Worse now, and likely to get a lot worse

And what exactly would you have the government do with the tax proceeds? Build wind farms? Apparently Denmark isn't having much luck with this windy fool's errand:

Wind power is a complete disaster - FP Comment

Note that Wind Farms receive a subsidy of $23.34 US on a MWh basis, while nuclear received only $1.59. The Green Wind Business is just a boondoggle to make a few people very wealthy.

Face it, if the Believers are correct, nothing short of massive worldwide genocide will save the climate. Who will decide who lives and who dies? Shouldn't we wait to see if there's a real problem here before slaughtering 90% of the world's population? Oh, you don't want to kill everyone? Then what are the REAL alternatives given the Believer's logic? For me, I'll wait until we can actually see and measure real effects from man-made global warming. Effects like Florida slipping under the waves. Even then I think I'd rather take my chances than submit to the government's guillotine.

 

I hope no later than Florida going under we can agree to tax ourselves to pay the full cost of the carbon use. Granted there are enormous problems getting enough of the world to act.

Use of the money need not be tied to the use of the fuel. That's why carbon tax is better than C+T. Spend it on nukes, health care, reforestation, whatever the democracy decides. The important thing is not to allow use of carbon without shouldering the environmental cost. No need to supposedly plant trees even though no one really does so, or it is not done effectively.

 

You're playing word games.
When I say Enron Invented Cap and Trade,I'm referring to CO2 C&T.
That's not an urban myth.
Enron ran the Sulfur C&T program mentioned in the article BTW

 

But what if there is no environmental cost? I agree that fossil fuel use should be reduced/eliminated, but for a host of reasons other than a possible (and unproven) connection with greenhouse global warming. The real problems should be addressed with real science based on real data without political influence.

 

I am not even going to dignify a response to the utterly inane comment that we shouldn't do anything until Florida is under the waves! Secondly, your suggestion that if you accept that there is a global warming issue, the only solution is to "slaughter 90% of the worlds population" is even more disgusting! If you want to rationally discuss the issues, feel free, but not if you want to revert back to the "be scared, be very scared" school of social dialogue.

I have, on very many occasions put forward numerous solutions that can (and do, and will) have a significant effect on CO2 emissions, I don't need to spell it all out again. If you wish you can do a search for what I have written previously.

Now to rebut your opine and your link. I have never said that the solution(s) are going to come without additional cost(s) What I have said is the sooner realize what we must do, the cheaper it will be. I also suggest that if we had done something (or at least something more!) since the 1970's to promote a rational energy policy, we would be in a better position today!

So from your own link: "Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢)."

First, consider (not even considering the source, the Financial Post, a very right leaning paper!) that Ontario has some of the cheapest electrical costs in N. America. This is due to a number of factor, including reasonably abundant hydro, and heavily subsidized Nuclear power. Because Ontarians are only paying ~$.06 kwh does mean that is what the power costs (net/net) nor does it mean that is what the power is worth. Successive Ontario governments and indeed federal Canadian governments have, as a matter of policy have promoted cheap retail power prices, usually as a matter of political leverage.

(until a few years ago Ontario Hydro was a Crown Corp. that as a utility monopoly was responsible for generating and delivering power to most of the province. It worked quite well for generations, bringing reasonably priced power with public ownership. The Harris government (whose mantra was Reaganesque "privatize everything") sold off Hydro to a number of private companies, and the results have been mixed at best! Cost have gone up, service quality has gone down, and folks in the north have suffered as a result. It is more profitable to sell power to the N.E US than sell it in the province. In addition, the net profits don't go to the public, but rather to the "investors".)

There are many in the US who would kill for average residential power in the $ .15/kwh! In parts of California, the rate can be twice that, so please explain how wind power, generated at $.15 is a "complete disaster"?

Just FYI, the average kwh price of electricity in the US is ~$.12 kwh. So, to add ~20% to the cost of electricity to have power that doesn't have any carbon emission is a no brainer! (I do understand that the price to produce vs the price at the meter are two different issues, but your source mixes the two as well). My point is that viable alternatives do exist, and they can be used today without bankrupting anyone, nor slaughtering 90% of the worlds population.

So you asked, what would I do with the proceeds of a carbon tax? I would first encourage simple, easy, cheap, and very effective conservation and the technology to do so. Insulation, fuel efficient transport, public transit, smart grid, LED and CFL lights are starts. I would also use some of the money to continue to jump start wind, solar, tidal, as well as R&D in these areas. The simple economy of scale brings down the cost of any installed KWH of RE. Finally, I would set aside a portion of the money generated from any Carbon tax to redirect money to the poorest among us so that the results of the tax are not unduly carried by those that can least afford it.

 

I am not playing word games, nor do I wish to pick nits. There are many here who parse everything one says, such that if you say something even if the meaning is clear to you, but it could be mis-read they will use your lack of clarity to assail you.

I was merely pointing out that Enron didn't (as you said) invent cap and trade.

 

A, prove that it doesn't! and second and perhaps most importantly B, what do you do if you are wrong?

What possible objection can one have to reduce energy use to save money, to increase national security, to help with energy independence , preserve resources for future generations even if it comes at some minimal costs now? Especially if there is a side benefit of reducing CO2 emission "just in case" you are wrong. Please, tell me what is wrong with such a strategy?

The only argument I ever hear is that "it is socialism" or " it will bankrupt us" or that "it will take away our freedom" or that "will cripple our economy". No one ever has said how any of these things will come to pass, except "fear".

 

The point is that Florida ISN'T going under the waves! There hasn't been any undue sea level rises, contrary to the AGW hypothesis. That you want to fix a problem that doesn't exists suggest that you and the Warmists have a hidden agenda.

This is just the absurd outcome if CO2 emissions are rolled back to 1800 levels, as the Warmists claim is necessary. There is absolutely no way to reduce man made CO2 emissions as desired without doing away with most of humankind. Absurd? Certainly? And out of the mouths of the Warmists.

But your solutions are fairy tales! As the Denmark link shows, their wind program, besides being very expensive, resulted in a net increase of CO2 emissions due to the requirement to provide base load power using fossil fuels. Their base load plants are running less efficiently due to the political wind influence. Once again, so-called alternative power sources are just fairy tales! Denmark proves it.

Er, where in California does electricity cost $0.30/kwh?

By the Warmist's own admission, all this won't be enough. All your suggestions just don't make sense given the goals of your movement. Yet you don't want to do the things that WOULD help! Things like more hydro and nuclear.

Your last sentence above is telling. You want income redistribution. Let me see... you want Big Government controlling our every move and fart, and you want to level incomes so that we are all one happy class. Now, what does that remind me of...

 

He wants them to pay the actual costs of their activities and now push it off on the rest of us. The fossil fuel industry in the US gets 6x the subsidies that renewables get (if you exclude ethanol subsidies). That's $72 B/yr for an industry that's been around for over a century. The coal industry doesn't pay the healthcare costs that are incured by the pollution that coal plants spew into the atmosphere. That's just one example of an externality that the industry is directly responsible for yet they avoid paying the cost.

Whether or not you agree with AGW, if you want technologies to compete in a "free" market you need to level the playing field. There's no reason for oil and coal to get the massive subsidies that they get (mostly in the form a very generous tax credits and exemptions).

 

Ah, the fossil fuel industries are forcing us to use their product! That means that those evil corporations have to pay for my health care. I totally understand now. Where do I sign up?

You have uttered an oxymoron! A "free market" and "level playing field" are mutually exclusive on their face.

Once again, this whole AGW argument boils down to advocacy of coercive socialism versus free market capitalism. I doubt if we'll settle the matter here.

 

I am not talking coercive "socialism" in spite of what you may call it.

I have no idea what you mean by "free market" and "level playing field" being an oxymoron. Do folks like you think the "free market" is the holy grail? Do you accept that that we don't now have a level playing field nor a free market?

"This is just the absurd outcome if CO2 emissions are rolled back to 1800 levels, as the Warmists claim is necessary. There is absolutely no way to reduce man made CO2 emissions as desired without doing away with most of humankind. Absurd? Certainly? And out of the mouths of the Warmists."

I have never suggested that CO2 levels have to go back to ~1800 levels. The numbers that I hear are a net reduction of ~20-40% would be enough to keep the climate in stasis.


"Er, where in California does electricity cost $0.30/kwh?"

Following link gives the average retail price for electricity in the US. Note that the average CA rate is $.1508/kwh Peak can be much higher, often double.

Electric Power Monthly - Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, by State

"By the Warmist's own admission, all this won't be enough. All your suggestions just don't make sense given the goals of your movement. Yet you don't want to do the things that WOULD help! Things like more hydro and nuclear."

First, I am in favour of doing everything that makes sense, and I have spelled (over many posts) could be enough if we were serious! My own personal example is pretty representative. I have never stated any opposition to hydro, and in fact encourage it, there are cases where the downside out weighs the benefit however. Low head, run of the river hydro is a much better start, and is available in small scale lots of places.

As I am sure you know my opposition to Nukes revolves around the very real issue of what to with the waste! As I have stated man times before, if you could figure out how to keep nuke waste safe for it's dangerous life (multiple centuries at the least). My primary opposition is that I cannot envision any system that can be kept securefrom any and every nut job for a number of generations. I cite once again, the history of the USSR. After only a generation, we can't keep track of the nuke bombs they built, much less the industrial waste! To think we could do this for generations is only endangering future generations. I am not willing to do that for a few KWHs of my cheap power!

 

The price of their products is articially low??? Try to connect the dots before you answer.

What exactly do you mean by this. We all know that are very few free markets. The reason for that is preferencal subsidies or protectionist practices. But in the absense of that, a level playing field doesn't preclude competitive advantage, far from it. It simply means that coal, for example, shouldn't get massive tax subsidies that dwarf those of other technologies competing in the energy markets.

No, it's about paying the true cost of something instead of putting heads in the sand and pretending those costs don't exist. But you are correct about one thing, different views won't be reconciled here.

 

i do everything you do to reduce my carbon footprint. whether one CHOOSES to believe it is enough to change the future won't actually change the future. don't feel any worse for my children than i do for yours, we're all in the same boat(planet).

 

Yes indeed we are all in the same boat as you suggest. Doing all one can is part of the solution,, leading by example, teaching others, and speaking out against misinformation/half truth and denialist BS is also part of the solution.

If you really believe that we have passed a tipping point and all is lost, well so be it,, party on. The evidence that I have seen suggests that we are near the tipping point, and certainly within a generation or so we will have passed it. The issue now is, if we haven't reached it, anything and everything we can do (both a and b of above) at the very least may buy us some time,, time for our children to figure out how to get themselves out of our mess(es).

 

Ah, you must be taking about voluntary socialism then. Do you voluntarily donate more than you're taxed to support the welfare classes in the style to which they've become accustomed? If so, I could use a little too! I'll send you my address off-line so that you can send me a monthly stipend too.

Yes, a free market is the holy grail, now that you mention it. It is an extension of personal freedom. You can't have a free market if individual freedom doesn't exist. No, we don't have either individual freedom or free markets now, and haven't for quite some time.

Don't you want and yearn for individual freedom? Remember, you can't be half-free. If freedom isn't 100% then you have some external force who will draw the line somewhere between freedom and slavery. The forces in charge will usually slide the line towards the slavery end of the spectrum given time. Sort of like the frog in the slowly boiling water. We're all in the pot right now.

I don't recall you saying it, but others in the Warmist movement have. I think that the California Air Resources Board also said it, if memory serves.

Exactly, this is the average cost across the state for all households. Yes, you'll pay more if you heat your swimming pool with electricity or have a large indoor pot farm.

I looked at PV about six months ago and it just didn't pencil out for me, and I live at 32-degrees north latitude.

But every time the word "dam" is mentioned in California it riles up all the leftist nut cases who activate their leftist judges and get the concept squashed before it's even started.

I'm of the opinion that the waste issue is a red herring. I've read of research using a different technology that will yield waste that isn't as dangerous or as plentiful. Why not take a look at that kind of thing?

Once again, I've seen nothing that indicates that the man-made global warming movement is not completely political in nature.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by icarus
I have never suggested that CO2 levels have to go back to ~1800 levels. The numbers that I hear are a net reduction of ~20-40% would be enough to keep the climate in stasis.

"I don't recall you saying it, but others in the Warmist movement have. I think that the California Air Resources Board also said it, if memory serves."


Citation please?

"Exactly, this is the average cost across the state for all households. Yes, you'll pay more if you heat your swimming pool with electricity or have a large indoor pot farm."

Weren't you suggesting( In the previous post) that $.15 kwh wind power (from Denmark) is not viable? How can it not be viable in Denmark at $.15 but not California for the same $.15? Not to mention that peak power rates are as much as double that $.15. Please explain your thought process on this one.

"I'm of the opinion that the waste issue is a red herring. I've read of research using a different technology that will yield waste that isn't as dangerous or as plentiful. Why not take a look at that kind of thing?"

You may be of that opinion, but that by itself doesn't make it so! Please provide some citation for this,,, if you can! I have never heard of any technology that will yield waste that is not dangerous for a long, long (read hundreds if not thousands of years!) There is vitrification technology that makes waste safer but it still requires long term secure storage. It is this storage that is my real concern. There are reprocessing technologies that also reduce the amount of waste, but the reality is, in my opinion the security issue is the biggest issue. So to suggest that I am not "taking a look at that kind of thing" is ignorant.


"Once again, I've seen nothing that indicates that the man-made global warming movement is not completely political in nature."

I suggest you do some reading outside your normal sphere, both political, as well as social and technological. As a helpful suggestion, you might consider that people have more depth than your perceived box to which you assign them. For you to call me a socialist (or warmist or any other "ist") belies you own ignorance, both of me and of the issues. I know that many folks would like to put all the issues into clean little boxes such that if I believe A then ergo I should believe B. People and life is much more complicated than that. Intelligent people, people who think, understand that the world is full of nuance, depth and complexity.

 

Worse now, and likely to get a lot worse?

Well, yaaaaahh . . . the universe is breaking down, and everything it it. Look at my desk. Look at my car ... my house ... may back yard. Look in the mirror! Even with constant upkeep, everything eventually is going away. Or am I missing something.

.

 

I've lived on the east coast of Florida, 150 feet from the ocean, 13 feet above sea level for the past 4 years. So far I haven't noticed any rise in the ocean level. But I certainly don't want Florida to slip under the waves. Whatever would happen to my property value?? :fish2:

As far as the guillotine goes, that might not be so bad, as long I get to decide who gets the cut.

 

i'm in florida now! hope i make it home before the flood. unfortunately, going to be burning some serious fossil fuel to get home. hope there is a better way coming! on the good side, i turned everything off in my house at home. carbon trade off?

 

To Lewie and others,,

I suggested you read some things outside your normal sphere. I suggest the following article from Saturday Feb. 10 2010 Toronto Globe and Mails columnist Jeet Heer. The title is "Climategate's guerrilla warriors" "Are they nitpickers or careful watchdogs?"


A fairly in depth piece on the subject.

Climategate's guerrilla warriors: pesky foes or careful watchdogs? by Jeet Heer, The Globe and Mail | Climate Realists

I await your response with anticipation.