaced by an equal amount of 'dirty' businesses in China, India etc. springing up to take their place. Unless and until China and India decide to 'come on board', the US and EU imposing carbon taxes within their own jurisdictions will accomplish little more than economic self-mutilation. It will, however, allow certain people to 'feel' better, via the self-delusion of believing that by paying carbon taxes and lowering their own standard of living that they have actually accomplished something ( which in fact they have not on a global basis ).

eagle2
07-28-2009, 09:46 PM
Most of our CO2 emissions comes from electricity generated for home and personal use and from automobiles. Any reduction in these areas will not be replaced by emissions in China or India. Requiring automobiles sold in the US to decrease CO2 emissions will not result in higher emissions in China or India.

I disagree that switching to emissions-free sources for generating electricity will increase costs. France uses nuclear power for all of their electricity and their rates are the lowest in Europe. I also disagree that this is going to cause industry to relocate to China and India. Even if emissions-free electricity was more expensive and even if it would cause industry to move to India or China, we could make exemptions for those industries and still greatly reduce our CO2 emissions. If all electricity used for personal use in homes and for businesses that cannot relocate to India and China, such as retail stores and restaurants, came from emissions-free sources, we could still greatly reduce the amount of emissions in this country, without causing more emissions in India and China.

Eric Stoner
07-29-2009, 07:12 AM
Please provide references.


Again, please provide references.


What are your references for this? I doubt they could figure out yearly average temperatures to the exact degree 1,000 years ago.


No it doesn't. That's misinformation from global warming deniers. It's a fact that CO2 causes the climate to warm.



Here's a site with links correcting myths from Steve McIntyre:

http://info-pollution.com/mandm.htm

Eric,

I'm sorry to tell you, just reading a few blogs and online articles doesn't make you or Melonie an expert in climate science. There's no possible way that either of you are knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to determine the validity of Global Warming. Of those scientists who are knowledgeable of the subject and have spent years doing research in the field, they are in overwhelming agreement that the climate is warming and man is contributing.

I have provided references. many times but every time I do they are poo pooed as oil industry stooges and the like. Do as I did and google " NASA temperature Hansen"; "Hadley Center temperature graphs " "Mcintyre" etc. etc. I noted the sites that have the info. You're free to READ them just as I did. NASA-watch and climateaudit are just two.

I do not pretend to be an expert. I would prefer that those holding themselves out as "experts" on G.W. use recognized scientific methods; standard statistical analysis and EXPLAIN facts that do NOT fit their theory. This is the big sticking point with G.W. alarmists. When presented with facts that do NOT fit, they either ignore them, pretend they do not exist or attack the person who pointed out the troublesome little things. I'd like to see one, (just ONE ! ) of these paragons of virtue have the guts to face and debate their critics. They have been challenged numerous times by G.W. skeptics to debate Man-made Global Warming and they wimp out every time. Al Gore has been very careful NEVER to let himself be interviewed by ANYBODY remotely familiar with the actual science and who is not already on board with his theories and proposed solutions. I've NEVER understood this. If I were propounding a theory that supposedly had all the science behind me and there were some "flat-earthers" who wanted to debate me, I'd leap at the opportunity to roll over them with the actual facts and figures. The cowardice of the G.W. proponents is both troubling and instructive.

No one is claiming that the climate has not warmed. It hasn't done so on an earth average temp basis since 1998 according to the NASA and Hadley Center charts. LOOK at your OWN graphs. Inter alia, this freaks out guys like Hansen who first tried to gin up the numbers and when that didn't fly, tried to change the whole nomenclature from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

Eric Stoner
07-29-2009, 07:15 AM
Most of our CO2 emissions comes from electricity generated for home and personal use and from automobiles. Any reduction in these areas will not be replaced by emissions in China or India. Requiring automobiles sold in the US to decrease CO2 emissions will not result in higher emissions in China or India.

I disagree that switching to emissions-free sources for generating electricity will increase costs. France uses nuclear power for all of their electricity and their rates are the lowest in Europe. I also disagree that this is going to cause industry to relocate to China and India. Even if emissions-free electricity was more expensive and even if it would cause industry to move to India or China, we could make exemptions for those industries and still greatly reduce our CO2 emissions. If all electricity used for personal use in homes and for businesses that cannot relocate to India and China, such as retail stores and restaurants, came from emissions-free sources, we could still greatly reduce the amount of emissions in this country, without causing more emissions in India and China.


I thought China's coal fired plants generated more CO2 than all of Europe ? That by 2017 China will pass the U.S. in total CO2 generation ?
That China's 3 biggest power plants generate more CO2 than ALL of Britain ?

Btw, why are some of the loudest G.W. alarmists also most opposed to greater use of nuclear power ?

How do you suggest restaurants cook food ? Solar powered ovens ?

Eric Stoner
07-29-2009, 07:16 AM
As I have posted on many previous occasions, from an economic standpoint it really doesn't matter whether there is any scientific validity to the human caused global warming theory or not. The pertinent fact is that China, India and other 'third world' countries have adamantly refused to participate in greenhouse gas reduction efforts. And with this refusal, any efforts made by the US, Western Europe etc. to reduce their own domestic greenhouse gas emissions will NOT actually cause any net reductions on a global level because the already comparatively 'clean' US and Western European businesses which are 'strangled' by the additional costs of carbon taxes will be replaced by an equal amount of 'dirty' businesses in China, India etc. springing up to take their place. Unless and until China and India decide to 'come on board', the US and EU imposing carbon taxes within their own jurisdictions will accomplish little more than economic self-mutilation. It will, however, allow certain people to 'feel' better, via the self-delusion of believing that by paying carbon taxes and lowering their own standard of living that they have actually accomplished something ( which in fact they have not on a global basis ).

Amen.

Eric Stoner
07-29-2009, 08:15 AM
Multiple points....

(1) As you can see by the hyperlinks, graphs and quotes I've included, that I've been reading "history' and responding to your points as you posted them. I could say that you misread and ignore my posts and that you probably refer to articles that only agree with the points you desire to make.

(2) I posted a graph called, 2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison which shows what you are discussing, called the Medieval Warm Period as well as the Little Ice Age. It also shows the very recent temperature spiking which you ignored, but which is crucial to the point. You'll have to note that the current temperature is within a few hundredths of that peak temperature ALREADY and just in the last 50-100 years. and we're trending upward from there VERY rapidly.

(3) Correction factors are meant, in analysis, to correct as much as possible data points so that data is put on a common ground. I have not read Hansen's analysis technique, but it may be an important point. This should be done correctly.

(4) Again, the corrections should be done correctly.

(5) NOAA standards may not be entirely necessary as this data is used for many purposes, not specifically for GW studies; other criteria for accuracy and determination of applicable corrections are. I will check into this soon.

(6) I was saying that our credit should be NOT to just China and other recalcitrant, developing countries, which have their own motivations. You did not read my point accurately.

(7) There is a lot more ice to melt. Or you actually saying that melting multi-megacubic miles of ice, which is partly above sea level, will not cause the sea to rise? EUREKA! You should read Archimedes (floating objects, displacement) and Chapter 1 of high school physical chemistry, the part about water turning into ice and the volume effect.

('8') My point about China is that China should be made to understand the effects on China which will come early in the oceanic rise effect. Unless China doesn't care about catastrophes happening to its peoples, and then maybe we all need to stave off Chinese goods, worldwide. What do bonds have to do with that?

(9) To the extent that humans have control over G.W., our temperature limits should be lower that that temperature at which global disasters occur. for one thing if we are able to hold to those limits, in terms ourour control abilities, OTHER natural factors could add additional temperature rise, thus spilling over into the disaster zone. In other words our should goal should be conservative.

Not only is there a LOT more ice to melt but over the past two winters Polar Ice INCREASED.

Ice is a LESS dense form of water than liquid. Liquid water takes up LESS space and has LESS displacement than the solid form. Cold water is MORE dense than warm water. ( I'm a boarder and can FEEL the difference between the ocean in May and in August.)

How do you suggest we "stave off Chinese goods" ? A trade war ?

At what temperature will "global disasters occur" ? Our current 59 degrees ? The 57 of 1650 ? ( A lot of people died from cold and starvation.) 61 degrees ? 62 degrees which SCIENTISTS say based on historical-climatic research was reached between 900 and 1100 A.D. ? Some think it was even HIGHER between 500 B.C. and 400 A.D.

Just a quick review of the macro climatic trends shows that they occur over HUNDREDS of years. The Medieval Warming period lasted 400 years ( from 900 to 1300 approx. ) which followed 500 years of cooling ( 400 to 900 A.D. ) which followed a 900 year period of warming. The "Little Ice Age" lasted from 1300 to about 1850. Why isn't the current warming just a return to statistical norms ?

threlayer
07-29-2009, 09:28 AM
^^

Actually water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius; its density decreases above and below that. That is the reason ice floats.
I'm still trying to find a reference to your statement that polar ice caps have increased over the last two years; I'm sure you realize that two years in any period is not a trend.
Since I'm not a global climatologist, I don't know that answer; however, you could find references for it yourself. It's a complex and gradual thing, and you'd have to decide what levels constitute a disaster. Likely different effects would tend to become disasters at different temperatures.
"Macro climatic trends shows that they occur over HUNDREDS of years..." Yes, as we defined them in the past, but if human interference is extreme the climatological effects will not wait for future generations of humans to define the "Modern Era Warming Spike".


I've noticed over the years that conservatives (those wanting the past to continue in the future) have denied the existence of human effects in nature in many areas. Inevitably things change and the past is already passed; Thomas Wolfe said it, "You can't go home again."


We have destroyed many human civilizations; we have hunted birds and animals to extinction; we have over-fished the oceans; we have reduced the population of the larger whales to less than 5% of what they were before we decided we needed to kill them; we have destroyed rivers and bodies of water; we have polluted the ocean and its floor and beaches with plastics and crude oil sludge; we have deforested and denuded much of the lush growing land; we have changed the flow of huge rivers, flooding out millions of square miles of land that was home to many species. As powerful as we are, or as we think are or would like to be, we cannot stop earthquakes, lightning storms, control tides and volcanoes, or cause climatological processes to go the way we wish they would. We have only destroyed parts of the earth and its flora and fauna with our presence; we have only taken from it and have returned nothing of value to it.

That's how destructive, greedy and controlling humans are. We cannot fix our collective destructive natures. Pretty pathetic in my opinion. If I were religious I might cynically say how proud God is of us for destroying the beautiful world He put us in. But I'm not religious, so I won't.

threlayer
07-29-2009, 09:39 AM
As I have posted on many previous occasions, from an economic standpoint it really doesn't matter whether there is any scientific validity to the human caused global warming theory or not. The pertinent fact is that China, India and other 'third world' countries have adamantly refused to participate in greenhouse gas reduction efforts. ....

Then China, Brazil and India, the significant non-aligned players will eventually find, after it is too late, just how bad flooding will be for their country and its population. I doubt if the rest of the world's powers will feel like coming to non-aligned countries' aid once their populations are massively shifted and their croplands are destroyed by rapidly rising salty marshes, increasing desert areas, increased severity of monsoons and severe storms. I suspect that when these highly destructive effects become obvious and severe, other countries will belatedly attempt to destroy much of the polluting facilities.

You think we have a huge financial disaster now? You haven't seen anything yet!!


How do you suggest we "stave off Chinese goods" ? A trade war ? No, that's too lame. When the time is right(*) a global boycott may well be necessary.

--------------
*That right time being when more people and governments realize the destruction that is already taking place and China is still being non-aligned. That's when we can act together. Unfortunately that may well be too late. I've got no faith in the competence of their government.

Eric Stoner
07-29-2009, 10:15 AM
Then China, Brazil and India, the significant non-aligned players will eventually find, after it is too late, just how bad flooding will be for their country and its population. I doubt if the rest of the world's powers will feel like coming to non-aligned countries' aid once their populations are massively shifted and their croplands are destroyed by rapidly rising salty marshes, increasing desert areas, increased severity of monsoons and severe storms. I suspect that when these highly destructive effects become obvious and severe, other countries will belatedly attempt to destroy much of the polluting facilities.

You think we have a huge financial disaster now? You haven't seen anything yet!!

Now it is "flooding" that will be the BIG climate change problem. Yesterday it was drought.

Eric Stoner
07-29-2009, 10:33 AM
^^ Actually water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius; its density decreases above and below that. That is the reason ice floats.
I'm still trying to find a reference to your statement that polar ice caps have increased over the last two years; I'm sure realize that two years in any period is not a trend.
Since I'm not a global climatologist, I don't know that answer; however, you could find references for it yourself. It's a complex and gradual thing, and you'd have to decide what levels constitute a disaster. Likely different effects would tend to become disasters at differnt temperatures.
"Macro climatic trends shows that they occur over HUNDREDS of years..." Yes, as we defined them in the past, but if human interference is extreme the climatological effects will not wait for future generations of humans to define the "Modern Era Warming Spike".

I've noticed over the years that conservatives (those wanting the past to continue in the future) have denied the existence of human effects in nature in many areas. Inevitably things change and the past is alread passed; Thomas Wolfe said it, "You can't go home again." We have destroyed many human civilizations; we have hunted birds and animals to extinction; we have over-fished the oceams; we have reduced the population of the larger whales to less than 5% of what they were before we decided needed to kill them; we have dstroyed rivers andf bodies of water; we have polluted the ocean and its floor and beaches with plastics and crude oil sludge; we have deforested and denuded much of the lush growing land; we have changed the flow of huge rivers, flooding out millions of square miles of land that was home to many species. As powerful as we are, or as we think are or would like to be, we cannot stop earthquakes, lightning storms, control tides and volcanos, or cause climatological processes to go the way we wished they would. We have only destroyed parts of the earth and its flora and fauna with our presence; we have only taken from it and have returned nothing of value to it. That's how destructive, greedy and controlling humans are. We cannot fix our collective destructive natures. Pretty pathetic in my opinion. If I were religious I might cynically say how proud God is of us for destroying the beautiful world He put us in. But I'm not religious, so I won't.


The other side of the coin is to marvel at how resilient Mother Earth is. Despite all the insult and degradation, the Earth is still here in a perfectly habitable state.

I recognize all the man-made ills and woes you listed and a whole bunch more.

Nonetheless the air and water in the U.S. is CLEANER now than it was 40 years ago. Many species like the bald eagle and alligator that used to be endangered have bounced back. Man has on occassion diverted the flow of natural waters. So has Mother Earth via hurricanes, typhoons and if you go back far enough, glaciers.

You are correct about over-fishing. I like fish but will not eat swordfish and most types of tuna because they are being over-fished. Talk to the Japanese ! They are far more responsible than the U.S. and still kill whales.

All that being said, what if Mother Earth couldn't care less ? What if we cut CO2 output worldwide in half and it still kept getting colder, or warmer or stayed about the same ? You realize, don't you,that lessened CO2 output = less warming is 100 % THEORETICAL ?That there is no way to know if lessened CO2 output will have any noticeable effect ?

Btw, if YOU are right, the ones who are REALLY going to suffer are the Chinese and the Indians. The melting of the Himalayan glaciers will drastically affect the Ganges and many other rivers in that part of Asia. It will directly affect the amount of water they have to drink and use for other purposes. They have obviously decided to take the chance. And both, but especially the Chinese, tend to take a long term view of things. They calculate impacts and changes over decades and NOT in two-year electoral increments like we do.

Btw- ARCTIC Ice had been shrinking since 1979 reaching a record low in 2006 according to the NATIONAL SNOW & ICE DATA CENTER ( nsidc.org. ) BUT increased in 2007, 2008 and in 2009. However over the past 20 years, ANTARCTIC sea ice has been increasing. Every year.

threlayer
07-29-2009, 03:15 PM
Now it is "flooding" that will be the BIG climate change problem. Yesterday it was drought. Flooding will be obvious to the most stupid among us; unfortunately it will also be too late. It is both effects and that is not contradictory. All sorts of weather anomalies can result from global warming. Water evaporates from being heated, winds carry it all over.


They have been challenged numerous times by G.W. skeptics to debate Man-made Global Warming and they wimp out every time. Al Gore has been very careful NEVER to let himself be interviewed by ANYBODY remotely familiar with the actual science and who is not already on board with his theories and proposed solutions. I've NEVER understood this. A non-scientist will never debate a scientist who is loquacious and has his facts together.


The other side of the coin is to marvel at how resilient Mother Earth is. Despite all the insult and degradation, the Earth is still here in a perfectly habitable state.


We have destroyed many human civilizations; we have hunted birds and animals to extinction; we have over-fished the oceans; we have reduced the population of the larger whales to less than 5% of what they were before we decided we needed to kill them; we have destroyed rivers and bodies of water; we have polluted the ocean and its floor and beaches with plastics and crude oil sludge; we have deforested and denuded much of the lush growing land; we have changed the flow of huge rivers, flooding out millions of square miles of land that was home to many species. Of all the things decimated or destroyed, which have come back? Answer: NONE See pollution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution) Many parts of Earth are not in a habitable state any more. So far we have been able to 'get by', but things are not the same and never will be. Not all of he Earth is self-cleaning, and the parts that are mostly transport waste and pollution to other locations and/or disperse it in its present concentration. But obviously this cannot go on forever. Ironically some of the civilizations we have destroyed are those that cared for the Earth and revered it. We do not; sadly we only exploit it.

We pass our waste and pollution as if those huge amounts are meaningless and will just be "somehow fixed", or are infinitessimal, or likely we just do not care. The process of thinking that Earth will forgive and fix our decimation of it is just faulty -- clearly some level of pollution will not be overcome by natural processes. We may not know that level, but it is surely our responsibility to try to figure that out before we destroy a lot of our small, unique, shared planet.

The US and other countries have become more responsible, government-wise, in the last few decades, as a result of activist pressures (probably the dreaded 'liberals') and now a few countries are in an initial position to start making some differences. But even here the 'money rooster' still rules the roost, and only in cases of government regulation or financial incentives will industry (and we) voluntarily reduce our impact. Since the only reason the Chinese have been permitted by their government to become so industrialized is because the rulers profit from it somehow and they will never give up their environmentally wasteful practices unless ther are financial incentives to do so. That will have to be forced onto them.


...there is no way to know if lessened CO2 output will have any noticeable effect? I have said this consistently. We do not know how altering our output of COS for example will reduce the GHG effects. For one thing the oceans affect how much CO2 is absorbed/produced and this is likely dependent on ocean temperature. There are many complexities to be studied. However, we do know that GHG raises the Earth's surface temperature to some extent. Though it may not be directly measurable like the amount of fuel in your gas tank, there are some indirect ways of determining this and many more are being studied.

Basically it is a question of gambling with the welfare of our civilization while those concerned joust with those who only are concerned with their own or their country's finances. How much will we bet, considering that we could lose everything including the lives of everyone we will ever know?

These are hard questions, but pretend for a moment that you are Captain of Spaceship Earth and you have to decide on current hardships or eventual destruction. You don't know how much hardship or when te destruction will begin, but you do know that it will be the in the future and that current actions need to be taken to avoid it. It certainly requires thought and judgement and consideration of your crew. Kind of an interesting episode of "Star Trek: New Generation", isn't it?

threlayer
07-29-2009, 08:34 PM
...ARCTIC Ice had been shrinking since 1979 reaching a record low in 2006 according to the NATIONAL SNOW & ICE DATA CENTER ( nsidc.org. ) BUT increased in 2007, 2008 and in 2009. However over the past 20 years, ANTARCTIC sea ice has been increasing. Every year.
It's not exactly like that:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet

If the transfer of the ice from the land to the sea is balanced by snow falling back on the land then there will be no net contribution to global sea levels. A 2002 analysis of NASA satellite data from 1979-1999 showed that areas of Antarctica where ice was increasing outnumbered areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1. The general trend shows that a warming climate in the southern hemisphere would transport more moisture to Antarctica, causing the interior ice sheets to grow, while calving events along the coast will increase, causing these areas to shrink. However more recent satellite data, which measures changes in the gravity of the ice mass, suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years. Another recent study compared the ice leaving the ice sheet, by measuring the ice velocity and thickness along the coast, to the amount of snow accumulation over the continent. This found that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet was in balance but the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was losing mass. This was largely due to acceleration of ice streams such as Pine Island Glacier. These results agree closely with the gravity changes."
"The continent-wide average surface temperature trend of Antarctica is positive and significant at >0.05°C/decade since 1957. West Antarctica has warmed by more than 0.1°C/decade in the last 50 years, and this warming is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by fall cooling in East Antarctica, this effect is restricted to the 1980s and 1990s."
"Despite this warming total Antarctic sea ice anomalies have been steadily increasing since 1978 (NSIDC (2006)). 2007 showed the largest positive anomaly of sea ice in the southern hemisphere since records have been kept starting in 1979 and 2008 is currently on pace to surpass last years record. The atmospheric warming cannot be directly linked to the recent mass losses in West Antarctica. This mass loss is more likely to be due to increased melting of the ice shelves because of changes in ocean circulation patterns. This in turn causes the ice streams to speed up. The melting and disappearance of the floating ice shelves will only have a small effect on sea level, which is due to salinity differences. The most important consequence of their increased melting is the speed up of the ice streams on land which are buttressed by these ice shelves."

What this leaves out is why the ocean circulation patterns are changing. But you see that it is a complex problem and difficult for the non-expert to understand correctly.

Melonie
07-30-2009, 01:38 AM
Again I am going to try and steer this thread away from arguments over the 'scientific' validity of the global warming theory. At the moment, and in this Dollar Den thread, the real validity that matters is political . economic validity ... i.e. the gov'ts of the US, France, Australia etc. have accepted the idea that something must be done to discourage / reduce carbon emissions in their own countries, and the most immediate 'something' is taking the form of proposed carbon taxes. Enacting of carbon taxes is likely to have profound economic effects on the international competitiveness of businesses and industries located in these countries, and none of those effects are likely to be positive. In fact, the 'unintended consequences' of enacting carbon taxes may be just as large as the INtended consequences, but this area is still largely unexplored and unpublicized ( i.e. the cow fart tax ).

Some Americans, French, Australians etc. take the position that, no matter what the short term economic cost to their countries, the reduction in carbon emissions is 'worth it' to help prevent future problems stemming from global warming. Others take the position that, as proposed and structured, a carbon tax will not actually prevent future problems stemming from global warming ... at least as long as China, India and other 'developing countries' remain exempt from such a tax ... thus the negative economic effects of a carbon tax will be endured without actually achieving the intended result.

Whether being done among internet posters or acknowledged climatologists / scientists, continuing arguments over the validity of the global warming theory really don't matter any longer. In the USA, the Supreme Court has already issued rulings empowering the Environmental Protection Agency to treat greenhouse gases as pollutants. In the USA, enough politicians in Washington are willing to support carbon cap and trade legislation ( for whatever reason ) that the enactment of a carbon tax is a real and imminent possibility. And once enacted, no tax ever gets rescinded in the future ( even if the justification for that tax eventually turns out to be invalid ).

Eric Stoner
07-30-2009, 06:54 AM
Again I am going to try and steer this thread away from arguments over the 'scientific' validity of the global warming theory. At the moment, and in this Dollar Den thread, the real validity that matters is political . economic validity ... i.e. the gov'ts of the US, France, Australia etc. have accepted the idea that something must be done to discourage / reduce carbon emissions in their own countries, and the most immediate 'something' is taking the form of proposed carbon taxes. Enacting of carbon taxes is likely to have profound economic effects on the international competitiveness of businesses and industries located in these countries, and none of those effects are likely to be positive. In fact, the 'unintended consequences' of enacting carbon taxes may be just as large as the INtended consequences, but this area is still largely unexplored and unpublicized ( i.e. the cow fart tax ).

Some Americans, French, Australians etc. take the position that, no matter what the short term economic cost to their countries, the reduction in carbon emissions is 'worth it' to help prevent future problems stemming from global warming. Others take the position that, as proposed and structured, a carbon tax will not actually prevent future problems stemming from global warming ... at least as long as China, India and other 'developing countries' remain exempt from such a tax ... thus the negative economic effects of a carbon tax will be endured without actually achieving the intended result.

Whether being done among internet posters or acknowledged climatologists / scientists, continuing arguments over the validity of the global warming theory really don't matter any longer. In the USA, the Supreme Court has already issued rulings empowering the Environmental Protection Agency to treat greenhouse gases as pollutants. In the USA, enough politicians in Washington are willing to support carbon cap and trade legislation ( for whatever reason ) that the enactment of a carbon tax is a real and imminent possibility. And once enacted, no tax ever gets rescinded in the future ( even if the justification for that tax eventually turns out to be invalid ).


One reason the discussion keeps bouncing back to the "science" is because the POLICIES are supposed to be based on a scientific consensus. Even the proponents of Cap & Trade and the like have been forced to admit that CO2 driven Global Warming is a THEORY. An UNPROVEN theory and the proposed "solutions" are even more theoretical. As I've pointed out, a big hole in the theory are facts that don't fit. Another is the cowardice of the proponents in facing and debating their critics. One hallmark of a PROVABLE scientific theory is peer review which consists in part of open challenge to the theory. A panel of learned colleagues with equivalent credentials ask questions of the proponent getting him or forcing him ( or her ) to DEFEND her theory. Afaik, this has NEVER been done with Global Warming. Yes, the research has been peer reviewed in various journals by those predisposed to accept it at face value. But the proponents have shied away from the "challenge" part of the process.

Melonie
07-30-2009, 07:56 AM
^^^ while all of this may be true, from the economic perspective of Dollar Den the only thing that really matters is that US, French, Australian etc. politicians have already been 'sold' on the idea that a carbon tax should be enacted. In the US at least, it would appear that the necessary votes to make a new carbon tax a reality are there ... thus US citizens and businesses having to pay a new carbon tax (directly or indirectly) is just a matter of time. And if history is any example, once enacted, a tax never goes away. With this in mind, and given the focus of Dollar Den, our time is probably better spent discussing the ramifications of a new carbon tax rather than continuing to discuss / question the 'science' behind the justification for a carbon tax. The US politicians have apparently seen all of the justification they need to pass it, regardless.

Eric Stoner
07-30-2009, 09:28 AM
^^^ while all of this may be true, from the economic perspective of Dollar Den the only thing that really matters is that US, French, Australian etc. politicians have already been 'sold' on the idea that a carbon tax should be enacted. In the US at least, it would appear that the necessary votes to make a new carbon tax a reality are there ... thus US citizens and businesses having to pay a new carbon tax (directly or indirectly) is just a matter of time. And if history is any example, once enacted, a tax never goes away. With this in mind, and given the focus of Dollar Den, our time is probably better spent discussing the ramifications of a new carbon tax rather than continuing to discuss / question the 'science' behind the justification for a carbon tax. The US politicians have apparently seen all of the justification they need to pass it, regardless.

Afaik it is NOT a done deal. It passed the House after mega arm twisting by Pelosi but has yet to pass the Senate.

threlayer
07-30-2009, 10:31 AM
You're right for purposes of this forum. (We have debated it in the Political Discussion group.) Just remember that the tax is a form of incentive; reduce your GHG and you reduce your taxes.

At least, in this long and timely thread, I have discussed the significant economic (though so far unrecognized) consequences of not dealing with the issue itself on those significant countries not contributing to the solution. Yes, dealing with it will reduce our current standard of living (ironically because of the actions of those not dealing with the issue), while not dealing with it eventually will become much more costly, probably more than we can even imagine. I don't have to be concerned too much, myself with these consequences, but you young people and yourc children will. To me ignoring such further global destruction is just not something I can live with.

They say, and very aptly here: "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

I don't know what else I can say, or do, here other than follow up on those points Eric has made, to my own satisfaction.

threlayer
07-30-2009, 10:51 AM
Again I am going to try and steer this thread away from arguments over the 'scientific' validity of the global warming theory...

Some...take the position that, no matter what the short term economic cost to their countries, the reduction in carbon emissions is 'worth it' to help prevent future problems stemming from global warming. Others take the position that, as proposed and structured, a carbon tax will not actually prevent future problems stemming from global warming ... at least as long as...'developing countries' remain exempt from such a tax ... thus the negative economic effects of a carbon tax will be endured without actually achieving the intended result.This is a bit similar to nuclear proliferation in a few ways. The most dangerous nuclear countries are the emerging ones -- Pakistan, India, Iran, N Korea, the disassociated former USSR (I'd add Israel too). For GHG the most serious offenders probably are China, India and Brazil (deforestation). In both cases eventually others may be added to that list. At least that narrows down the list of recalcitrant countries to work with to a handful. And that produces a finite number of possible productive approaches, at least one of which we hope will produce results before disaster happens. And in time it will.


...And once enacted, no tax ever gets rescinded in the future ( even if the justification for that tax eventually turns out to be invalid ). That is the truth, though the details are constantly in a state of flux. But we do not have too much time to get it right.

Melonie
07-30-2009, 02:52 PM
Afaik it is NOT a done deal. It passed the House after mega arm twisting by Pelosi but has yet to pass the Senate.

acknowledged ... thus my choice of thread title. However, the US Senate supposedly has the votes for passage ... and passage is highly likely in exchange for 'killing' national health care legislation.


Just remember that the tax is a form of incentive; reduce your GHG and you reduce your taxes.

Not wanting to sound like a broken record, but 'not in China you don't'. Also, a carbon tax is also a strong incentive for US companies to TOTALLY reduce their GHG emissions to ZERO ... by outsourcing production to China !

threlayer
07-30-2009, 03:00 PM
Isn't the effect dependent on the tax/exchange rate? What if that rate were to change. Further, we cannot reduce our CO2 to zero unless we reduce our consumption to zero. I'm going to have to learn some mechanics of this initiative.

eagle2
07-31-2009, 12:15 AM
Again I am going to try and steer this thread away from arguments over the 'scientific' validity of the global warming theory. At the moment, and in this Dollar Den thread, the real validity that matters is political . economic validity ... i.e. the gov'ts of the US, France, Australia etc. have accepted the idea that something must be done to discourage / reduce carbon emissions in their own countries, and the most immediate 'something' is taking the form of proposed carbon taxes. Enacting of carbon taxes is likely to have profound economic effects on the international competitiveness of businesses and industries located in these countries, and none of those effects are likely to be positive. In fact, the 'unintended consequences' of enacting carbon taxes may be just as large as the INtended consequences, but this area is still largely unexplored and unpublicized ( i.e. the cow fart tax ).

Some Americans, French, Australians etc. take the position that, no matter what the short term economic cost to their countries, the reduction in carbon emissions is 'worth it' to help prevent future problems stemming from global warming. Others take the position that, as proposed and structured, a carbon tax will not actually prevent future problems stemming from global warming ... at least as long as China, India and other 'developing countries' remain exempt from such a tax ... thus the negative economic effects of a carbon tax will be endured without actually achieving the intended result.

Whether being done among internet posters or acknowledged climatologists / scientists, continuing arguments over the validity of the global warming theory really don't matter any longer. In the USA, the Supreme Court has already issued rulings empowering the Environmental Protection Agency to treat greenhouse gases as pollutants. In the USA, enough politicians in Washington are willing to support carbon cap and trade legislation ( for whatever reason ) that the enactment of a carbon tax is a real and imminent possibility. And once enacted, no tax ever gets rescinded in the future ( even if the justification for that tax eventually turns out to be invalid ).

According to an MIT Report, cap-and-trade has had little or no negative impact on the overall EU economy.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/07/04/mit-report-world-can-learn-from-european-cap-and-trade-system/

This contradicts Melonies claim that businesses are going to pack up and move to China if they're required to reduce emissions.

Melonie
07-31-2009, 03:21 AM
^^^ if you actually read the report instead of just the news story, you could see that even the report's authors acknowledge that there are 'problems' with the EU version of carbon cap and trade.



Specifically, the amount of 'free' carbon credits that were allocated by government resulted in 'windfall profits' for favored industries ... while unfavored industries who did not receive 'overly generous' allocations of free carbon credits were forced to purchase them ( thus creating new financial pressures). Even so, gov't distribution of 'free' carbon credits was mostly done based on 'grandfathering' rather than actual generation levels of CO2 / GHG.

There was also the point that EU carbon cap and trade did not cover every segment of the economy, mostly just power plants and heavy industry. Thus the system's economic impact was far lower than an all-inclusive system as proposed for the USA. Also, europe's much higher installed base of nuclear power plants ... and europe's ability to 'import' power from coal fired generators in eastern european countries which are not subject to the EU carbon tax ... further reduced the potential economic impact.

In other words, the EU's carbon cap and trade system bears little resemblance to the all-inclusive carbon cap and trade system proposed for the USA. The USA does not (yet) have the power infrastructure to 'import' cheap coal fired power from Mexico to circumvent the carbon tax as Western Europe is able to do from Poland and other eastern european countries. And there is no reason to believe that the US gov's allocations of 'free' carbon credits will be based on 'grandfathered' carbon emissions levels.

threlayer
07-31-2009, 03:56 AM
...This contradicts Melonies claim that businesses are going to pack up and move to China if they're required to reduce emissions.
This is the overriding theme of this Dollar Den -- someone else controls the world's economy and the USA is going to Hell because we haven't been living in the early 1900s under a Republican do-nothing administration. That might or might not be our future. But my theme is that it doesn't have to happen that way and there are things we can do about it by being politically active rather than roll over and play dead or escape.

Melonie
07-31-2009, 02:49 PM
But my theme is that it doesn't have to happen that way and there are things we can do about it by being politically active rather than roll over and play dead or escape.

This is true ! America could make the situation even WORSE for itself by starting a 'trade war' as a result of trying to protect it's remaining industries from lower cost foreign competition via gov't subsidies to selected industries ( oops, that's already happened with auto), enacting tariffs and quotas against much less expensive imports ( oops, that's already happened too with ethanol) ...

eagle2
07-31-2009, 09:31 PM
This is true ! America could make the situation even WORSE for itself by starting a 'trade war' as a result of trying to protect it's remaining industries from lower cost foreign competition via gov't subsidies to selected industries ( oops, that's already happened with auto),

No it didn't. We're not subsidizing our auto industry to protect it from foreign competition. We're providing assistance to them as a result of an economic downturn. When the economy recovers, it is expected that our auto industry will compete without government assistance.

Melonie
08-01-2009, 01:12 AM
We're not subsidizing our auto industry to protect it from foreign competition

In the case of GM and Chrysler the US taxpayer is definitely subsidizing these companies ... both by low interest gov't guaranteed loans made to the companies themselves, and via low interest TARP money made available to GM and Chrysler's financing arm GMAC.

eagle2
08-01-2009, 01:22 AM
There was also the point that EU carbon cap and trade did not cover every segment of the economy, mostly just power plants and heavy industry. Thus the system's economic impact was far lower than an all-inclusive system as proposed for the USA. Also, europe's much higher installed base of nuclear power plants ... and europe's ability to 'import' power from coal fired generators in eastern european countries which are not subject to the EU carbon tax ... further reduced the potential economic impact.


The intent of cap and trade is to encourage the production of clean energy. Cap-and-trade in the US will most likely result in more nuclear power plants being built in the US. While France gets all of it's energy from nuclear power, I doubt there is much difference in other European countries in the percentage of power they get from nuclear, as compared to the US.

Eastern European countries are part of the EU which would mean they are subject to the same restrictions, which could be why they are planning to significantly increase the amount of power they're getting from nuclear.

http://www.powermag.com/nuclear/Eastern-Europe-Prepares-for-Nuclear-Revival_1697.html

eagle2
08-01-2009, 01:25 AM
In the case of GM and Chrysler the US taxpayer is definitely subsidizing these companies ... both by low interest gov't guaranteed loans made to the companies themselves, and via low interest TARP money made available to GM and Chrysler's financing arm GMAC.

You are not responding to what I said. I didn't say we weren't subsidizing these companies. I said, We're not subsidizing our auto industry to protect it from foreign competition. The reason for the subsidies has nothing to do with foreign competition. It is a result of what happened in this country.

Melonie
08-01-2009, 02:54 AM
The intent of cap and trade is to encourage the production of clean energy. Cap-and-trade in the US will most likely result in more nuclear power plants being built in the US.

Then how do you explain the recent cancellation of nuclear power plant projects in the US and Canada ?

The explanation given by the power companies / investors is that demand for electricity is falling due to the closing of energy intensive industries who were formerly large power users. Even if a carbon tax raises the price of coal / oil / gas fired electricity relative to nuclear / hydro electricity, it still makes zero sense to invest billions of dollars into construction of a nuclear power plant if regulatory compliance costs / labor costs keep raising the price of construction, and if falling electricity demand versus current generation capacity forces down the 'marginal' electricity price to the point where it becomes difficult for nuclear power plants to keep making their multi-million dollar 'mortgage' payments to lenders.





^^^ there is even a speculative piece which states that potential nuclear plant projects are finding 'tough sledding' in regard to attracting investor money at affordable interest rates because many potential power generation investors are now going towards solar instead. The reason for this is that solar offers the investors 'production tax credits' which can be used to offset investor taxes due on income from other sources, which can greatly affect the expected after tax rate of return for million dollar a year investors soon to be subjected to heavy income tax increases.


I said, We're not subsidizing our auto industry to protect it from foreign competition. The reason for the subsidies has nothing to do with foreign competition. It is a result of what happened in this country.

Yeah, right. OK I'll rephrase. The US gov't is subsidizing GM and Chrysler to protect them from 'domestic' competition by foreign owned automakers and non-unionized US auto workers, as well as from direct foreign import competition.

~

Eric Stoner
08-03-2009, 07:45 AM
You are not responding to what I said. I didn't say we weren't subsidizing these companies. I said, We're not subsidizing our auto industry to protect it from foreign competition. The reason for the subsidies has nothing to do with foreign competition. It is a result of what happened in this country.

The subsidies are more than anything else a result of what happened to GM and Chrysler since the first Oil Shock of 1973 aka The Arab Oil Embargo.

American car makers were caught flat-footed by the spike in oil prices and did not have a line of fuel efficient vehicles to sell to the American public. Datsun ( now Nissan ); Toyota; Honda and to some extent VW did. What Detroit produced was mostly garbage: the Pinto; the Pacer; the Chevette; and of course the VEGA ! It took at least a full decade for Detroit to catch up and re-tool. During the same time, the overall quality of American made cars was far behind the Germans and Japanese.

After Reagan took office and decontrolled oil prices, production went up; the price fell and Detroit went back to building gas guzzlers albeit the quality came to be comparable to foreign made vehicles.

The REAL problem was what was happening vis a vis the UAW during this time. GM, Ford and Chrysler effectively became mini-welfare states with lavish pensions; cradle to grave comprehensive health care; inefficient work rules and generous pay culminating in paying workers NOT to work when they created "job banks". The per hour compensation in pay and benefits of a UAW member became almost DOUBLE what an American working for Toyota or Honda was making. It was unsustainable and everyone knew it. Even before the recent economic downturn, GM and Chrysler were on the skids. Lost market share to foreign competition was just a small part of the problem. Remember, during the Reagan/ Bush I years there were IMPORT quotas limiting the number of Japanese cars sold in the U.S. Guess who did away with them as part of "free trade" ? Clinton. GM spent the later Clinton years and G.W.'s first term selling off profitable pieces of itself - EDS; Hughes to enable it to keep paying it's ridiculous labor costs.

Melonie
08-03-2009, 01:56 PM
After Reagan took office and decontrolled oil prices, production went up; the price fell and Detroit went back to building gas guzzlers albeit the quality came to be comparable to foreign made vehicles.

The intent of cap and trade is to encourage the production of clean energy


Arguably, the TRUE purpose of carbon cap and trade is to increase the market price of ALL energy. This will lessen the large cost differential between 'conventional' energy sources and 'green' energy sources, but it doesn't make 'green' energy sources any less expensive in absolute terms. This will also make it financially impossible for most individual Americans to buy and drive large vehicles. This will also make it financially impossible for most energy intensive US industries to remain profitable, and thus eliminate their conventional pollutant output along with their energy consumption.

eagle2
08-03-2009, 10:59 PM
Arguably, the TRUE purpose of carbon cap and trade is to increase the market price of ALL energy.

Wrong. Carbon cap and trade will not increase the cost of energy for anyone who gets their power from nuclear power plants, hydro-electric dams, wind, or solar, which is a significant number of people/businesses.



This will lessen the large cost differential between 'conventional' energy sources and 'green' energy sources, but it doesn't make 'green' energy sources any less expensive in absolute terms. This will also make it financially impossible for most individual Americans to buy and drive large vehicles. This will also make it financially impossible for most energy intensive US industries to remain profitable, and thus eliminate their conventional pollutant output along with their energy consumption.

Good. Maybe auto manufacturers will stop making shitboxes like the Explorer and Trailblazer.

Melonie
08-03-2009, 11:54 PM
Wrong. Carbon cap and trade will not increase the cost of energy for anyone who gets their power from nuclear power plants, hydro-electric dams, wind, or solar, which is a significant number of people/businesses

You obviously have no idea how ISO spot market electricity pricing works. If there is one gas / oil / coal fired power plant online to meet the total system load requirement, the electricity price charged to everybody is set by that one gas / oil / coal fired power plant. Yes this means that nuclear and hydro generators get to pocket a huge profit margin. But it also means that if carbon taxes chase out a coal fired power plant, and a gas fired power plant takes it's place, the higher operating cost level of the gas fired power plant will be passed on to every electricity customer on the grid - including those electricity customers who are actually being supplied by nuclear or hydro power ! The only way that the price of grid electricity would actually go down is if additional nuclear or hydro generators came online, or if enough existing load were permanently driven offline, so that the entire system load could be met without the use of a single gas / oil / coal fired power plant.



Good. Maybe auto manufacturers will stop making shitboxes like the Explorer and Trailblazer

Yes but these large vehicles were PROFITABLE for US automakers, whereas subcompacts are not ... because labor cost constitutes a much higher percentage of the smaller vehicle's sale price.

eagle2
08-04-2009, 02:18 AM
Natural gas is cheaper than coal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124502125590313729.html

Melonie
08-04-2009, 03:32 AM
^^^ temporarily true, as the arguable result of commodity speculation and strong demand for export of US steam coal to eastern european generators - that have received overly generous free carbon credits from their governments and thus can profitably export their electricity to western europe.

However, coal fired power plants are able to achieve a 40% overall thermal efficiency, versus 36% for natural gas, which alters the fuel cost versus generation cost equation versus the direct btu based cost of the fuel.

Eric Stoner
08-04-2009, 06:26 AM
Wrong. Carbon cap and trade will not increase the cost of energy for anyone who gets their power from nuclear power plants, hydro-electric dams, wind, or solar, which is a significant number of people/businesses.



Good. Maybe auto manufacturers will stop making shitboxes like the Explorer and Trailblazer.

Twer it only true. As Melonie has pointed out, it ain't necessarily so. Once the juice is generated there is NO WAY to tell how it happened.

Again, as Melonie pointed out, you just named two of the more profitable American made cars. Just like Japan makes money on Lexus SUV's and LOSES money on the Prius.

threlayer
08-04-2009, 06:51 AM
Then how do you explain the recent cancellation of nuclear power plant projects in the US and Canada ?

The explanation given by the power companies / investors is that demand for electricity is falling due to the closing of energy intensive industries who were formerly large power users. Even if a carbon tax raises the price of coal / oil / gas fired electricity relative to nuclear / hydro electricity, it still makes zero sense to invest billions of dollars into construction of a nuclear power plant if regulatory compliance costs / labor costs keep raising the price of construction, and if falling electricity demand versus current generation capacity forces down the 'marginal' electricity price to the point where it becomes difficult for nuclear power plants to keep making their multi-million dollar 'mortgage' payments to lenders.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/15/nuclear-power-plant-cost-bombshell-ontario/

http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/05/nuclear-power-plant-costs-progress-energy/

^^^ there is even a speculative piece which states that potential nuclear plant projects are finding 'tough sledding' in regard to attracting investor money at affordable interest rates because many potential power generation investors are now going towards solar instead. The reason for this is that solar offers the investors 'production tax credits' which can be used to offset investor taxes due on income from other sources, which can greatly affect the expected after tax rate of return for million dollar a year investors soon to be subjected to heavy income tax increases.

~

You have to understand something omitted in the above. Nuclear power plants are EXTREMELY capital intensive. Large loans have been almost impossible to obtain in the last year. These loans are not made by individuals. Further, to make matters worse, probably all US Public Utility Commissions, prevent utilities from adding incomplete projects to their rate base -- that is, for nuclear plants, the interest during construction and of course the depreciation during the possibly 10-year design / construction / testing / fuel loading phases will have to be borne completely by the utility, its equity-holders, and its debt-holders. Only after the plant is producing power for its customers can the cost of the nuclear plant be put on its asset books so that the plant costs and operating costs are then shared by the ratepayers.

Add that to NRC-mandated along-the-way improvements, environmental activist pressures, PUC delays and almost mandatory, politically-inspired, cost-based reductions in electricity rates, and the current unreadiness of the nuclear manufacturing/construction industry, and you get a LOT more strikes against building nuclear power plants. It has been a long time since a new US plant was designed, so also I worry that much of the engineering experience and expertise has long since retired. These are industry-wide things you didn't mention.

In the scope of things, nuclear power has a pretty small environmental impact -- just the mining and refining operations for fuel and construction materials, heated water or steam effluents, some cubic-meterage in managed radioactive waste facilities, and indirectly effects from construction and manufacturing of its components built into the plant itself, most of which are common to other fossil-fired generating plants. No CO2 or methane or SO2 or NOx or particulates or smoke, etc.

Perhaps the best way to add nuclear plants is for groups of utilities to form consotiums to share the construction costs and interest during consruction (which mounts up to a huge percentage of final plant costs that ratepayers have to pay off).

Viva la France for its foresight in the nuclear industry.

threlayer
08-04-2009, 07:06 AM
However, coal fired power plants are able to achieve a 40% overall thermal efficiency, versus 36% for natural gas, which alters the fuel cost versus generation cost equation versus the direct btu based cost of the fuel.

You see, I disagree with those numbers. Further I disagree with the concept of burning an extremely clean fuel, natural gas, in a bulk operation.

Coal-fired plants with sulfur scrubbers, flyash filtering, heated water effluent cooling towers, coal pulverizers, boiler maintenance, etc are less effcient than natural gas fired plants of the same general design. This is because of two things -- less plant power is used for internal operations and fewer planned or emergency outages due to boiler failure.

I don't know where that blog got its numbers, nor do I immediately have corrected average plant efficiency numbers, but that just must be wrong. (The hazard of believing numbers because they are printed online; you must qualify your sources.)

While we are in an era where we still burn fossil fuels, the easiest to control fuels ought to be used in distibuted applications such as home heating, transportation, smaller industrial processes where pollution control is not needed and would be too expensive. Large plants, power and industrial (like iron and steel) then can burn fuels where expensive pollution control more affordable and easier to monitor and regulate per million BTUs. Consequently there are many more coal and oil fired plants than natural gas plants which are concentrated in areas where natural gas is produced.

Eric Stoner
08-04-2009, 07:16 AM
You have to understand something omitted in the above. Nuclear power plants are EXTREMELY capital intensive. Large loans have been almost impossible to obtain in the last year. These loans are not made by individuals. Further, to make matters worse, probably all US Public Utility Commissions, prevent utilities from added incomplete projects to their rate base -- that is, for nuclear plants, the interest during construction and of course the depreciation during the possibly 10-year design / construction / testing / fuel loading phases wil have to ber borne completely by the utility, its equity-holders, and its debt-holders.Only after th plant is producing power for its customers can the cost of the nuclear plant be put o its asset books so that the plant costs and operating costs are then shared by the ratepayers.

Add that to NRC-mandated along-the-wayimprovements, environmental activist pressures, PUC delays and almost mandatort, politically-inspired, cost-base reductions in electricity rates, and the current unreadiness of the nuclear manufacturing/construction industry, and you get a LOT more strikes against building nuclear power. It has been a long time since a ne3w plant was designed, so I worry that much of the engineering experience and expertise has long since retired. These are industry-wide things you didn't mention.

In the scope of things nuclear power has a pretty small environmental impact -- just the mining and refining operations for fuel and construction materials, heated water or steam effluents, some cubic-meterage in managed waste facilities, and indirectly effects from construction and manufacturing of components built into the plant itself. No CO2 or methane or SO2 or NOx or particulates or smoke, etc.

Perhaps the best way to add nuclear plants is for groups of utilities to form consotiums to share the construction costs and interst during consruction (which mounts up to a huge percentage of plant costs).

Viva la France for its foresight in the nuclear industry.

You are right in that nuclear power is the world's MOST expensive way to boil water AND we still have to deal with the waste. The French encase it in black glass and keep it in water covered storage facilities when they could and should dump it in the muddy bottom of some very stable areas of the Pacific Ocean.

You are also correct about all the extra costs of trying to burn coal in a cleaner way as opposed to using natural gas which burns much cleaner than coal.

No matter what we do, we are going to need sensible government policies that enable manufacturers of nuclear plants to recoup their investment; to enable MORE wind and solar farms etc.

threlayer
08-04-2009, 08:21 AM
Ironically, when we worry over potential leakage of nuclear waste with its very long half-life and place this against the eventual disaster caused by global warming due to power production with its common alternate fossil fuels (which is still widely disregarded), I believe we are merely reflecting the worries of the public over a complex technology which they just do not understand.

The capital cost of nuclear power plants will continue to be very high due to the safety measures needed and required. Fuel cost will be increasing, though, as more regulations and environmental controls are instituted in countries producing the "yellow cake" source mineral and in the processing stages. The argument about letting nuclear fuel production, in some stage, occur in low wage countries where uranium is mined goes against the precautions needed for nuclear proliferation.

This has been and will continue to be a problem with democracies with their voter influence in the face of essential ignorance of the technologies affecting their lives.

Melonie
08-05-2009, 06:59 AM
This has been and will continue to be a problem with democracies with their voter influence in the face of essential ignorance of the technologies affecting their lives

^^^ truer words were never spoken !!!! Plus this comment applies to many subject areas besides electric power generation !

threlayer
08-05-2009, 10:07 AM
^^ SOLUTION: Education !!!! (which belongs in an entirely different thread)

Eric Stoner
08-05-2009, 12:14 PM
^^ SOLUTION: Education !!!! (which belongs in an entirely different thread)

Wouldn't it be great if the Dems actually supported an educated electorate ?
Oh wait a minute. That might lead to intelligent voting. Better to keep em ignorant and functionally illiterate.