I’ve no idea what you’re blathering about fred. As usual, you’re just trying to divert attention from your own ignorance with another layer of ignorance.
Are you serious? Really? Electricity is electricity. You can get it from an array of hamster-wheels or a vat of fermenting pig poo if you want to. I quoted the typical price of PV electricity for you, on the assumption that the power source was solar. Do you genuinely not even comprehend that bit?
Honestly, I can’t understand why you work yourself into such a lather about something you know so little about that even Physics 101 is way over your head. I do realise you’re only here for a slanging match, and that’s all fun, but can’t you at least try to get some facts into your witty ripostes?
There is one in which, in 50 years or so, climate change starts to become a pain in the ass.
Another scenario is that the rapidly expanding middle class in the BRICS countries, especially the C for China, start consuming energy to the point where fossil fuels really do become relatively scarcer.
Another scenario is that the Middle East becomes more difficult for the Western Powers to contol.
So, for all three scenarios, proactively developing options to the system as it now exists - that is, having a more local and renewable energy base - is a good idea.
Except when it isn’t … those costs are never or rarely ever tallied.
Corn-based ethanol? Any hands for who supports this?
Solera type government-subsidized projects? Anyone?
And, are we now all in agreement that we should support fracking? offshore drilling? Keystone? or does it have to be both local AND renewable?
Just want to clarify… otherwise, we fall into the trap of “if the world would only… we would all live happily ever after” esoteric, dreamy solutions that have no existence in reality. No?
I think this is going to put a massive brake on ‘development’ in those countries, as various projects become simply uneconomic; and that’s a really, really good thing.
Example: climate change is already altering weather patterns to the point where rains are less predictable. That’s a big problem in agriculture, where the probability of rain on any given day is a critical metric (it doesn’t matter if you get a lot of rain after a month-long drought, because your crops are already dead). India and China are attempting to deal with this by spending shitloads of money on vast irrigation and water-diversion projects. But there are better ways. Water conservation techniques and minimal irrigation systems (such as subsurface drip) can massively reduce the energy inputs required for farming, and at the same time improve the fertility of the soil because they (often) depend on mulch and cover crops, which in turn provide food for soil-building insects and animals.
As fuels start to become scarce, those who adopt more modern “sustainable” techniques will be the ones making profits. The ones who insist on outdated, bare-soil, chemical- and energy-dependent methods will simply go out of business, and their land will be bought by the successful farmers. Of course, governments will do their best to prevent that happening by pouring ever-growing subsidies into fossil fuels, but eventually they’ll run out of tax revenue, and the market will do its thing.
Except when it isn’t … those costs are never or rarely ever tallied.
Corn-based ethanol? Any hands for who supports this?
Solera type government-subsidized projects? Anyone?
And, are we now all in agreement that we should support fracking? offshore drilling? Keystone? or does it have to be both local AND renewable?
Just want to clarify… otherwise, we fall into the trap of “if the world would only… we would all live happily ever after” esoteric, dreamy solutions that have no existence in reality. No?[/quote]
No Fred. I am talking about economics, not unicorns. OK?
Exactly… What ARE those remedies? I have been asking here for years and I have gotten the same mishmash of half answers and deflected responses. Fracking? yes or no? Nuclear? Yes or no?
[quote]Here’s why: From the beginning 25 years ago the arguments over climate science have dominated the scene and distracted us away from the fundamental problem: the prescribed method for preventing climate change is essentially replacing nearly all hydrocarbon energy, in the space of less than two generations. Climate orthodoxy calls for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, worldwide, by the year 2050, which would take the United States back to a level of hydrocarbon energy use last seen more than 100 years ago. For the developing world, it means remaining poor for several more decades. There has been very little recognition and less candor about the sheer fantasy of the emissions target. Energy transitions, as the energy scholar Vaclav Smil has explained in great detail, are long-term affairs, even if a new superior technology exists to displace a current technology. But affordable large-scale, low- or non-carbon energy capable of replacing our current energy infrastructure simply doesn’t exist at present, and there isn’t much on the horizon. The developing world needs to triple its energy supply over the next generation if it is going to raise hundreds of millions out of abject poverty, and that means using abundant hydrocarbon energy, not expensive boutique energy popular with ever-preening rich Americans and Europeans. Just last week India’s new environmental minister, Prakash Javadekar, reiterated that India is not willing to discuss limitations on its rapidly growing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. “India’s first task is eradication of poverty,” Javadekar told the New York Times; “Twenty percent of our population doesn’t have access to electricity, and that’s our top priority. We will grow faster, and our emissions will rise.”
[/quote]
Sheer fantasy… yup… That’s a good way of describing it.
[quote]American and European climate change action advocates have ignored these realities, and have from the earliest engaged in relentless happy talk that a shift to renewable energy (chiefly solar, wind, and biofuels) would launch us down the golden road to a post-carbon energy future. The more economically illiterate among the climateers peddle the free-lunch argument that we’ll all get richer by mandating investment in more expensive, low-yield energy sources.
The relatively modest amounts of low-carbon energy developed over the last two decades have required enormous government subsidies and have delivered negligible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. (In some cases, like biofuels from palm oil and corn, the full environmental tradeoff is likely negative.) The bitter irony for the climateers is that the most significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions have been achieved by the production of newly abundant cheap natural gas through fracking, which has been displacing coal at a rapid rate.[/quote]
My points exactly. This paragraph is meant for you Finley. Fracking is what has delivered CO2 emissions reductions not the happy clappy investment in renewables… NOTE again the ENORMOUS government subsidies required and contrast this with the oil/gas sector which may receive subsidies but is NOT dependent on them.
[quote]The climate change community has reacted to this wreck of a policy not with second thoughts or openness to alternative frameworks, but with rage. The fact that global warming has slowed or stopped, and that
an increasing number of peer reviewed studies conclude that climate sensitivity is overestimated (meaning that the problem is either over-predicted or will be much slower in developing) is greeted with denunciations, and a shockingly shallow new refrain that “97 percent of scientists believe in climate change,” which is like saying that “100 percent of scientists believe in gravity” in response to any query about the mysteries of how gravity actually works. When you point out the unreality of green energy dreams, you are met with foam-flecked denunciations of the Koch brothers. In fact the opposition to the climateers is tiny by comparison to the resources deployed by the environmental establishment, not to mention the massive sympathy they receive from an uncritical media. From the way people like Al Gore complain you’d think the climateers were up against the teachers union.
[/quote]
Vay: The above is for you.
[quote]Which brings us back to last week’s crazy-quilt climate march in New York. The most conspicuous aspect of the march was its open expression of discontent not so much with climate change, but with our current civilization generally. It coincided with a new Naomi Klein book, This Changes Everything, that is getting a lot of buzz on the left (and even in Vogue magazine). In case you’ve forgotten your show notes, Klein is the author of The Shock Doctrine, a book ragingly popular with the far left that is so far gone into absurd conspiracizing and looney renderings of “neoliberalism” that it makes Lyndon LaRouche look positively staid by comparison.
What is the “this” that “changes everything” in Klein’s new title? Why climate change, of course. And what does it “change”? Why capitalism, naturally. The argument of the book in one sentence is that only overthrowing capitalism can we solve climate change. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s how the progressive lefty site CommonDreams described it: “Forget everything you think you know about global warming. The really inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon—it’s about capitalism.” This view was well represented in the banners and posters at the climate march last week. If climate change disappeared, one suspects the capitalism haters would still find a reason to march and rage against civilization. For this bit of candor, we owe Klein and the climate marchers a debt of thanks.
Even more revealing was the rage of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who told reporters during the march last week that climate skeptics should be jailed, and that the Koch brothers are “war criminals.” This is what passes for reasoning among environmental leaders? Quite obviously no one would pay attention to RFK Jr. if is last name was Jones instead of Kennedy; on the other hand, he received a standing ovation a few years ago from the Society of Environmental Journalists after another of his typically demagogic speeches, proving that most environmental journalists are just green activists with bylines. This is why you can expect that no environmental organization or prominent journalist will criticize Kennedy, Klein, or their extremist line of thinking.[/quote]
My point again is that the new Green is still very much Red.
A salutary reminder that it was precisely these types of activists who were marching in 1982 about the dangers of nuclear… and how the whole world KNEW that nuclear was wrong and dangerous and how it would end life as we know it. NOW, these same people are marching against “climate change” and we are to use nuclear to prevent the disaster that is going to occur if we don’t reduce carbon emissions. Seen this movie too many times and when it comes to nonsense on the left… we are now in the equivalent of the worst rechaufee sequels… What is this? Police Academy 15? :loco: :loco: :loco:
It suggests that we’re already locked into a 1.5°C rise, with a 2°C rise by mid-century and 4°C rise by late century if concerted efforts are not made to reduce GG emissions, as feedback loops speed warming up. Even with the best case scenario (the 1.5° rise), it’ll still bring about more drought, extreme heat waves becoming common, and massive agricultural damage and losses.
It’s a pity that those most affected will never get the opportunity to confront the politicians, denialist bloggers etc who have continuously blocked any hope of meaningful action.
Gosh, Fred, and in the latter half of the 20th century, in the face of overwhelming evidence we were told that smoking wasn’t dangerous. In an interesting twist of history many of the very same tobacco industry shills went on to shill for the fossil fuel industry as well e.g. Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz. It’s almost enough to make you not want to listen to guys named Fred!
You forgot about vaccination denial and 911 inside jobbers and something else that Vay always runs on about. YES! It is all a plot!!! and the rain this year will be different than last year and maybe different next!!!
Except yours would have been full of obscure references to Nietzsche, unicorns, and trousers. And :roflmao: :roflmao:
God help us all. Is he saying here that we should be paying more attention to MBA types like him to sort this out for us? He doesn’t even seem to realise that, in fact, economists and business experts ARE running the show. The greenies are expressing “rage” (the nerve of the nasty little scumbags!) because nobody is listening to them. They have absolutely zero influence on public policy. Why would they be getting irate about the adoption of their own proposals?
The ‘climate change initiatives’ that you do hear about - such as biofuels and PV panels in non-sunny climates - are driven by non-experts: that is, economists, who are fundamentally unable to calculate the cost-benefit of their schemes because they don’t understand the underlying science or the wider implications of their decisions, or by businessmen who know a deep barrel of pork when they see one.
I’m going to rip this guy to shreds because he has the nerve to publish such utter drivel as a piece of serious commentary. Thanks for the heads-up, fred, even though I fully expect you to read my response in a Charlie Brown “wahwahwah” voice.
Complete and utter bullshit: note that he doesn’t even attempt to offer the reasoning behind such a sweeping assertion … because there is none. I’ve given several examples how the ‘developing’ world can use modern technology to leapfrog inefficient fossil-fuelled methods of doing important tasks, as they did with communications. Unsurprisingly - since Howard has absolutely no practical experience of technology or science in his CV - he doesn’t know anything about that and therefore cannot consider the possibility.
Again, pure made-up wibble arising from an astounding level of ignorance on the part of the author. The technology he thinks doesn’t exist has been around for approximately 30 years, and is now so cheap that it’s only cultural and political inertia that prevents its wider deployment.
Why does it? Why would it? Why “triple”? Another sweeping assumption with neither proof nor logic behind it. Poverty is caused by many things, but lack of oil is not one of them. If we consider merely the provision of basic material needs, the key here is to use designs and methods that use considerably less energy. We know how to do this. It is not just possible, it is simple and inexpensive. Just because Prakash Javadekar does not know this (or, more likely, sees an unparalleled opportunity for graft and subsidy if he can hide what’s available) doesn’t make it any less true.
Then he’d better start rolling out some distributed PV, hadn’t he, unless he imagines that rolling out a 100-kilometer three-phase cable run to a village of 30 people in Bumfuck Pradesh is cheaper. Wanker. When it comes right down to it, people like Prakash Javadekar are the reason India is poor, and will get even poorer if they stake their future on declining oil supplies.
Most environmentalists are appalled by palm oil and corn ethanol (although AFAIK palm oil is only rarely used as fuel or as fuel feedstock). The only people who are not are the USDA, subsidised farmers, and the IRS.
Fracking (an expensive, difficult process) has become popular because other fossil fuel sources have become even more expensive; not because fuel companies have been gripped by a sudden desire to reduce coal use.
The difference between burning coal and natural gas is fairly modest in terms of CO2 output (960g/kWh and 560g/kWh, respectively). Other pollutants are significantly reduced, of course.
The true stupidity of this article is that it doesn’t actually offer any solutions to the (very real) problems of pollution and declining energy reserves - except for the implied one of ‘lets all just sit tight and hope for the best’. It’s just a protracted whine about people who studied practical subjects who are getting ideas above their station. And he expects people to listen to him?
I disagree. $0.072c/kWh is too low - it doesn’t take into account things like storage, connectivity, and maintenance. That’s the depreciation cost of panels only. However, there’s absolutely no doubt that PV, in relatively sunny locations, is less than (or comparable to) the unsubsidized cost of fossil fuels, which is ~$0.15 retail.
Look at you! Getting all funny and developing a sense of humor all of a sudden. What? Have you and Big John been taking lessons? Who would have thought that the two of you would start to become witty… maybe I will stick around this forum a while longer … hahahaah not what you were planning was it? hahahaahhahah
Unrelated to climate change, but one of the many ‘minor’ externalities caused by the continuing reliance on fossil fuels:
I’d never even heard of this. I doubt the average journalist hasn’t either. Presumably, a few billion here and there in cleanup costs are just pocket change to the oil companies.
I understand that several “environmental” processes like the new long-lasting light bulbs, various components in electric batteries and even solar panels are highly toxic… What are we to make of all of this, especially fracking and nuclear, which are to help us ween ourselves off of carbon and thus save the planet? I guess that it is just wind/solar then… and wind turbines kill BIRDS! I guess then it is just solar, but I have heard of lots of birds getting fried by these panels as well. I guess we should not use energy at all! NONE! WE DON’T NEED IT!!!
Telling from posts like this, you are an alarmist too, just the other way.
Instead of taking extreme positions, why not try to find common ground and make the best decisions based on the research results of the most trustworthy experts?
He doesn’t even seem to realise that, in fact, economists and business experts ARE running the show. The greenies are expressing “rage” (the nerve of the nasty little scumbags!) because 