No Carbon Economy By 2100

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Lol and yuck at the same time. However you arrived at it the point is pretty solid. That being said we may not have had the perfect answers in the past and that would require an adjustment every now and then rather than the current version of doing things today is based on it being a long held tradition rather than it being moral or lawful or both.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Gotta love that 'free' market.

Fossil Fuels Get A Whopping $5.3 Trillion In Government Subsidies Globally
m.fastcompany.com

The world's governments may profess to want to halt climate change, but, in their spending to make fossil fuels as cheap as possible, you might say they continue to exacerbate the problem.

Governments reduce the cost of oil, gas, and coal in various ways, including tax exemptions and R&D help, and we've seen before various estimates for the total amount of subsidies on offer. In 2013, the Overseas Development Institute, a London think tank, put the level of subsidies at $523 billion. Now comes a far larger estimate from the International Monetary Fund, which says public support for fossil fuels amounted to an eye-popping $4.9 trillion in 2013 (and will rise to $5.3 trillion this year).


How come the IMF's estimate is so much larger? The reason is because it includes not only direct support, but also for the way of fossil fuel producers and consumers fail to pay the full cost of pollution—that is, things like the damage to people's health from poor air, and the impact of climate change (the fund calls these "post-tax subsidies").


"Global post-tax energy subsidies—after incorporating the most recent estimates of the environmental damage from energy consumption—are substantially higher than previously estimated," the report says.

China accounts for the largest share of subsidies, at $2.3 trillion, followed by the U.S., at $700 billion and Russia, at $335 billion. Petrol products get the most pre-tax subsidies (i.e. traditionally-defined support) while coal gets the most unconventional help. In fact, the IMF says coal's subsidies are worth about 4% of global domestic product.


Some commentators have argued that the analysis is a bit of a stretch. For one, it includes the cost of road accidents, even though these aren't really attributable to fossil fuels directly. For another, you might say that pollution is a side-effect of fossil fuels, not something actually caused by government subsidies.

Then again, the main point stands: fossil fuel pollution isn't adequately priced in the economy given all its ill-effects. And until governments recognize this, we won't see less use of fossil fuels—we'll see just as much.

The good news is that countries could see a total of $2.9 trillion of social benefits if governments did away with subsidies altogether, the report says (presumably people would use less fuel if it was more expensive). Also, now is a particularly good time for ratcheting down that support. With oil prices at a historic low, it's easier for governments to reduce subsidies without causing undue pain to consumers.

Fossil Fuels Get A Whopping $5.3 Trillion In Government Subsidies Globally
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
If this economy will protect us from having to deal with this again, that sounds like good news


On Nov. 24, 1966, a killer smog blanketed New York City, spurring emergency anti-pollution measures into action.

Read more: Manhattan Smog Photos 1966 - Business Insider


For five days in December 1952, London gasped for air. A toxic fog smothered the British capital, paralyzing the city and blackening out the sun. Sixty years after the Great Smog, which is estimated to have killed at least 4,000 Londoners, take a look back at the worst air pollution disaster in British history.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,415
14,308
113
Low Earth Orbit
If this economhttp://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=45dbacf9-7290-435e-b44b-0d526de3e5d1&l=Englishy will protect us from having to deal with this again, that sounds like good news


On Nov. 24, 1966, a killer smog blanketed New York City, spurring emergency anti-pollution measures into action.

Read more: Manhattan Smog Photos 1966 - Business Insider


For five days in December 1952, London gasped for air. A toxic fog smothered the British capital, paralyzing the city and blackening out the sun. Sixty years after the Great Smog, which is estimated to have killed at least 4,000 Londoners, take a look back at the worst air pollution disaster in British history.

Good thing they switched to gas from coal and have catalytic converters on cars some 63 years later.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
If oil and possibly coal is to become worthless in 50 years it is only prudent to ship all we can now while it still has some value.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,415
14,308
113
Low Earth Orbit
Will we be living on the moon and using nothing but nuclear energy by then? I've been waiting 20 years extra from when that was supposed to be a sure thing.

Ship it to where? Everybody has their tanks full already.

Who is everybody?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Those subsidies won't keep coming for long.

If you are an investor, you best be selling soon.


G7's promised 'decarbonization' is a long way off — but it's not just symbolic

Summits can be dull, dull, dull.

Summit communiqués, in fact, are actually designed to be dull. Even those of us paid to read the endless paragraphs of bureaucratic gobbledegook tend to nod off somewhere between sections one and two. That way, we can't see how little they actually say.

But how's this for something to snap the most jet-lagged cynic awake: Stephen Harper has agreed to a statement that oil and gas really have no long-term future because they threaten the health of the planet.

OK, take a deep breath. It's not like he had some blinding epiphany, like St. Paul on the road to Damascus. Rather, Harper made a political calculation that the other side had made a massive compromise — and it was time to seize upon it.

Germany has a deal for you

Here's the deal: the most powerful woman in Europe had agreed to water down her cherished ambition to have the world's most powerful democracies agree that fossil fuels must be phased out by 2050.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper agreed to a G7 communique Monday that admits fossil fuels are to harming the planet and promises to seek global 'decarbonization' by the end of this century. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Sounds like a long way off? Well, it wasn't nearly far enough for Merkel's most reluctant partners in this grand design: Canada and Japan. After a political career spent promoting the extraction and sale of oil and gas, Harper was not going to sign their death warrant.

And, by the way, a whole lot of Germans were nervous about it, too. Along with‎ plenty of Americans. And do the French and the British not like driving gasoline-powered cars?

Merkel, typically, had been thinking ahead. As the summit drew near, she made it clear the funeral for oil and gas didn't have to be in the year 2050. How about be the end of the century?

Think about it. To be applauded as a climate hero? For a promise you won't live long enough to regret?

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/g...-way-off-but-it-s-not-just-symbolic-1.3105066